Posted on 12/11/2007 5:35:44 PM PST by shrinkermd
Here's today's quiz: What do Scottie Pippen, David Letterman and Ted Turner have in common? Answer: None of them are farmers, but all three have received thousands of dollars in federal farm subsidies this decade.
We could add to that list of non-farmer farm-aid recipients David Rockefeller, Leonard Lauder of the cosmetics firm, Edgar Bronfman Sr. of the Seagram fortune, and Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen. Our point is that you don't have to drive a tractor, plant seeds, or even live anywhere near rural America to qualify for Uncle Sam's farm largess. And you sure don't have to be poor.
The Environmental Working Group has a map of New York City making the rounds on the Internet that shows 562 dots, each representing a Manhattan resident who gets a USDA farm payment. Who knew that growing cotton, corn and soybeans was such a thriving industry near Central Park? We don't know the incomes of these people, but it's a fair guess they're not homeless.
What we have here is a real-life version of the 1960s TV show "Green Acres," but in reverse. In the fictional series, Eddie Albert and Eva Gabor play a fancy couple who flee Manhattan to live down on the farm among the pigs and goats, while she pines for the glitter of Times Square. In the 2007 version, they flee the farm for Manhattan and get a subsidy check at their Park Avenue penthouse. What a deal.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The government shouldn’t be involved in farming, but politicians decided decades ago that high and unpredictable food prices could interfer with their re-election chances, and so they began what has come to be known by farmers as ‘the cheap food’ policy. The result is the cheapest, most abundant food in the entire history of the world. I would include the best, but someone pointed out that France does have some of the best, and I’d have to agree. Never-the-less, ours is very tasty.
It may be worth it, from the perspective of what is best for the entire country, but it comes at the expense of the agriculture sector. I’m not convinced it’s in the countries best interest, but an argument could be made supporting that theory.
Think of how gasoline prices have become a political issue important enough for even presidential candidates to be involved in attempting to control. The politicians wanted to avoid that issue coming up with food on an irregular basis, and at the same time attempted to buy the farmer vote back in the 50s and 60s when farmers were a significant voting block.
I’ll be glad to respond further tommorw.
If you pay farmers not to grow crops, doesn't that actually make food more expensive by reducing supplies? Aren't the farm programs responding to political pressure from farm states that want higher crop prices?
I'm sure it's all more complicated than this, but maybe you could explain.
I have a great idea. Lets get rid of all subsidies, andwe won’t have to worry about it. I know, this goes against my Iowa background, but lets get real and get the government out!
It's difficult for me to understand why a man of Letterman's wealth deserves federal handouts simply because he owns a ranch. Or any other farmer for that matter, regardless of income.Thank you! How many posts did it take for somebody to get this right? Just goes to show, if you want to get to the bottom of something, call the Unix guy!
Stopping the farm subsidies and you will be paying $9.00 for a burger. The Government pays the farmers to keep the cost of food down.Back to 4th grade for you! Getting paid not to grow something keeps the supply of that something low, and the price of that something high. You are definitely NOT smarter than a 5th grader!
You’ve given me a brief historical account of the corrupting actions of politicians, but haven’t explained why it should have been that way nor why it should be retained. Taxpayers and farmers don’t exist for the purposes of buying votes and enhancing a politician’s reelection chances.
I could similarly tell you historically why we have the corrupting welfare system we have, but would be unable to defend why it is good policy, why it should be retained, and why taxpayers and ‘the poor’ should serve the reelection chances of politicans.
I fully trust the American farmer to deliver tasty abundant food without bureaucratic interference.
As far as gas prices go, I’d be happy for politicians to leave that market alone also.
As would I.
The ethanol boondoggle in the Midwest is causing government subsidized corn to be grown fence row to fence row to be hauled to government supported ethanol plants to be turned into tax subsidized gasohol and E-85 neither of which represent any real solution to our energy problem. Our tax dollars at work.
After a goodnight of sleep, I recieved 12 emails saying talking to you people about farming is like talking to a STUMP.
I was supported and told that I was exactly right in 12 emails.
Sorry for the delay, I was working on presenting a short, concise answer. Let’s see how I did.
DancesWithBolsheviks asked if the government had any good reason to be involved with agriculture. The short answer is a resounding NO! It’s more complicated than that, of course, so I’ll address that after answering Wideminded’s question, because that answer lays the groundwork.
Wideminded asked, paraphrasing, “doesn’t paying farmers NOT to grow crops reduce supplies and increase prices?”.
That’s very true, it does. Feed stuffs, such as corn, respond to supply/demand very well, and quickly.
Rather than presenting it as the “paying farmers not to grow crops”, it is more accurate to say “paying farmers to control their production”. Phrasing it that way is not a ploy to slip something by the reader, but rather it helps understand what happens with the farm programs because it’s an accurate description of what actually happens.
One of the big threats facing American farmers each year is the threat over production, and the resulting low prices. However, the government can safely counting on the farmer trying to produce as much grain as he possibly can.
Farmers who are part of the farm program, and there probably isn’t a single farmer left who isn’t, can receive payment only if they agree to limit how many acres they plant to each crop, and further parts of the program have limits on how many bushels per acre receive ‘credit’ towards further subsidies. For example, if the government will provide subsidies for, say 80 bushels per acre. If the farmer grows 140 bushels, he’s on his own on that last 60. That’s a good thing for him if prices are high, not good if they are low.
Since government involvement in all phases of production and sales means prices probably aren’t normally going to go really high, and thus the incentive to produce that extra 60 bushels is reduced, the farmer limits his efforts and inputs accordingly.
Since the government can count on the farmer to produce as much as he can, all the government has to do is develop a target crop size to make sure there is enough crops to provide the correct amount of food so that the supply/demand ends up with the desired price at the supermarket. Each year the program is tweaked to adjust for all the variables, anticipated weather, disease, imports/exports, changing demands etc.
That’s a very, very rough view of how both the upper and lower limits of production are nailed down.
Imagine a herd of race horses, all of whom have one desire, to run as fast as they can.
All the riders need to do is pull on the reigns, no need for a whip. , (witness the huge increase in corn production as a result of ethanol, at least 35% in the last couple of years) That’s the American farmer, together with his problem, and the consumers benefit.
Back to DancesWithBolsheviks question about government involvement.
The problem of overproduction is real. Allowed free reign, and a reasonable profit incentive, agriculture production would jump 10% to 50% nearly overnight and cause financial ruin for everyone involved in agriculture. Ruin would spread from the farmers, to the tens of thousands who produce equipment at Deere & Co., and elsewhere, the hundreds of thousand who depend one THOSE people for a living etc.
Because of the danger of overproduction, some sort of production governor is needed. Unfortunately, over the years, that governor has been the federal government, and they have been able to manipulate all of this so that the cost of food is never an issue at the ballot box.
Some industries have developed their own governor, car makers, sugar producers, for example. (We pay at least twice what we should for sugar, possibly 3x) Farmers are so independent there isn’t going to be a farmer controlled food supply anytime soon. However, one of the side effects of the farm programs is that is slowly starving the farmers off the farm, with dwindling numbers each year.
With enormous yield increases just around the corner, that exodus is likely to accelerate, leaving American with just a few tens of thousand of farmers. At some point it’s possible that a farmer controlled governor of food production could very well begin to form.
That’s uncharted territory for us. DancesWithBolsheviks, be careful what you wish for.
A somewhat related question: Have you ever wondered why the American farmer has such a unique problem as overproduction, and the rest of the world has exactly the opposite problem? Russia, with arguably equal or better food production than we have is only recently been able to produce enough food. In Zimbabwe, the ‘bread basket’ of Africa millions are on the verge of starvation.
God has blessed all of us immeasurably. Never in the entire history of the world has such a small number of people produced so much food for so many people. Our production capabilities are so high that we can even throw production assets away with ‘natural foods’. We can ‘burn’ our foodstuffs to power our SUVs, and STILL have too much food.
You may be interested in my post #70.
How does the cost of anything in a free market go down when there is a decrease in supply ? I think this is more socialist spin than reality.
Actually, the purpose of most agricultural subsidies (other than to purchase favor with constituents) is to keep the price of commodities high, not low.
free market?? The Government controls the cost of grain, beef,pork,lamb. They keep the cost down so you have cheaper food. This is a fact.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.