FARMING! The most corrupt system in the USA!

[AaronP]

I read an article in the Pioneer Press yesterday about how government subsidies to private farmers have to now be made public. Here's the deal, in many many cases. See if you can follow this logic.

The cost of a crop (I'll say corn from now on) is really low because its overproduced

Because the cost is so low, farmers can't make a profit and are bleeding money (they lose as much as 50 cents a bushel) so the government subsidises em

The size of the government subsidies are based on how much the farmer grows. Since they want large subsidies (usually around 30k to 50k a year for the average farmers) they grow more, thus keeping the cost down.

The huge agro businesses like Archer Daniels Midland come in and buy the corn for mega cheep then resell it in either different places or different forms (corn flakes) and make a killing.
----

basically the huge corporations are benefiting the most by farm subsidies because if there were no subsidies, the farmers would grow less and the prices would go up. And don't blame the farmers, even with these subsidies they are lucky to break even. Being in Wisconsin and around farming my whole life, I can tell you that crop and dairy prices are really crooked right now, and the farmers are getting screwed by the corporations. And don't go blaming Bush either, this has been going on for a long time, and Clinton didn't do nothin about it.

 

[Ornery]

A friend of mine from Russia, who is also a member here, mentioned that he has stood in line for hours to get bread there in the past. He's a US citizen now and I'm pretty sure he's happy with the status quo. Staple food is not something you want to leave to the free market. At least I don't think it would be in our best interest. The only alternative would be to let the government grow it. How slick would that be? :Q

 

[Kenazo]

in canada we have a quota system instead of subsidies. this way we produce less and the value goes up, thus allowing farmers to produce less, and still make a profit. It keeps family farms from turning into megafarms.

 

[rahvin]

<< because if there were no subsidies, the farmers would grow less and the prices would go up. And don't blame the farmers, even with these subsidies they are lucky to break even.>>

If subsidies were removed american food production would plumet as foriegn sellers undercut our market with cheaper labor, equipment and enviro rules. This would more than likely result in the complete loss of key staple crops to other world suppliers. This is strategicly unwise, it makes us depenent on other countries for our food. It is in our national interest (defensively) to have strong domestic food production.

 

[Dually]

Farming shoudl be more regulated and subsidised. Food is 100% necessary in a nation, anyone that dsiagrees is a nut.

 

[Ornery]

Doh! I didn't know anything about this:

The driving force behind U.S. farm policy is the 1996 seven-year farm program titled the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act

• The effects of Freedom to Farm have been immediate and devastating. Proponents touted the program as a way to increase exports and the price of crops. But "Freedom to Farm" has failed miserably on both accounts. Exports of corn, wheat, soybeans and sorghum have dropped by nearly 10 percent since enactment of Freedom to Farm. More importantly, prices have collapsed, with corn going from $3.24 a bushel in 1995-1996 to $1.90 in 1999-2000, wheat dropping from $4.55 to $2.50, soybeans declining from $6.72 to $4.70 and sorghum plummeting from $3.19 to $1.60.
  
  The policies of Freedom to Farm have been such an unmitigated failure that Congress has had to appropriate massive bailouts in each of the last three years to keep farmers on the land. In 1998, "emergency aid" to farmers totaled $15 billion. In 1999, it grew to $23 billion. Another $15 billion will be spent this year.
  
  Putting these numbers into perspective, John Hansen, president of the Nebraska Farmers Union, says that the total cost of farm programs in 1996 was $4.6 billion.

I wouldn't be opposed to putting things back the way they were before 1996.

 

[Tominator]

<< Farming shoudl be more regulated and subsidised. Food is 100% necessary in a nation, anyone that dsiagrees is a nut. >>



I guess I'm a nut....

There are many farms that make it without subsidies of any kind. The ADMs make all the profit and barely let Farmers survive. That CANNOT be contested.

However, the subsidies and taxes have become as much a part of today's farm as the seeds they plant. This system of political payoffs and subsidies is so intertwined with our economy that it will never change.



<< I read an article in the Pioneer Press yesterday about how government subsidies to private farmers have to now be made public. >>



That information is twenty years old at least.

Even with it's faults the US has the most efficient food production system in the world and in fact US Farmers could feed the entire world population by themselves! Food is our 'oil!' If we were able to freely trade it throughout the world we would rule it!

 

[wnied]

Food is our oil!' If we were able to freely trade it throughout the world we would rule it!

Funny....I was under the impression we already did.

~wnied~

 

[Lalakai]

after working with farmers for nearly 15 years, there are trends that have grown in their impacts on what we have normally considered a farming family. In most communities, land is valued not on agricultural production but on it's worth for development, which usually forces farmers to pay higher taxes. We are seeing a vertical integration of the market, with corporations owning the land, producing/transporting/manufactoring/selling the product, while reaping tax breaks that the ordinary farmer cannot access. The middle man is the area of high profit, especially when combined with the fact that the middle man is non-american and therefore subject to different tax laws; these tax breaks normally extend for 5 years (as an incentive for foreign investors) but at the end of the 5 years, the company is transferred to another non-american corporation (another family member) and the tax break begins again. A friend who worked in the large elevators where farm products were stored, said it was common practice to "gig" a farmer for bringing in marginal products (high moisture corn, wheat with excessive weed seeds, poor soybeans, ect), this "poor" quality material would be blended with high quality material so that the entire shipment met the highest rating, giving the elevators top dollar, when they had already gouged the farmers.

as was posted earlier, one of the most important factors that americans hold very dearly, is the idea of cheap and plentiful food. The government knows this and does what it takes to make it happen. The Food Security Act of 1995 was supposed to be the last subsidy program of its kind, with a 7 year life span. Already they are developing a different program to be implimented in 2002. Toss in EPA and the Corp of Engineers, along with varied environmental groups all demanding differing levels of compliance, it gives most family farmers more then they can handle.

after living overseas for two years and seeing eggs cost $2/doz, a gal. of milk at $4+, and a pound of hamburger for $3 (1985 prices also), I value the competion that the family farmer forces the large corporations to abide by, resulting in plentiful and inexpensive food. Contrast this to peanut butter that is severaly regulated and prohibited to import, then ask where that money really goes. Not to the average family farmer.

 

[yellowvespa]

All I can say is that when I go to the supermarket they seem to have a nice varied supply at a fair price. Since I pay the taxes anyway and that figure isn't going down, I can't complain about a thing

EXCEPT >> those farmers on TV that race $200,000 tractors in those stupid tractor pull contests .. 4 1000HP engines in a tractor? Who paid for that and where did the money come from in the first place?

 

[JEDI]

tobacco is subsidized by the govt

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Most of you need a clue so try the USDA site to get a REAL idea about how much produce is produced in the US; outside of grain staples (plus corn) the majority of US produce is foreign b/c we require year-round supplies in a country with definitive seasonal growth limitations.

Subsidies make food cheaper at the grocery store (usually) but that just means we are hiding a portion of the cost of production. The subsidy came from taxes when you tally the sum cost of production it is much higher. Furthermore, we have jackass regional subsidies that require you to pay a certain price for milk (dairy) based on where you live.

ADM settled with the US government for several hundred million dollars for "fixing" prices. I appreciate the benefits of capitalism as much as the next Keynesian mogrel but US corporations are notorious for finding every conceivable angle to screw the pup. In the case of ADM, they produce but their practices effectively drive family farmers out of the market, they process serving as their own middleman (whoever talked about "foreign" boogey-men may be accurate in many industries but not produce/livestock), and they distribute. They cheat the American consumer and US gov at every opportunity.

 

[SuperTool]

Any taxpayer help to redneck farmers is wrong. Because these are the same hicks who then b!tch about taxes being too high.

 

[rahvin]

<<Ricardo's law of comparitive advantage is lost on you. Furthermore, do you really think that most of the other countries that produce food, who are our closest allies, are suddenly going to stop exporting to us and suddenly declare war?>>

Oh get real. What you fail to realize is that world politics can turn on a dime. Countries we consider our allies now could change overnight to enemies, it has happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future. Farming and the technology and knowhow to do it are esstential to our strategic stablitity. Currently the US is the world leader in both production per acre and quality of food produced. Without the subsidies the wheat industry in america would be wiped out overnight. Similar staple crops would suffer identical losses. In as short a timespan as 50 years of dependence on foriegn food production we could single handily wipe out all modern farming knowledge and experience in this country. A blockade of food imports would starve the US into submission.

We could survive without oil, but without a local farming industry our very survival would be in the hands of foreign nations, regardless of how close those allies currently are the impact to a denial of those imports to our survival would be immeasurably damaging. It's better to be safe than sorry...

 

[SuperTool]

Also, don't forget about another government farm subsidy. Ethanol requirement in big cities is designed to funnel our hard earned city-slicker money to rednecks in Idaho or some other state that noone ever goes to..

 

[Lucky]

Since they want large subsidies (usually around 30k to 50k a year for the average farmers) they grow more, thus keeping the cost down.




Thats news my family and their 44K acre farm.

 

[Hamburgerpimp]

Archer Daniels Midland is the AntiChrist.

 

[sten]

<< tobacco is subsidized by the govt >>



This is true, since under some cases if tobacco doesnt sell at the "support price", the government will buy it. In my memory ('bout 20 years) we had tobacco go to "the pool" 2 times. That was only part of our crop, not the whole crop. Many times the buyers do pick up the tobacco later in the year. There is a quota system, and if the quota has been calculated correctly, then no tobacco will be subsidized because the supply will equal the demand. The "pool" is there to correct for screwups in the quotas, and to compensate for the whims of the tobacco companies (for instance, if the crop looks funny because of weird weather and they don't want it). Also, the farmers pay about 8 or 10 cents per pound each year to pay for the government programs, although I am sure that other funds are used sometimes.

I should also note that because of the high taxes at the state and federal levels on tobacco products, the government makes more money off of a pound of tobacco than the farmer does.





<< Any taxpayer help to redneck farmers is wrong. Because these are the same hicks who then b!tch about taxes being too high. >>



I know you guys are probably kidding, but I don't like being stereotyped as a redneck and a hick. Also there are Native American, African American, Amish, and many other people that farm and ranch in this country!

 

[PsychoAndy]

Well, family owned farms are already going down the tubes. Now it's corporations doing the majority of the farming, not mom and pop on the ol piece o land. They just can't keep up...
At least this is what i read/hear. flame me if i'm wrong.