From a Historical Perspective, why are

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think it boils down to the urban v rural divide.

This. Definitely this.

Rural folks also view Government as "big city slickers" (read: different than what they're used to), and therefore are naturally distrustful of it.

I was just talking to my grandparents (90+ years old, live in farm country but are not farmers), and they related to me how many of their friends who WERE farmers, were always EXTREMELY angry with and distrustful of commodities markets. Illustrative quote: "I grew this corn, why should I let some city slicker in Chicago tell me how much it's worth?"

All this while blissfully ignoring the fact that, assuming a correctly functioning market, they were getting THE BEST price possible for their corn. Not to mention the fact that: they now no longer have to find actual buyers for their grain, nor do they have to deliver it all over the map, nor do they have to do any bargaining/haggling for price, etc., leaving them more time to do ... get this ... ACTUAL FARMING.

Also, I think education (or lack and/or distrust thereof), plays in to this as well.

Spot on! :thumbsup:

I'd like to mention those same farmers are getting gov't subsidies for growing that corn too! GD welfare for farmers is what it is.

I can't beleive the depth of some people's ignorance. If the people growing YOUR food go broke and can't plant their crops then guess who's going to starve?

Hint: It won't be the land owners.

The ignorance is yours. We are at the other end of that spectrum right now and there is glut of corn rotting in silos that farmers aren't allowed to sell, while getting subsidies from the govt to let it rot. Thats the fixed economics of it. Thats the wonderful agricultural lobbies working for you, pushing stupid stuff like biodeisel and high fructose corn syrup - neither of which make sense if you're not a farmer.


If there is too much corn, we need to let free market take over and let some of that farmland do something else other than soy and corn.

Talk about ignorance, you seem to have a corner on the market!!!

Please oh please explain to me how the farmers aren't allowed to sell all thois corn that is "rotting in the silos"?? Please enlighten me.

You must mean I seem to have cornered the market....

Okay... Stop me where you disagree.

American farmers produce way more corn then we can consume either by eating, feeding livestock, turning into ethanol, or selling to the govt for foreign food aid.


This is my understanding of the issue, and if someone wants to correct me with facts, I defer to that - my recollection might be a little outdated.
If I go to the grocery store, I can buy four ears for a dollar. Does this price reflect the free market price of corn dictated by supply and demand of corn on the market? Not by a long shot. Does this price reflect the cost and fair profit the farmer ought to get for this corn? No. If it was either, it would not be worth pennies. Where does this price come from? It is based on a federally set price for commodities that's significantly higher and farmers cannot sell for lower than this price and they can only sell a certain amount. The feds get another chunk of the crop at a reduced price, perhaps for selling overseas, etc - crop that farmers would otherwise not be able to sell. Farmers know ahead of time how much they can sell and are not allowed to grow corn in excess. IF they do, they cannot sell it and must let it rot, otherwise it will disturb this artificial balance and flood the market with cheap corn. This fact might be a few years old since rotting corn now slips perfectly into the recent ethanol trend.

Farmers love this system and pay lobbies good money to keep the racket going in Washington. They know that they would otherwise not be able to sell the vast majority of their product. This is a perfect example of where agricultural engineering (optimization of the corn seed for maximum growth and speed of growth and hardiness, etc) has well exceeded the need.

To me, this is welfare, pure and simple.

Here is a good article that explains where we're at now.

http://findarticles.com/p/arti...8114/?tag=content;col1

In any case, my point is that your musing of farmers being "broke and unable to grow corn" is incredibly silly.

LOL, that was funny as hell. People like you don't even have a clue, you just hear what you want and then repeat it as if it was fact.

Now, I don't want to waste my time educating you so just show me where all this rotten grain is that the government won't allow farmers to sell or just admit you don't know shit about it.

Though you have offered no facts of your own, your arrogance and use of language really speaks of your heritage and where you come from. Either that or your age. Its people like you that remind me why I've been absent from this board for years.

The first page of the linky you're conveniently ignoring explains why the govt holds tight control over the commodity market and prevents farmers from selling as much corn as they want - which in turn explains (or did, at one point in the very recent past) why there is a surplus.

OMG, you're an arrogant ignoramus and you have the GALL to attack someone else's heritage?? My guess is the reason you've "been absent from this board for years" is because you got tired of eating your own shit.

Fact: You can sell corn in this country even if you don't have any actual corn in your possesion, DUHHHHHH. End of argument.

Of course you would guess that about me. You seem like someone always very successful in masking ignorance with aggression and arrogance.

I've stated clearly why I made the comment I did about you - profanity only speaks of one's limited vocabulary or knowledge.

If you want to call me arrogant, it was only in defense of another whom you rudely called ignorant, while in the same sentence openly worried about farmers running out of corn. But of course you conveniently forget that part too eh?

Selling corn on the commodities market is not what we're talking about because it does not change the total amount of corn legally inserted into the market nor does it imply "dumping" corn at a lower than fixed price. I may not have *all* my facts straight but I have readily admitted that, and it does not change the original point you made which I was refuting.

Come back when you learn to post facts and read links...

Apologies to the OP for hijacking his thread. Won't do it anymore.

 

[nobodyknows]

Face it, you have yet to show how the government is supposedly keeping farmers from selling there corn. That is nothing but a bold faced lie and you Mr. busmaster11 are either a liar or an imbecile.

Anybody can sell or buy corn in this country, you don't even have to be from this country to do it. How you can be so IGNORANT as to not understand something so BASIC is beyond me, suffice to say that you shouldn't present yourself as being knowledgable in something you clearly know NOTHING ABOUT.

The cash market is based on the commodities market. When a farmer prices their commodity at a local elevator, grain terminal it is based on the value of the corresponding commodites options market at the time, minus the basis (basis = the cost to transport the grain to that terminal) and you are legally bound by contract to deliver the commodity or you can sell your contract again before the delivery deadline. Anybody can do it, yourself or any fartmer sp clearly the government CANNOT prevent a framer from selling anymore then they can prevent you from playing the commodities market. DUHHHHHH!!!!

Now my statement about farmer going broke is true. We have a cheap food policy in this country and they always make sure there is enough money for the farmer to plant his crops. If they didn't people like you would likely starve.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Craig234

What do you think of the idea of having different laws for the urban liberals and for the rural gun supporters, since their politics and situations are not the same?

I'm not opposed to it, althought I think there would have to be compromises made on both sides. For example maybe, ban handguns, but allow open-carry of rifles.

Well, I'm not sure about the compromises, because the point is different rules in different place, so the cities might ban handguns, while the rural areas have broad rights.

That's a bad idea. It's almost as if we'd let urban areas form city-states and decide their own rules separate from the constitution. There must be compromise.

That's not correct at all. There is no constitutional provision protecting handgus - a weapon uniquely suited to criminal use - while long guns are protected.

'City-states' is just hyperbole on your part.

We're not talking about their establishing state religions and their own nuclear arsenals. You seem to be responding knee-jerk rather than with any rational comment.

Had you taken ten seconds to quit being a contrarian and think about what I had typed, you'd have noticed quite quickly that my example explicitly offered the restriction of handguns in urban areas, which you decided to fire back at me with.

City-states is not hyperbole at all. Many municipalities have enacted gun-control laws that go beyond state and federal laws. They have assumed a legislative power that is at the same level as the state.

I suppose I understand your question a bit better now, though - you mean to ask what I would think of living and letting live - of partitioning rights according to location and demographic in order that everybody can be happy.

We are one nation, united. To maintain that unity, and build a stronger nation, we have enacted laws that break down the barriers that divide us. In doing so, we have overcome insurmountable obstacles. We're not talking about gerrymandering school districts - we're talking about issues that directly relate to rights gauranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of this country. Personally, I feel that if you want to let urban and rural areas make their own laws (to a greater extent than they already do), that you should first repeal the Second Amendment by way of another Amendment to the Constitution.

If you propose to so blatantly eschew the Constitution and federal supremacy, at least go about it in the right fashion.