286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
ut I think a portion of the subsidies actually go towards paying farmers to not put any crops on their land (this might have been his point of the subsidies not causing overproduction) because there are already enough of those crops. It'

[/ QUOTE ]

well the thing about farming is that the land must be maintained. so when they get paid not to plant say corn or wheat, they plant some cheap crop and just plow it under so that the next year it is still ready for corn or wheat.

basically the government is paying for a positive externality that market forces wouldn't.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

Widespread famines stopped happening in the 18th century because of improvements in transportation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ireland has already been mentioned. China during the Great leap forward, Ethiopia in the mid 1980s, North Korea in the 1990s, USSR in the 1920s, and 1930s, and 1947, and India

[ QUOTE ]
There were approximately 25 major famines spread through states such as Tamil Nadu in the south, and Bihar and Bengal in the east during the latter half of the 19th century.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the wiki article. web page

[ QUOTE ]
It's almost inconceivable that such a thing could happen today. If the US can't grow enough wheat, we can just buy it from Canada, or the Ukraine, or Argentina.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't worry about that, tariffs and trade wars have overcome need for thens of millions of people.

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OTOH farmers don't want big surpluses because it usually means they are probably going to lose money that season.

[/ QUOTE ]


that's the crux. it's in the public interest to have an abundance of food, and it's in the farmers interest to have slightly less than just enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not in the public's interest to have an abundance of food, just enough. It's in the farmer's interest to ensure that there is enough. No conflict.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not in the public's interest to have an abundance of food, just enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

well if you have "just enough", and anything goes wrong, oops, not enough food. if you think that would result in lower prices you're crazy.

I mean just look at oil. news that comes out that indicates a *potential* future problem causes price spikes. you want that for food?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not in the public's interest to have an abundance of food, just enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

well if you have "just enough", and anything goes wrong, oops, not enough food.

[/ QUOTE ]
And then we buy rest of our food from someone else. To me, "enough" is enough to feed everyone and have some left over in case something happens, not consumption exactly equals production.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be more favorably inclined if they could guarantee these subsidies only went to small farmers. Much of the subsidies are received by large agriculture conglomerates that definitely dont need the subsidies or by people "playing farmer" in order to receive the subsidies (surprise surprise).

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, they do need the subsidies. Without the subsidies they would not be profitable enough to compete with third world farmers.

natedogg

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not in the public's interest to have an abundance of food, just enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

well if you have "just enough", and anything goes wrong, oops, not enough food.

[/ QUOTE ]
And then we buy rest of our food from someone else. To me, "enough" is enough to feed everyone and have some left over in case something happens, not consumption exactly equals production.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
And then we buy rest of our food from someone else. To me, "enough" is enough to feed everyone and have some left over in case something happens, not consumption exactly equals production.



Exactly.

[/ QUOTE ]

you've just transferred the "problem" of oversurplus to somewhere else.

I mean, other countries do it and rely on the US as the overproducer, but before the US could rely on that model there would havde to be another country willing to take on the overproducder status.

so if you're against overproduction in general (for all countries) then your argument is circular it seems to me or begs question or whatever.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And then we buy rest of our food from someone else. To me, "enough" is enough to feed everyone and have some left over in case something happens, not consumption exactly equals production.



Exactly.

[/ QUOTE ]

you've just transferred the "problem" of oversurplus to somewhere else.

I mean, other countries do it and rely on the US as the over-producer, but before the US could rely on that model there would have to be another country willing to take on the over-producer status.

so if you're against overproduction in general (for all countries) then your argument is circular it seems to me or begs question or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not against "overproduction". For farmers in some countries, it may be beneficial to produce more than can be consumed domestically. Comparative advantage ftw.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not against "overproduction". For farmers in some countries, it may be beneficial to produce more than can be consumed domestically. Comparative advantage ftw.

[/ QUOTE ]

my point is that farmers in other countries will only overproduce if they are given subsidies or something, because by market forces only they wouldn't.

so basically you're saying you want to take advantage of other countires subsidies so you can cut your own, kinda like europe can cut it's defense budgets and rely on US for military.

I mean good plan in theory but I don't see it working out at least in ;the current time.