286 billion Farm Aid Bill for 2008

[ConstantineX]

[ 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 ]

Don't be a [censored] retard. If takes a little Devil's Advocacy to stop the endless circle jerk of bringing up exhausted objections to libertarian arguments, so be it. We all know the costs in regards to current farm policy. What are the possible benefits? And what exactly about my point was ignorant?

[Money2Burn]

EDIT: You answered my question in the post above this, nevermind.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

well
a) there's a food shortage right there in your example
b) I mean I'm sure the program is more than is necessary, but in theory farmers overproduce for the public good, and then the gov compensates them from the public good. I don't see anything wrong with that. undoubtably it should be restricted to staple foods / staple animal feed maybe.

[Borodog]

[ 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 ]

[ 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 ]

As bobman pointed out, "most government subsidies increase consumer prices via price floors and import tariffs."

The surplusses that are generated are caused by the diminishment of consumer demand because of higher prices, at the same time that farmers are receiving government price guarantee payments because the market price is much lower, keeping more farmers in business than the market can justify. The existence of this oversupply leads to very embarrassing problem that government deals with in various spectacularly stupid ways. They have, in the past, stored millions of tons of rotting wheat in mothballed Naval ships (one of my favorites), bought up and destroyed millions of pigs, chickens, cows, and eggs, plowed under millions of acres of crops, dumped millions of tons of food into third world nations as "aid", wiping out their local agricultural industries and making them forever dependant on further aid, turned millions of tons of the surplus into low quality government manufactured foods and just given away (because no one would by the stuff), and ulitmately, just they just pay farmers NOT to farm.

By getting rid of these programs, most consumer prices drop, meaning the demand for agricultural products would go up. Also, the absence of the subsidies doesn't necessarily mean less food produced. It means less *farmers*. The inefficient producers would go out of business, and their farms would be bought up by efficient operations that can produce at lower cost.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

well
a) there's a food shortage right there in your example
b) I mean I'm sure the program is more than is necessary, but in theory farmers overproduce for the public good, and then the gov compensates them from the public good. I don't see anything wrong with that. undoubtably it should be restricted to staple foods / staple animal feed maybe.

[/ 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.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

well
a) there's a food shortage right there in your example

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there isn't. The price system ensures that there is no shortage. If in one year there is some sort of drought or disease that affects potato crops and the supply drops, that is not a shortage. A shortage occurs when there are more buyers willing to pay the going price than there is supply at that price. This can only happen when the price is capped, because otherwise buyers will bid up the price until the competing buyers have dropped out. So if there is a drop in the supply of potatos and demand stayed the same, the price of potatos and all products that use potatos will go up. 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 ]

b) I mean I'm sure the program is more than is necessary, but in theory farmers overproduce for the public good, and then the gov compensates them from the public good. I don't see anything wrong with that. undoubtably it should be restricted to staple foods / staple animal feed maybe.

[/ QUOTE ]

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.

[calmB4storm]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
BUT WHAT IF BILL GATES BUYS UP ALL THE ROADS?!?!

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

well
a) there's a food shortage right there in your example
b) I mean I'm sure the program is more than is necessary, but in theory farmers overproduce for the public good, and then the gov compensates them from the public good. I don't see anything wrong with that. undoubtably it should be restricted to staple foods / staple animal feed maybe.

[/ 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 ]

Bingo. The only places that can have famines these days are the places where

a) there is very little capital, so agricultural production and distribution remains primitive, and the locals cannot afford the going world price, usually going hand in hand with:

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

[vulturesrow]

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).

[Borodog]

[ 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 ]

These two sentences are completely contradictory. It *is* the small farmers who are only "playing farmer" in order to receive the subsidies. They cannot compete without handouts. Hence they are only playing. They should get out and go do something productive instead of wasteful.

This is like saying you think the government should give subsidies to thousands of people who build kit cars in their garages becasue they can't compete with GM, Ford, and Toyota.