ST Alpha - "Question for smarter people: How would you compare the current bailouts to agricultural subsidies? -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 169

Question for smarter people: How would you compare the current bailouts to agricultural subsidies? -- nm

Posted by Dano (aka dano) Dec 1 '08, 09:34

(No message)

Responses:

they're both largely hypocritical wastes of money....nm - x Dec 1, 10:04
What RM said, plus AG subsidies could go away and AG would be fine because there's nothing inherently broken with - TWuG Dec 1, 09:39
The current bailouts are (in theory) one-off. Farm subsidies go on forever and ever. -- nm - Roger More Dec 1, 09:37 41
- It's interesting that people seem angry about the current bailouts, but we bail out agriculture every year. I blame the Iowa caucuses. -- nm - Dano Dec 1, 09:41 40
  - People get more emotional about farmers than people working in the service industry. Hard-working, salt-of-the-earth folk who just need a break, etc - Roger More Dec 1, 09:44 4
    - Given that farmers are small business owners they have plenty of transferable knowledge. -- nm - TWuG Dec 1, 09:51 2
      - Yeah - I should have said that a farmer would face greater barriers to changing jobs than, say, someone working in the service industry - Roger More Dec 1, 09:59 1
        
        Not to mention - they'd be giving up the thing they know how to do best, and that they (probably) like doing -- nm - Roger More Dec 1, 10:03
    - heh, thats funny. - tRuMaN Dec 1, 09:48
  - i'm okay with agriculture - people need food and if farmer's charged what was a realistic fair price, no-one could afford to eat. -- nm - El Fandie Dec 1, 09:43 34
    - There are downsides too. It means more land is farmed, and less is left in its natural state. It also means that farmers in developing countries... - Roger More Dec 1, 09:48
    - at least certainly not using the food distribution model we currently have. - znufrii Dec 1, 09:46
    - I've always thought we pay farmers not to actually grow crops to keep prices artificially high - Will Hunting Dec 1, 09:46 10
      - there's lots of different subsidies - Reagen Dec 1, 09:48 7
        
        ehh, crp subsidies is not that ridiculous. -- nm - tRuMaN Dec 1, 09:49 6
        
        *somebody* pays that down the line, though. -- nm - Reagen Dec 1, 09:50 5
        
        sure, but if we over used the crop land, we would actually harm production down the road - tRuMaN Dec 1, 09:52 4
        
        i also worry that, in order to be profitable, everyone would start growing corn for fuel, or other non-food crops. -- nm - El Fandie Dec 1, 09:53 3
        
        supply and demand actually takes care of that pretty quickly. - Reagen Dec 1, 09:57 1
        
        disease and the loss of essential nutrients in the soil - tRuMaN Dec 1, 09:58
        
        sure that has happened to some degree, but not as much as many people make it out to be - tRuMaN Dec 1, 09:56
      - i'll let Reagen answer this -he's the one here with some experience in this industry. -- nm - El Fandie Dec 1, 09:48
      - depends on the crop. -- nm - znufrii Dec 1, 09:48
    - mm, yes and no - subsidies have really distorted the markets and have placed a lot of emphasis on growing certain products at the expense of others. -- nm - Reagen Dec 1, 09:45 20
      - you would know better than I, but my gut instinct is, if we have to subsidize an industry, agriculture is a hard one to argue with. -- nm - El Fandie Dec 1, 09:46 19
        
        There's the crux: We don't "have" to subsidize ag. Ag works just fine and supply/demand would be effective in setting prices. - TWuG Dec 1, 09:50 18
        
        sure it does, but then, most likely most of the ag would disappear from the us. -- nm - tRuMaN Dec 1, 09:53 14
        
        So? -- nm - TWuG Dec 1, 10:02 13
        
        well, there's the increased cost and energy use to transport food that's grown ever further from its intended market. for starters. - znufrii Dec 1, 10:04 3
        
        Increased transport costs may be offset by lower production costs. And foods are more substitutable than oil - if bread is too expensive, you buy - Roger More Dec 1, 10:09
        
        also kinda kills the movement towards affordable locally grown foods. -- nm - tRuMaN Dec 1, 10:07 1
        
        and if anything, we should encourage that rather than discourage it. -- nm - znufrii Dec 1, 10:09
        
        well, see, you need to eat. -- nm - El Fandie Dec 1, 10:03 8
        
        you can always buy what you need from other countries -- nm - Roger More Dec 1, 10:06 7
        
        but can you? (a) it costs more to ship it (b) you lose quality as it is harvested earlier to allow shipping time (c) if the countries you are relying - El Fandie Dec 1, 10:07 4
        
        Canada imports $22 bn of food a year - it's the reason supermarket shelves are stocked with off-season produce -- nm - Roger More Dec 1, 10:10 2
        
        i realize this. and have you seen the cost of produce in january? -- nm - El Fandie Dec 1, 10:11 1
        
        But people still buy it. Personally, I'd rather eat it fresh from overseas than I would Canadian-grown in a can - Roger More Dec 1, 10:15
        
        its the same issue with foreign oil really. - tRuMaN Dec 1, 10:09
        
        O RLY? *tightens the oil supply* -- nm - OPEC Dec 1, 10:07 1
        
        heh - see my answer above -- nm - Roger More Dec 1, 10:11
        
        though certainly not without pain - Reagen Dec 1, 09:52 2
        
        Farming is business, if a specific farmer must have government help to stay in business, then they shouldn't be a farmer. - TWuG Dec 1, 09:58
        
        and there would be lots of good farmer who would go under as well. -- nm - tRuMaN Dec 1, 09:54

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.