• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Farm Subsidies & Pork

Katana

Illuminator
K
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
4,812
So the government has attached to the new Iraq spending bill millions in subsidies for peanut farmers to help them store huge amounts of peanuts in warehouses. Evidently, they need the "relief" while they negotiate the best price with companies such as Peter Pan.

The farmers interviewed on the story for CNN threaten that, if they don't get this money, they will stop growing peanuts or switch to another crop.

I just don't get it. Why is it the taxpayers' responsibility to buy them time to get the best price?

In fact, farm subsidies in general puzzle me. Researching the topic only revealed what appeared to be heavily-biased websites and unrevealing articles. So any insight that can be offered would be welcome.

I also find this practice of attaching completely unrelated and often outrageous junk to bills so irritating (I know, join the club).

Examples of a few of the "extras" included in the Iraq funding bill:

  • $20 MILLION for the cleanup and restoration of farmland that has been damaged by freezing temperatures since January
  • $25 MILLION for spinach growers and handlers to help them bounce back from the E. coli scare that began last September
  • $74 MILLION to pay for the storage, handling and other unspecified costs of the 2007 peanut crop
  • $100 MILLION to compensate citrus producers whose crops were destroyed and endangered by hurricanes Katrina and Rita
  • $120 MILLION to the shrimp and menhaden fishing industries that were damaged by Katrina
  • $500 MILLION for quick suppression of wildfires, which have recently plagued drought-stricken Western states
Source
 
The farmers interviewed on the story for CNN threaten that, if they don't get this money, they will stop growing peanuts or switch to another crop.
Click to expand...

That's what they're supposed to do!

This sentence is what's wrong with socialism in a nutshell. This isn't helping out in a desperate situation -- it's trying to save chronic behavior from itself.

A hundred and fifty years ago, almost all the population worked on farms. Now it's less than 2% and continues to drop. It's just we now have the technology to mass-distribute sob stories combined with politicians riding to power on people's heartstrings (and the economy to partially support the nonsense, the third required leg of this triumvirate of pointlessness.)
 
Beerina said:
That's what they're supposed to do!

This sentence is what's wrong with socialism in a nutshell. This isn't helping out in a desperate situation -- it's trying to save chronic behavior from itself.
Click to expand...

That's how it seems to me, too.
 
In theory, at least when this was covered in the few economics courses I took, farm subsidies keep prices stable so that food prices don't fluctuate too wildly, which puts the food supply at risk.

Peanut, however, aren't a staple. So it's not as if there'd be massive hunger problems if the price of peanuts rose or fell.

ETA: I make no apologies for attaching farm subsidies to a war spending bill.
 
Farming is profitable, but Land is even more valueable. If Farmers don't have these 'incentives' to keep farming, they can just sell to any delevoper, get X mil, and spend the rest of the days in the bahamas, retired and happy.

However, if this happens, we get X acers of quailty food - 1, so it is generally good to help the farmers along.
 
Scanerio: Corn farmers faced falling corn prices, and have to switch to selling a variety of corn fit for consumption to a variety of corn fit for making biodisel, a scenario that is actually playing out in regions in the American heartland. Unless we subsidized the corn farmers to keep producing corn for consumption the supply of corn would drop dramatically.

I really like the idea of using government assistance to raise low prices for staple foods. The Department of Defense buys up a lot of milk, eggs, and other foods and often that food is given to school districts, prisons, and the military. Our local school district gets millions of dollars worth of food from the DoD, which helps to support our "free and reduced lunch program," which provides free or low cost meals to children who otherwise could not afford to eat well. It also helps keep the cost of our district's meals at $1.25. Just try to buy a lunch or breakfast for $1.25 anywhere else.

It creates a complicated net of social services, supporting unprofitable crops, feeding hungry children, prisoners and military personnel, but when it's working it helps a lot of people. It also helps the consumer by maintaining a stable supply of eggs, milk, grain, rice, meat and other staple commodities. It helps businesses that process food by making sure the price of those foods remains stable, which prevents Tombstone Pizza prices from rising or falling dramatically whenever the price of tomatoes, cheese, or other ingredients changes.

Again, the whole practice of slapping subsidies onto other bills is just crazy, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Overman said:
Farming is profitable, but Land is even more valueable. If Farmers don't have these 'incentives' to keep farming, they can just sell to any delevoper, get X mil, and spend the rest of the days in the bahamas, retired and happy.

However, if this happens, we get X acers of quailty food - 1, so it is generally good to help the farmers along.
Click to expand...

I wasn't sure whether this was meant to be sarcastic or not.

But in the off chance that you meant it seriously, do I understand your idea? You believe that if the government didn't subsidize farmers that farmers would quit growing food and just sell their land to developers and we would all starve?
 
Beerina said:
This sentence is what's wrong with socialism in a nutshell.
Click to expand...
I guess that's why the Republicans abolished farm subsidies. 'Cos they're not socialists, are they.

... are they?

Well then, why did they increase farm subsidies? Here's a report from 2002 which may give us a clue:

"Members of Congress who are poised to spend at least $171 billion on direct farm subsidies over the next decade would be wise to examine newly released statistics detailing who actually receives these subsidies. In 2001, Fortune 500 companies and large agribusinesses shattered previous farm subsidy records, while small family farmers saw their share of the subsidy pie shrink.

These subsidy programs tax working Americans to award millions to millionaires and provide profitable corporate farms with money that has been used to buy out family farms. The current farm bills would provide even greater subsidies for large farmers, costing the average household $4,400 over the next 10 years, while facilitating increased consolidation and buyouts in the agricultural industry."

Ah, good ol' corporate welfare.

---

BTW, are there any subsidies for pig farmers, or would the irony be too great?
 
davefoc said:
I wasn't sure whether this was meant to be sarcastic or not.

But in the off chance that you meant it seriously, do I understand your idea? You believe that if the government didn't subsidize farmers that farmers would quit growing food and just sell their land to developers and we would all starve?
Click to expand...


Not Sarcastic, but my arguement was not built around starvation.

In my area of IL we see this all the time. Farmers retire and sell their land to developers. What used to be nothing but corn and bean fields as far as the eye can see are now subdivisions and Mejer's, Jewels, Walmarts, and stipmalls. None of that land will ever be farmed again, and therefore there is less production. Prices rise, and quantity becomes more scarce with each one. There is only a certian amount of farmable land for such products, and that land is being used less and less for those ventures!
 
Overman said:
Not Sarcastic, but my arguement was not built around starvation.

In my area of IL we see this all the time. Farmers retire and sell their land to developers. What used to be nothing but corn and bean fields as far as the eye can see are now subdivisions and Mejer's, Jewels, Walmarts, and stipmalls. None of that land will ever be farmed again, and therefore there is less production. Prices rise, and quantity becomes more scarce with each one. There is only a certian amount of farmable land for such products, and that land is being used less and less for those ventures!
Click to expand...

Do you not see how falling food supplies in conjunction with an increase in urban population could be construed as a bad thing?
 
Overman said:
^I presume this question is to davefoc?
Click to expand...

No, it's to you. You appeared to be arguing for laize-faire market forces in this post:

Farming is profitable, but Land is even more valueable. If Farmers don't have these 'incentives' to keep farming, they can just sell to any delevoper, get X mil, and spend the rest of the days in the bahamas, retired and happy.

However, if this happens, we get X acers of quailty food - 1, so it is generally good to help the farmers along.
Click to expand...

And you seem to be ignoring that such a policy leads to small supplies of food and large urban populations.
 
You misunderstand me...I am saying it is good to give farmers incentives to keep farming...
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Scanerio: Corn farmers faced falling corn prices, and have to switch to selling a variety of corn fit for consumption to a variety of corn fit for making biodisel, a scenario that is actually playing out in regions in the American heartland. Unless we subsidized the corn farmers to keep producing corn for consumption the supply of corn would drop dramatically.
Click to expand...
How about we just stop the subsidies for ethanol, instead of adding another subsidy to sweet/feed corn?
 
Overman said:
Not Sarcastic, but my arguement was not built around starvation.

In my area of IL we see this all the time. Farmers retire and sell their land to developers. What used to be nothing but corn and bean fields as far as the eye can see are now subdivisions and Mejer's, Jewels, Walmarts, and stipmalls. None of that land will ever be farmed again, and therefore there is less production. Prices rise, and quantity becomes more scarce with each one. There is only a certian amount of farmable land for such products, and that land is being used less and less for those ventures!
Click to expand...
If you're worried about it petition the local governments to keep the zoning of said land to agriculture, rather than changing it to commercial or residential.

But I don't know why you'd bother, there's already a ridiculous surplus of food in this country - which is why it needs to be subsidized in the first place. Perhaps the land is better used as a Walmart.
 
WildCat said:
How about we just stop the subsidies for ethanol, instead of adding another subsidy to sweet/feed corn?
Click to expand...

Why not stop the ethanol subsidy, and maintain the sweet/feed corn subsidy? It increases the corn supply. Not only does that mean we have plenty of food, it also strengthens our nation's position as a food exporter. 9.2% of our exports are agricultural products. It doesn't just increase domestic food supply, it increases the world food supply.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Why not stop the ethanol subsidy, and maintain the sweet/feed corn subsidy? It increases the corn supply. Not only does that mean we have plenty of food, it also strengthens our nation's position as a food exporter. 9.2% of our exports are agricultural products. It doesn't just increase domestic food supply, it increases the world food supply.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. What agriculture subsidies in the entire western world do is create poverty and instability in 3rd world countries in Africa and Asia by making them uncompetitive. The only product many 3rd world countries have to offer is agriculture - but they can't compete against the heavily subsidized crops of America and Europe.

But if you're fine creating poverty, starvation, death, and misery in 3rd world countries keep thos subsidies flowing!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom