• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Half your raisins are belong to us

boomerang

boomerang

Lifer
So say the feds, at least if you're a 'handler' of raisins and not a 'producer' of raisins. Oh, and it's not half, it's 47% for those that like to argue what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

Anyway, it's an old law dating back to 1937 and it's being challenged before the SCOTUS. Kind of interesting to read the background as provided in the story. Sort of makes me wonder why the law even made sense back then. And it doesn't just apply to raisins.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...hallenging-usdas-700g-fine/?intcmp=latestnews
 
There is no way that the reduction of product will raise the price levels the same amount as if the product was sold.

If the government wants to regulate the commercial sale/supply; then purchase the crop and store it for resale/distribution.

Or do like other crops are done, encourage the growers to not grow so much as to reduce the supply and increase the value; of what is grown.

Unjust taking of property will not increase the value of the leftover property by the same amount; therefore it becomes taking without compensation.
 
Atreus21 said:
New Deal era laws strike again.
Click to expand...
Yet the vast majority of raisin growers support it:
More than 1,600 raisin growers from California have joined the USDA in its defense of the program, and say the Hornes are "free riders" who evaded the marketing orders, yet benefited from the higher prices.

"Having been caught free-riding at the expense of their competitors, [the Hornes] now seek refuge in high constitutional principle," the Sun-Maid Growers of California told the Supreme Court when it first heard Horne's newly-crafted Constitutional argument in 2013
Click to expand...
I agree it sounds like a strange law that should probably be reviewed by Congress. It also sounds like Horne is a bullheaded ass who doesn't play well with others, and is perhaps greedy in seeking special treatment at the expense of others in his industry. I'd be curious to hear his feelings about activist judges legislating from the bench ... when it doesn't benefit him.
 
Bowfinger said:
Yet the vast majority of raisin growers support it:

I agree it sounds like a strange law that should probably be reviewed by Congress. It also sounds like Horne is a bullheaded ass who doesn't play well with others, and is perhaps greedy in seeking special treatment at the expense of others in his industry. I'd be curious to hear his feelings about activist judges legislating from the bench ... when it doesn't benefit him.
Click to expand...

Shades of Cliven Bundy right there, haha.
 
cabri said:
There is no way that the reduction of product will raise the price levels the same amount as if the product was sold.

If the government wants to regulate the commercial sale/supply; then purchase the crop and store it for resale/distribution.

Or do like other crops are done, encourage the growers to not grow so much as to reduce the supply and increase the value; of what is grown.

Unjust taking of property will not increase the value of the leftover property by the same amount; therefore it becomes taking without compensation.
Click to expand...

The relationship between supply and prices is often not linear.
 
Bowfinger said:
Yet the vast majority of raisin growers support it:

I agree it sounds like a strange law that should probably be reviewed by Congress. It also sounds like Horne is a bullheaded ass who doesn't play well with others, and is perhaps greedy in seeking special treatment at the expense of others in his industry. I'd be curious to hear his feelings about activist judges legislating from the bench ... when it doesn't benefit him.
Click to expand...

There is no good case for the government to be expropriating raisin crops.
 
Atreus21 said:
There is no good case for the government to be expropriating raisin crops.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, yet the vast majority of the people in that industry -- people who presumably know far more about it than either or us -- support it. As I said, it seems strange to me, and I'm all for reviewing it, but I won't jump to conclusions based on the self-serving whining of one hothead.
 
One of the issues (from the article) seems to be that he is wearing dual hats.
By having both on; it has a much greater impact than just the producers.
 
High court rules

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a 66-year-old program that lets the government take raisins away from farmers to help reduce supply and boost market prices is unconstitutional.

In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said forcing raisin growers to give up part of their annual crop without full payment is an illegal confiscation of private property.
...
Click to expand...
 
Bowfinger said:
Yet the vast majority of raisin growers support it:

I agree it sounds like a strange law that should probably be reviewed by Congress. It also sounds like Horne is a bullheaded ass who doesn't play well with others, and is perhaps greedy in seeking special treatment at the expense of others in his industry. I'd be curious to hear his feelings about activist judges legislating from the bench ... when it doesn't benefit him.
Click to expand...

I imagine that they support it because it keeps their crop prices artificially high.
 
Court got it absolutely right (for once), these kinds of laws should never have been allowed to exist at all. Simply taking legal property that belongs to someone without compensation and saying "trust me, it's for your own good" is BS. Doesn't matter if some (or even most) of the producers supported it, nor does it matter if it was a net overall benefit to someone or not. It should have been tossed right off the bat because it amounts to government confiscating private property without compensation. Took far too long, but at least now we got to the right conclusion.
 
They better be doing something with those raisins. Otherwise that is an awfully lot of water being wasted. Of course with the government basically being a eugenics cult, it would not surprise me if they enacted laws that resulted in a doubling of water usage. The more water wasted, the merrier.
 
cabri said:
There is no way that the reduction of product will raise the price levels the same amount as if the product was sold.

If the government wants to regulate the commercial sale/supply; then purchase the crop and store it for resale/distribution.

Or do like other crops are done, encourage the growers to not grow so much as to reduce the supply and increase the value; of what is grown.

Unjust taking of property will not increase the value of the leftover property by the same amount; therefore it becomes taking without compensation.
Click to expand...
I would agree except for two things. First, a lot of produce is grown on marginal land, causing a LOT of stress on already stressed environments. (e.g. Irrigation taking too much water, pesticides and herbicides and fertilizers far in excess of what the local ecosystem can break down.) I don't like things that encourage that. And second, government purchasing excess produce to keep prices from collapsing rapidly becomes government paying what the lobbyists can justify. But either way, SCOTUS got it right - government should not be seizing property without compensation, and that law needs to be stricken.

+1 for awesome thread title.
 
sm625 said:
They better be doing something with those raisins. Otherwise that is an awfully lot of water being wasted. Of course with the government basically being a eugenics cult, it would not surprise me if they enacted laws that resulted in a doubling of water usage. The more water wasted, the merrier.
Click to expand...

I guess reading is hard. From the article detailing the decision:

"These raisins would be placed into a reserve pool to be sold outside the open market, used for the school lunch program or given away to charities and foreign governments. Any profits from these reserve sales would go toward funding the committee and anything left over went back to the farmers."

Also would you care to elaborate on how the government is a "eugenics cult"?
 
I can see why these laws exist. So that the industry doesn't fail in cycles as the crop yields change from year to year. It create stability in the system. As others have mentioned, I think there are better ways of going about it than seizing property.

From a pulled back perspective, its funny to see such blatant collusion and price gouging not only approved by the government, but mandated. 🙂
 
Subyman said:
And that is the ridiculous part. All profits should go back to the farmers.
Click to expand...

My impression is that was done to make the effort "self funding". I don't disagree with the court ruling and it will be interesting to see how this affects similar market making/pricing support programs in other agricultural sectors.
 
Subyman said:
I can see why these laws exist. So that the industry doesn't fail in cycles as the crop yields change from year to year. It create stability in the system. As others have mentioned, I think there are better ways of going about it than seizing property.

From a pulled back perspective, its funny to see such blatant collusion and price gouging not only approved by the government, but mandated. 🙂
Click to expand...

Government is like beer. Just not as tasty.

beer-is-the-cause-and-solution-to-all-of-lifes-problems-quote-1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top