Pippen gets $26,000 in Federal Farm subsidies

No thanx, I dont wanna waste my time.

 

From the article:

<B><I>Government aid made up almost half of total farm income nationwide last year</I>, most of it parceled out through programs aimed at making sure farmers don't go under when the price they get for crops is not enough to pay their bills.</B>

Isn't this basically communism? What ever happened to the idea of free-markets and things actually being worth what people are willing to pay?

 

shanna, the government does that because a lot of times the prices for farmer's crops as a lot to do with the quality of the crops. The quality of the crops has a lot to do with forces of nature, stuff like that. So, in essence, the government giving them money is a lot like the government giving money to disaster victims. They know that it won't be an every year thing, but they know that the vast majority of non-corporation farms barely make it when the value of their crops is high.

I think it also may have something to do with the government understanding that they'd much rather rely on our own for various crops. So, if a bunch of non-corporation farmers went out of business, the threat may exist that we'd have to depend on another country for staples such as wheat, rice, or corn. By bailing them out when they need it, it's a step in assuring that they won't have to depend on other countries.

 

Of course, I read the article after I post. Some of that may not apply.

 

<B>The quality of the crops has a lot to do with forces of nature, stuff like that. So, in essence, the government giving them money is a lot like the government giving money to disaster victims. </B>

I guess so, but it seems to me like that's just a part of farming. It's like building a house in a floodzone and then complaining that it got flooded.

<B>but they know that the vast majority of non-corporation farms barely make it when the value of their crops is high. </B>

If that's the case, farms need to become more efficient, or there need to be fewer of them. Basically, we're putting in a massive artificial price support, which is massively economically inefficient. Economic socialism!

With the technology we have today, people should be able to grow far more food than they did 10 years ago with the same amount of effort. In most other industries, falling prices are countered with more efficient output, keeping profits up. The result is cheaper prices for the consumers. Here, we have the government keeping prices up, preventing the need to become more efficient, and raising prices for consumers.

<B>By bailing them out when they need it, it's a step in assuring that they won't have to depend on other countries.</B>

That's true, but don't we produce way more food than is necessary anyway? I was always under the impression that the government currently pays people not to grow food at times.

 

It's not that farms need to become more efficient, it's that the equipment and technology as become so expensive due to the influx of mega corporation farms out there that the small farms, no matter how efficient and lucky, many times still can't compete.

 

If farmers had to rely on the market, the vast majority of them would simply go out of business and we would begin importing massive amounts of food or having it grown by large corporations who have less of a tendency to monitor quality control. The problem is that the lack of monitoring results in a direct health threat to every American eating the products.

Also, there is a real concern that, without subsidies, there would be a need for much greater government regulation. Either keep farmers in business or regulate further.

 

Wow, a change from what he usually grows.

 

I've got "better" stuff to do like work on my correspondence Accounting homework. I'll give everybody a tip here: don't ever take Accounting via correspondence!! It sucks, you work your ass off, and your teacher doesn't do jack s***!!

 

<B>It's not that farms need to become more efficient, it's that the equipment and technology as become so expensive due to the influx of mega corporation farms out there that the small farms, no matter how efficient and lucky, many times still can't compete.</B>

That's the case in most businesses -- for example, mom-and-pop stores vs. Walmart, smaller computer companies vs Dell, smaller "homey" bookstores vs. Barnes & Noble, etc. However, we don't subsidize individuals in any other industries... Why farmers?
<B>Also, there is a real concern that, without subsidies, there would be a need for much greater government regulation. Either keep farmers in business or regulate further.</B>

So do smaller farms not need to be regulated as much? It seems to me when there are 1000 smaller companies involved, the potential for health risks or fraud is just as high -- if not higher -- than if there were fewer companies. I don't see why a smaller farm is going to focus on Quality Control any more than a larger farm if its not required by law.

 

Give me an example of how the influx of big stores such as Barnes and Noble and Wal-Mart has caused the technology in the book industry to grow so that the smaller stores can't compete. The book buyer, for example, could decide to spend an extra $2 to buy a book at the local mom and pop store, but I, as a consumer, can't decide to buy from a family farm as opposed to a mega corporation. The family farm isn't being weeded out because the mega corporations can produce a cheaper product, it's being weeded out because the mega corporation has caused a hike in the prices of the equipment and technology that is essential to the growing of crops...a hike they can afford and the smaller farms can't. What's a $500,000 tractor to a mega corporation? What's a $500,000 tractor to a family farm?

 

I find this thread to be most depressing. Do you have any idea how our system actually works? There IS NO FREE MARKET. That is a figment of your imagination. Every industry is affected by artificial government interference, in one way or another, whether it be price support, direct subsidies, increased or decreased regulations, export tax credit, domestic tax credit, import tariffs, etc.

 

Well, for one thing, if you lived on a farm with your family: you'd be less likely to use so much chemical fertilizer that you poison your own drinking water . You'd be less likely to make a decision for short term financial gain at the expense of long term sustainability. You be less able to survive a large regulatory penalty for abuse, than a corporation, and so would have more probability of obeying regulation than not. You would have an emotional connection with the land you and generations of your family lived on, where a corporation has no emotional ties, and hence no emotional variable to care for the land.

I can't believe that people are so trusting of corporations. The concern of any major corporation is profit for shareholders. Not individual, but $$$. Anytime there is a faceless nameless entity running things, there is less accountability and more danger of abuse.

 

I used to belief that. But my family owns a good deal of land in the North-East Texas area. We don't farm it directly, but other people do. Corporations are pretty careful about replenishing the land. This isn't like the rain forest, where they burn, exploit, and burn more. Chemical fertilizers are effective. We're learning more and more how to prevent long-term damage. Altering crops genetically makes food more healthy and plentiful, with no known health side effects.

The US already produced way too much food. We burn large quantities of it every year. There's no reason why we need to continue producing this much, unless we seriously intend to export at reduced rates to developing countries (showing my softy lefty side).

Right now, we're supporting these small farmers for political reasons alone. These guys, when they first became disenfranchised, were a huge political bloc, especially for politicians from midwestern states. In an age of spending, it wasn't hard for them to ensure that their constituents got free checks from the government.

It needs to stop. Small farmers are less efficient, produce less nutritious foods, and generally are a waste of productivity. There's no point to it. Besides, it's not like they're wealthy in this. We're perpetuating their own mediocrity with all these subsidies.

 

haven,

"....produce less nutritious foods, ..."


At first I thought your post was serious, then realized that is the secret phrase to signal tongue in cheek.


Mango