Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
 

Why don't you address the actual arguments that farm bill supporters use? Shouldn't the government subsidize the industry to ensure that there's always an available food supply? To the extent that we subsidies cause oversupply, isn't that our national hedge against overseas global events?

Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
 

I think history bears out the fact when food prices rapidly rise, there's a huge political price to pay. People are psychologically more motivated by prices of goods rather their than supply. It's not silly to see why political systems make the easier choices taking into account people's psychology.

Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you address the actual arguments that farm bill supporters use? Shouldn't the government subsidize the industry to ensure that there's always an available food supply? To the extent that we subsidies cause oversupply, isn't that our national hedge against overseas global events?

[/ QUOTE ]

No the government shouldn't. This is just a different type of fearmongering. "ZOMG But what if farmers just decide not to plant wheat one year!!!! Boogie Boogie Boogie!"

The government doesn't need to subsidize the industry to ensure farmers will produce enough food. The markets work perfectly without govt. intervention imo. If one year not enough potatos are produced, or even if farmers suspect there won't be enough planted you can bet your ass that those farmers will increase their acreage to try and take advantage of the high potato prices (because they are greedy capitalists as well) till the market gets saturated and the price falls to a level right about where farmers are break even. It's Econ 101 and even backwoods redneck farmers like me can understand it.

Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think history bears out the fact when food prices rapidly rise, there's a huge political price to pay. People are psychologically more motivated by prices of goods rather their than supply. It's not silly to see why political systems make the easier choices taking into account people's psychology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the government subsidies to agriculture are actually intended to increase consumer prices, like price floors and import tariffs.

The argument that we need "food security" is almost complete nonsense. WTF do you think is going to happen if the government quits shoveling money at farmers? Do you think they're going to just pack up, pave over Iowa, and build the world's biggest strip mall? If the US ever does face a large-scale famine, it's going to be because of climate change or a nuclear war or a total breakdown in the fabric of society. And subsidies aren't going to do [censored] about that.

Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you address the actual arguments that farm bill supporters use? Shouldn't the government subsidize the industry to ensure that there's always an available food supply? To the extent that we subsidies cause oversupply, isn't that our national hedge against overseas global events?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really know that little about economics?

Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think history bears out the fact when food prices rapidly rise, there's a huge political price to pay. People are psychologically more motivated by prices of goods rather their than supply. It's not silly to see why political systems make the easier choices taking into account people's psychology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually when food prices spike its because of supply shortages that are due to causes that are out of anyone's control, ie. severe drought, disease, or a harsh winter. Unless the government can ensure ideal growing conditions all the time (I wouldn't put it past them to claim this) there is nothing they can to to prevent this from happening occasionally.

Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you address the actual arguments that farm bill supporters use? Shouldn't the government subsidize the industry to ensure that there's always an available food supply? To the extent that we subsidies cause oversupply, isn't that our national hedge against overseas global events?

[/ QUOTE ]

No the government shouldn't subsidize them, it's patently ridiculous. This is one of the largest vote-buying scams ever. The government takes our money, gives it to the farmers, they then take a cut and then donate it back to the politicians so they can get re-elected. Rinse, repeat.

Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think history bears out the fact when food prices rapidly rise, there's a huge political price to pay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ethanol subsidies have recently caused a dramatic rise in price of virtually every food staple, and I don't see anyone paying a political price for this. Like everything else our gov't does, 99.9% of Americans don't even know about it.

If anything, rising food prices and the like are politically beneficial, as this gov't-caused problem will only provoke cries for further expansion of government, rinse, repeat.

Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
 

All the government needs to do if thats what they really cared about is to buy a 5 year supply of MREs or some other non-perishable food and have them in distribution sites around the country. This would be considerably cheaper than paying farmers every year.

Re: 286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you address the actual arguments that farm bill supporters use? Shouldn't the government subsidize the industry to ensure that there's always an available food supply? To the extent that we subsidies cause oversupply, isn't that our national hedge against overseas global events?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really know that little about economics?

[/ QUOTE ]

I got the impression he was just articulating the proponent's position.

natedogg