286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
b) the United States has wiped out local agriculture by dumping subsidized American agricultural surplusses as "aid".

[/ QUOTE ]

Example?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.newfarm.org/news/2005/0305/030205/dump.shtml

[/ QUOTE ]

“Agriculture subsidies are not driving dumping,” says Ritchie. “It is the absence of farm programs that bring production in line with supply. Without these programs, farmers will over-produce with or without subsidies, and dumping will continue.”

Isn't he saying subsidies are not what is causing dumping?

[/ QUOTE ]

He might be saying that, but he's wrong. I just grabbed that article because it talks about the impact of dumping. If he thinks the market would naturally overproduce things like farm products in the absence of farm subsidies, he's either crazy or just economically ignorant.

Agicultural subsidies clearly leads to overproduction, and overproduction clearly exacerbates dumping.

Edit: Also the source is pro-farm. So one has to couch one's anti-dumping arguments in a fashion that are palatable to farmers, who obviously like free money and don't want that free money to be threatened.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure there are some traditions that shouldnt be preserved solely for the sake of preserving them. But I think that the large number of communities that revolve around farming would benefit as a whole.


[/ QUOTE ]

How would these commmunities be hurt?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the farmers only make enough money to survive by being subsidized and the other members of the community only make enough money to survive by selling things purchased by subsidy dollars, they're going to be hurt pretty bad by the elimination of subsidies.

[rwesty]

I would agree with you Borodog. But 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's basically just a huge amount of money given to farmers for any reason they can come up with, there are subsidies for those growing crops, subsidies for people not to grow crops to keep prices artifically high, subsidies for taking farmland out of production in the name of conservation, etc... It seems completely ridiculous.

Here's a good article on the subject.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1680139-1,00.html

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
b) the United States has wiped out local agriculture by dumping subsidized American agricultural surplusses as "aid".

[/ QUOTE ]

Example?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.newfarm.org/news/2005/0305/030205/dump.shtml

[/ QUOTE ]

“Agriculture subsidies are not driving dumping,” says Ritchie. “It is the absence of farm programs that bring production in line with supply. Without these programs, farmers will over-produce with or without subsidies, and dumping will continue.”

Isn't he saying subsidies are not what is causing dumping?

[/ QUOTE ]

He might be saying that, but he's wrong. I just grabbed that article because it talks about the impact of dumping. If he thinks the market would naturally overproduce things like farm products in the absence of farm subsidies, he's either crazy or just economically ignorant.

Agicultural subsidies clearly leads to overproduction, and overproduction clearly exacerbates dumping.

Edit: Also the source is pro-farm. So one has to couch one's anti-dumping arguments in a fashion that are palatable to farmers, who obviously like free money and don't want that free money to be threatened.


[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, farmers do overproduce sometimes, but it's never intentional and is usually the result of speculation about how much competitors are planting and favorable growing conditions. If you have a bumper crop most other competent farmers will as well. That's the problem with farming is that so often they are completely at the mercy of the weather.

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

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I would agree with you Borodog. But 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I've already made this point. The reason they began to do this because price supports already existed. The created large surplusses that became politically embarrassing, so they just started paying farmers not to grow food. What do you think this does to the number of farmers? Without the price supports you don't "need" to pay farmers no to farm in the first place.

Hell, I don't grow food in my back yard. Can I get a subsidy?

[ QUOTE ]
It's basically just a huge amount of money given to farmers for any reason they can come up with, there are subsidies for those growing crops, subsidies for people not to grow crops to keep prices artifically high, subsidies for taking farmland out of production in the name of conservation, etc... It seems completely ridiculous.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure there are some traditions that shouldnt be preserved solely for the sake of preserving them. But I think that the large number of communities that revolve around farming would benefit as a whole.


[/ QUOTE ]

How would these commmunities be hurt?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the farmers only make enough money to survive by being subsidized and the other members of the community only make enough money to survive by selling things purchased by subsidy dollars, they're going to be hurt pretty bad by the elimination of subsidies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless there is just too much land being farmed in general if a farmer shuts down there will be another one to buy or lease his land and the other members of the town who make money off farming will still get business. I don't see many communities collapsing if subsidies were cut off.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure there are some traditions that shouldnt be preserved solely for the sake of preserving them. But I think that the large number of communities that revolve around farming would benefit as a whole.


[/ QUOTE ]

How would these commmunities be hurt?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the farmers only make enough money to survive by being subsidized and the other members of the community only make enough money to survive by selling things purchased by subsidy dollars, they're going to be hurt pretty bad by the elimination of subsidies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless there is just too much land being farmed in general if a farmer shuts down there will be another one to buy or lease his land and the other members of the town who make money off farming will still get business. I don't see many communities collapsing if subsidies were cut off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, maybe not. It's hard to predict the impact of removing subsidies of that size. But, if the argument is that the farmers and there communitites need that subsidy money to survive, then they clearly will be hurt by the removal of the subsidies.

[PLOlover]

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

a) that's not true. I mean 18th century = 1700's. hell irish tater famine was after that.

b) true famine isn't the problem as much as massive price spikes for staple foods. look at the volatiltiy in some of the commodities.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
This will automatically cause consumers to curb their consumption of potatos, or if they value potatos and potato products more than other products, they will curb their consumption in other areas. Likely they will do a combination of both.

[/ QUOTE ]

true which is why in mhy post i said limit it to staple crops.


<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre> But they don't overproduce for the public good. The public must pay higher prices, meaning they have less money left over for other purchase, or that they must purchase less agricultural products than they would like to in the absence of the higher prices. This makes the public worse off, not better off. </pre><hr />

what I meant is that the public doesn't get caught in short term massive price fluctuations like in california with the electricity. what do you jmean the public must pay higher prices? you mean public funds from the gov, or higher grocery bills?

[PLOlover]

[ 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.