Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Farm Subsidies

seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 10:51:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
What is the point to farm subsidies? What is the point for paying someone to not produce? If there is too many farms, there is no point in artificially keeping it that way. A few farmers will have to find jobs elsewhere which leads to greater overall prosperity. And even worse, the government is playing nanny to some farmers (of course, mainly large commercial farms with a line to the government) and wasting taxpayer dollars.

Is there any reason to keep them around?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 10:56:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 10:51:36 AM, seraine wrote:
What is the point to farm subsidies? What is the point for paying someone to not produce? If there is too many farms, there is no point in artificially keeping it that way. A few farmers will have to find jobs elsewhere which leads to greater overall prosperity. And even worse, the government is playing nanny to some farmers (of course, mainly large commercial farms with a line to the government) and wasting taxpayer dollars.

Is there any reason to keep them around?

inflate prices. This is actually quite common in businesses and so would be in the free market. If I can pay you $100,000 to not do something (be it farming, selling new technology, or whatever), and by you not doing that something, I generate $300,000 then the incentive is right there.

We see this all the time with companies buying up patents and rights in order to keep them surpressed, so their current product can continue to sell (they usually bring those more advanced products out later, after the current product has spread through the market).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 3:42:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 10:56:12 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/3/2011 10:51:36 AM, seraine wrote:
What is the point to farm subsidies? What is the point for paying someone to not produce? If there is too many farms, there is no point in artificially keeping it that way. A few farmers will have to find jobs elsewhere which leads to greater overall prosperity. And even worse, the government is playing nanny to some farmers (of course, mainly large commercial farms with a line to the government) and wasting taxpayer dollars.

Is there any reason to keep them around?

inflate prices. This is actually quite common in businesses and so would be in the free market. If I can pay you $100,000 to not do something (be it farming, selling new technology, or whatever), and by you not doing that something, I generate $300,000 then the incentive is right there.

We see this all the time with companies buying up patents and rights in order to keep them surpressed, so their current product can continue to sell (they usually bring those more advanced products out later, after the current product has spread through the market).

But wouldn't prices also be inflated if the artificially high number of farmers dropped?
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 4:32:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Farm subsidies are a very large component of the budget and should be eliminated, or at least looked at differently. Although the small farmer will be hurt the most, i see no compelling reason other than politics for us to continue these subsidies as they currently exist.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 4:42:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 3:42:47 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/3/2011 10:56:12 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/3/2011 10:51:36 AM, seraine wrote:
What is the point to farm subsidies? What is the point for paying someone to not produce? If there is too many farms, there is no point in artificially keeping it that way. A few farmers will have to find jobs elsewhere which leads to greater overall prosperity. And even worse, the government is playing nanny to some farmers (of course, mainly large commercial farms with a line to the government) and wasting taxpayer dollars.

Is there any reason to keep them around?

inflate prices. This is actually quite common in businesses and so would be in the free market. If I can pay you $100,000 to not do something (be it farming, selling new technology, or whatever), and by you not doing that something, I generate $300,000 then the incentive is right there.

We see this all the time with companies buying up patents and rights in order to keep them surpressed, so their current product can continue to sell (they usually bring those more advanced products out later, after the current product has spread through the market).

But wouldn't prices also be inflated if the artificially high number of farmers dropped?

If we're paying people to not farm, that means that there is market demand for it, and we are fighting against the market demand. If we stop paying them not to farm, then more people would farm, supply would go up, and price would drop.

The other option is the reverse, paying peopel to farm, meaning that there is not [enough] market demand. In those cases, we pay them, so the price drops and there is greater supply to feed people (if done for food based farming, ethanol is different). If we stop, farmers will leave for other jobs, supply will go down, and price will go up.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 8:25:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Question 1: With all the people who need food in the world... How could their ever be too much food being farmed?

Question 2: If food is made so abundant that everybody in the world has more than enough... How is that a bad thing for everyone?

Opinion: Healthy food, Clean water, and Secure Shelter. These three things should be the first things focused on for the entire system, before we start focusing on to luxuries.

Greed and power will be the end of the system we currently have in place. People are becoming more intelligent and less needed for labor. That is a powerful combination for change.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:36:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 8:25:10 PM, Tiel wrote:
Question 1: With all the people who need food in the world... How could their ever be too much food being farmed?

Starving people in Africa aren't buying from U.S. farms and grocery stores.

By "too much food being farmed" we mean that there is so much food that the price is driven down and farmers are forced to sell at a loss and eventually go out of business

Question 2: If food is made so abundant that everybody in the world has more than enough... How is that a bad thing for everyone?

Explain how you plan on doing that.


Opinion: Healthy food, Clean water, and Secure Shelter. These three things should be the first things focused on for the entire system, before we start focusing on to luxuries.

So we should force electronic companies, furniture companies, car companies, etc to all start producing food, clean water, and homemaking materials and then sell them to who?

Greed and power will be the end of the system we currently have in place.

Greed and power and working for one's own self inerest is the only thing keeping our current system afloat
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:43:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:36:06 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
By "too much food being farmed" we mean that there is so much food that the price is driven down and farmers are forced to sell at a loss and eventually go out of business

Exactly. Wouldn't the artificially high number of farmers go down to "normal" levels and without extravagant waste?

I think that there would probably be some harm, but the level would ultimately drop, government would stop being a nursemaid, and waste would be reduced. It's like downsizing, it's actually good for the economy. People go from unproductive to productive jobs, though some are harmed.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 10:03:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:43:04 PM, seraine wrote:
Exactly. Wouldn't the artificially high number of farmers go down to "normal" levels and without extravagant waste?

I think that there would probably be some harm, but the level would ultimately drop, government would stop being a nursemaid, and waste would be reduced. It's like downsizing, it's actually good for the economy. People go from unproductive to productive jobs, though some are harmed.

It's not too many farmers.

For example, let's say that potatoes sold really well last year.

Farmers see that, and too many of them start growing potatoes rather than rice, cotton, pork, etc/

As a result there are way to many potatoes and farmers are forced to sell at a loss and go out of business.

In conclusion there is a shortage of farms being used since the farmers who grew too many potatoes went out of business.

The logic behind farm subsidies is that it will prevent farmers from growing too much of a certain food and prevent farmers from going out of business from overproducing a certain product so that in the event of a national emergency (war, natural disaster, mostly war), the nation will be able to immediately produce large amounts of food immediately.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 10:47:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:36:06 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 8/3/2011 8:25:10 PM, Tiel wrote:
Question 1: With all the people who need food in the world... How could their ever be too much food being farmed?

Starving people in Africa aren't buying from U.S. farms and grocery stores.

By "too much food being farmed" we mean that there is so much food that the price is driven down and farmers are forced to sell at a loss and eventually go out of business

Question 2: If food is made so abundant that everybody in the world has more than enough... How is that a bad thing for everyone?

Explain how you plan on doing that.


Opinion: Healthy food, Clean water, and Secure Shelter. These three things should be the first things focused on for the entire system, before we start focusing on to luxuries.

So we should force electronic companies, furniture companies, car companies, etc to all start producing food, clean water, and homemaking materials and then sell them to who?

Greed and power will be the end of the system we currently have in place.

Greed and power and working for one's own self inerest is the only thing keeping our current system afloat


Reply: No, it's not keeping anything afloat. It's the only thing the system has ever been. It's the very thing that was destined to destroy it all along. It is failing, as all such things governed by such are destined to fail. Your perspective of it "keeping afloat" is nothing more than you realizing that it is failing and attributing it's last breaths to the very thing that as destined to destroy it.

Human civilization has always steadily been evolving since we developed the first one in a primitive way... It has seen many major changes and upgrades and now it is about to make another major change. Greed and power will either destroy human civilization and those who survive will have to start over... Or human civilization will fix the errors in the system and upgrade to a better system design.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 8:18:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 10:47:52 PM, Tiel wrote:
Reply: No, it's not keeping anything afloat. It's the only thing the system has ever been. It's the very thing that was destined to destroy it all along. It is failing, as all such things governed by such are destined to fail. Your perspective of it "keeping afloat" is nothing more than you realizing that it is failing and attributing it's last breaths to the very thing that as destined to destroy it.

It's failing because of bogus policies like farm subsidies, welfare, social security, equal pay for equal work laws, minimum wage laws, price controls, etc

Self interest and greed are the greatest motivators in the majority of humans and is what drives humans to start companies, employ people who need jobs, provide goods and services at affordable prices, construct factories, build machines, etc

I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 10:58:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 10:56:12 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/3/2011 10:51:36 AM, seraine wrote:
What is the point to farm subsidies? What is the point for paying someone to not produce? If there is too many farms, there is no point in artificially keeping it that way. A few farmers will have to find jobs elsewhere which leads to greater overall prosperity. And even worse, the government is playing nanny to some farmers (of course, mainly large commercial farms with a line to the government) and wasting taxpayer dollars.

Is there any reason to keep them around?

inflate prices. This is actually quite common in businesses and so would be in the free market. If I can pay you $100,000 to not do something (be it farming, selling new technology, or whatever), and by you not doing that something, I generate $300,000 then the incentive is right there.

In the free market, though, you'd be paying out of your own pocket. In the current system, you lobby the government to maintain subsidies funded by the taxpayers, which is completely contradictory to free-market principles.

We see this all the time with companies buying up patents and rights in order to keep them surpressed, so their current product can continue to sell (they usually bring those more advanced products out later, after the current product has spread through the market).

Patents and purchasable rights aren't exactly completely in line with a free market, although I do see your point. Buying things up with taxpayer dollars is still a moral issue, though.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 11:01:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 4:42:52 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/3/2011 3:42:47 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/3/2011 10:56:12 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/3/2011 10:51:36 AM, seraine wrote:
What is the point to farm subsidies? What is the point for paying someone to not produce? If there is too many farms, there is no point in artificially keeping it that way. A few farmers will have to find jobs elsewhere which leads to greater overall prosperity. And even worse, the government is playing nanny to some farmers (of course, mainly large commercial farms with a line to the government) and wasting taxpayer dollars.

Is there any reason to keep them around?

inflate prices. This is actually quite common in businesses and so would be in the free market. If I can pay you $100,000 to not do something (be it farming, selling new technology, or whatever), and by you not doing that something, I generate $300,000 then the incentive is right there.

We see this all the time with companies buying up patents and rights in order to keep them surpressed, so their current product can continue to sell (they usually bring those more advanced products out later, after the current product has spread through the market).

But wouldn't prices also be inflated if the artificially high number of farmers dropped?

If we're paying people to not farm, that means that there is market demand for it, and we are fighting against the market demand.

This begs the question, why are we fighting market demand?

If we stop paying them not to farm, then more people would farm, supply would go up, and price would drop.

That's a good thing for everybody except the farmers. Why should the consumers subsidize the farmers to harm themselves?

The other option is the reverse, paying people to farm, meaning that there is not [enough] market demand. In those cases, we pay them, so the price drops and there is greater supply to feed people (if done for food based farming, ethanol is different). If we stop, farmers will leave for other jobs, supply will go down, and price will go up.

The problem there is that it lowers food prices to the point where people overconsume, thinking that the food is cheaper than it actually is because of the invisible subsidy.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2011 9:51:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 11:01:45 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 8/3/2011 4:42:52 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/3/2011 3:42:47 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/3/2011 10:56:12 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/3/2011 10:51:36 AM, seraine wrote:
What is the point to farm subsidies? What is the point for paying someone to not produce? If there is too many farms, there is no point in artificially keeping it that way. A few farmers will have to find jobs elsewhere which leads to greater overall prosperity. And even worse, the government is playing nanny to some farmers (of course, mainly large commercial farms with a line to the government) and wasting taxpayer dollars.

Is there any reason to keep them around?

inflate prices. This is actually quite common in businesses and so would be in the free market. If I can pay you $100,000 to not do something (be it farming, selling new technology, or whatever), and by you not doing that something, I generate $300,000 then the incentive is right there.

We see this all the time with companies buying up patents and rights in order to keep them surpressed, so their current product can continue to sell (they usually bring those more advanced products out later, after the current product has spread through the market).

But wouldn't prices also be inflated if the artificially high number of farmers dropped?

If we're paying people to not farm, that means that there is market demand for it, and we are fighting against the market demand.

This begs the question, why are we fighting market demand?

Because not everyone believes the market is perfect.


If we stop paying them not to farm, then more people would farm, supply would go up, and price would drop.

That's a good thing for everybody except the farmers. Why should the consumers subsidize the farmers to harm themselves?

I'm not arguing that it should be done, only the effects of it.


The other option is the reverse, paying people to farm, meaning that there is not [enough] market demand. In those cases, we pay them, so the price drops and there is greater supply to feed people (if done for food based farming, ethanol is different). If we stop, farmers will leave for other jobs, supply will go down, and price will go up.

The problem there is that it lowers food prices to the point where people overconsume, thinking that the food is cheaper than it actually is because of the invisible subsidy.

Usually that is only done (or at least suppose to be done), when the free market puts the balance of supply and demand at a point where some people starve to death because they can't afford food at market price. It works better than simply giving money to the poor, since lowering the price of food for all helps all (though arguably the rich are paying more because their tax burden increases more than the price of food goes down, but at least they get the price of food to go down rather than just having the money given to the poor), and the poor, who statistically are less wise with money are less able to mis spend it (like on alcohol, or shiny spinning rims for their tires).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2011 10:04:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/5/2011 9:51:13 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/4/2011 11:01:45 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 8/3/2011 4:42:52 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/3/2011 3:42:47 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/3/2011 10:56:12 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/3/2011 10:51:36 AM, seraine wrote:
What is the point to farm subsidies? What is the point for paying someone to not produce? If there is too many farms, there is no point in artificially keeping it that way. A few farmers will have to find jobs elsewhere which leads to greater overall prosperity. And even worse, the government is playing nanny to some farmers (of course, mainly large commercial farms with a line to the government) and wasting taxpayer dollars.

Is there any reason to keep them around?

inflate prices. This is actually quite common in businesses and so would be in the free market. If I can pay you $100,000 to not do something (be it farming, selling new technology, or whatever), and by you not doing that something, I generate $300,000 then the incentive is right there.

We see this all the time with companies buying up patents and rights in order to keep them surpressed, so their current product can continue to sell (they usually bring those more advanced products out later, after the current product has spread through the market).

But wouldn't prices also be inflated if the artificially high number of farmers dropped?

If we're paying people to not farm, that means that there is market demand for it, and we are fighting against the market demand.

This begs the question, why are we fighting market demand?

Because not everyone believes the market is perfect.


Markets, especially competitive markets tend towards Pareto efficiency, in which with an initial distribution of goods, and abilities then nobody is better off unless someone is worse.


Usually that is only done (or at least suppose to be done), when the free market puts the balance of supply and demand at a point where some people starve to death because they can't afford food at market price. It works better than simply giving money to the poor, since lowering the price of food for all helps all (though arguably the rich are paying more because their tax burden increases more than the price of food goes down, but at least they get the price of food to go down rather than just having the money given to the poor), and the poor, who statistically are less wise with money are less able to mis spend it (like on alcohol, or shiny spinning rims for their tires).

Most foods are not subsidized. It's a myth that If food is subsidized then people would starve. Also note that some agricultural programs target people NOT to grow crops, and food is also tariffed (ex: sugar in the US). Also note that subsidizing corn syrup causes more health problems, and health problems cost poor people, big money too.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2011 10:20:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/5/2011 10:04:58 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/5/2011 9:51:13 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/4/2011 11:01:45 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 8/3/2011 4:42:52 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/3/2011 3:42:47 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/3/2011 10:56:12 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/3/2011 10:51:36 AM, seraine wrote:
What is the point to farm subsidies? What is the point for paying someone to not produce? If there is too many farms, there is no point in artificially keeping it that way. A few farmers will have to find jobs elsewhere which leads to greater overall prosperity. And even worse, the government is playing nanny to some farmers (of course, mainly large commercial farms with a line to the government) and wasting taxpayer dollars.

Is there any reason to keep them around?

inflate prices. This is actually quite common in businesses and so would be in the free market. If I can pay you $100,000 to not do something (be it farming, selling new technology, or whatever), and by you not doing that something, I generate $300,000 then the incentive is right there.

We see this all the time with companies buying up patents and rights in order to keep them surpressed, so their current product can continue to sell (they usually bring those more advanced products out later, after the current product has spread through the market).

But wouldn't prices also be inflated if the artificially high number of farmers dropped?

If we're paying people to not farm, that means that there is market demand for it, and we are fighting against the market demand.

This begs the question, why are we fighting market demand?

Because not everyone believes the market is perfect.


Markets, especially competitive markets tend towards Pareto efficiency, in which with an initial distribution of goods, and abilities then nobody is better off unless someone is worse.

In theory, not in practice. Though that is because in practice, companies don't like competition and do what they can to prevent it (buying out competitors, lobbying for bais laws, false claims about quality, etc).




Usually that is only done (or at least suppose to be done), when the free market puts the balance of supply and demand at a point where some people starve to death because they can't afford food at market price. It works better than simply giving money to the poor, since lowering the price of food for all helps all (though arguably the rich are paying more because their tax burden increases more than the price of food goes down, but at least they get the price of food to go down rather than just having the money given to the poor), and the poor, who statistically are less wise with money are less able to mis spend it (like on alcohol, or shiny spinning rims for their tires).

Most foods are not subsidized. It's a myth that If food is subsidized then people would starve. Also note that some agricultural programs target people NOT to grow crops, and food is also tariffed (ex: sugar in the US). Also note that subsidizing corn syrup causes more health problems, and health problems cost poor people, big money too.

I'm assuming you are refering to subsidizing farmers to not produce that would cause people to starve being a myth (since subsidizes can go either way). I can't imagine how anyone would think that paying farms to produce more food would lead anyone to starvation.

As for the corn-syrup, that is a myth that it has anymore health problems than plain old table sugar.

http://www.mayoclinic.com...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2011 11:25:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/5/2011 9:51:13 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/4/2011 11:01:45 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 8/3/2011 4:42:52 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/3/2011 3:42:47 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/3/2011 10:56:12 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/3/2011 10:51:36 AM, seraine wrote:
What is the point to farm subsidies? What is the point for paying someone to not produce? If there is too many farms, there is no point in artificially keeping it that way. A few farmers will have to find jobs elsewhere which leads to greater overall prosperity. And even worse, the government is playing nanny to some farmers (of course, mainly large commercial farms with a line to the government) and wasting taxpayer dollars.

Is there any reason to keep them around?

inflate prices. This is actually quite common in businesses and so would be in the free market. If I can pay you $100,000 to not do something (be it farming, selling new technology, or whatever), and by you not doing that something, I generate $300,000 then the incentive is right there.

We see this all the time with companies buying up patents and rights in order to keep them surpressed, so their current product can continue to sell (they usually bring those more advanced products out later, after the current product has spread through the market).

But wouldn't prices also be inflated if the artificially high number of farmers dropped?

If we're paying people to not farm, that means that there is market demand for it, and we are fighting against the market demand.

This begs the question, why are we fighting market demand?

Because not everyone believes the market is perfect.

But why isn't it perfect in this case? If there is market demand for more food, shouldn't more food be produced?

If we stop paying them not to farm, then more people would farm, supply would go up, and price would drop.

That's a good thing for everybody except the farmers. Why should the consumers subsidize the farmers to harm themselves?

I'm not arguing that it should be done, only the effects of it.

Oh. Does anyone out there actually support farm subsidies?

The other option is the reverse, paying people to farm, meaning that there is not [enough] market demand. In those cases, we pay them, so the price drops and there is greater supply to feed people (if done for food based farming, ethanol is different). If we stop, farmers will leave for other jobs, supply will go down, and price will go up.

The problem there is that it lowers food prices to the point where people overconsume, thinking that the food is cheaper than it actually is because of the invisible subsidy.

Usually that is only done (or at least suppose to be done), when the free market puts the balance of supply and demand at a point where some people starve to death because they can't afford food at market price.

That doesn't seem like a reality these days, especially with food kitchens and such things. The only recent event I can think of that had such impact was the Great Depression, and FDR's response was actually to subsidize non-farming.

It works better than simply giving money to the poor, since lowering the price of food for all helps all (though arguably the rich are paying more because their tax burden increases more than the price of food goes down, but at least they get the price of food to go down rather than just having the money given to the poor),

That in turn leads to the overconsumption mentioned earlier.

and the poor, who statistically are less wise with money are less able to mis spend it (like on alcohol, or shiny spinning rims for their tires).

Alcoholic beverages use products from farms, no? They would thus be subsidized to a similar extent. It's also harder for the poor to misuse food directly given to them at food kitchens than any amount of money.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2011 11:54:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/5/2011 11:25:37 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 8/5/2011 9:51:13 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/4/2011 11:01:45 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 8/3/2011 4:42:52 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/3/2011 3:42:47 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/3/2011 10:56:12 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/3/2011 10:51:36 AM, seraine wrote:
What is the point to farm subsidies? What is the point for paying someone to not produce? If there is too many farms, there is no point in artificially keeping it that way. A few farmers will have to find jobs elsewhere which leads to greater overall prosperity. And even worse, the government is playing nanny to some farmers (of course, mainly large commercial farms with a line to the government) and wasting taxpayer dollars.

Is there any reason to keep them around?

inflate prices. This is actually quite common in businesses and so would be in the free market. If I can pay you $100,000 to not do something (be it farming, selling new technology, or whatever), and by you not doing that something, I generate $300,000 then the incentive is right there.

We see this all the time with companies buying up patents and rights in order to keep them surpressed, so their current product can continue to sell (they usually bring those more advanced products out later, after the current product has spread through the market).

But wouldn't prices also be inflated if the artificially high number of farmers dropped?

If we're paying people to not farm, that means that there is market demand for it, and we are fighting against the market demand.

This begs the question, why are we fighting market demand?

Because not everyone believes the market is perfect.

But why isn't it perfect in this case? If there is market demand for more food, shouldn't more food be produced?

Not always, note the massive weight problem that the US currently has. More food =/= better (not always, at least).


If we stop paying them not to farm, then more people would farm, supply would go up, and price would drop.

That's a good thing for everybody except the farmers. Why should the consumers subsidize the farmers to harm themselves?

I'm not arguing that it should be done, only the effects of it.

Oh. Does anyone out there actually support farm subsidies?

That depends what kind of subsidies you are refering to, to stop producing or to increase production.


The other option is the reverse, paying people to farm, meaning that there is not [enough] market demand. In those cases, we pay them, so the price drops and there is greater supply to feed people (if done for food based farming, ethanol is different). If we stop, farmers will leave for other jobs, supply will go down, and price will go up.

The problem there is that it lowers food prices to the point where people overconsume, thinking that the food is cheaper than it actually is because of the invisible subsidy.

Usually that is only done (or at least suppose to be done), when the free market puts the balance of supply and demand at a point where some people starve to death because they can't afford food at market price.

That doesn't seem like a reality these days, especially with food kitchens and such things. The only recent event I can think of that had such impact was the Great Depression, and FDR's response was actually to subsidize non-farming.

That was because farming of the time was causing erosion of the soil and caused the dust bowl. This was caused by not rotating crops or livestock and giving the land a chance to recover.


It works better than simply giving money to the poor, since lowering the price of food for all helps all (though arguably the rich are paying more because their tax burden increases more than the price of food goes down, but at least they get the price of food to go down rather than just having the money given to the poor),

That in turn leads to the overconsumption mentioned earlier.

Which isn't always bad.


and the poor, who statistically are less wise with money are less able to mis spend it (like on alcohol, or shiny spinning rims for their tires).

Alcoholic beverages use products from farms, no? They would thus be subsidized to a similar extent. It's also harder for the poor to misuse food directly given to them at food kitchens than any amount of money.

And in order for food to be given to them (given, implying free or at reduced cost) means that the government is paying for extra food, or paying above what the market would, i.e. a subsidy.

Regarding alcohol, it is made from certain types of food (Whiskey from corn/maize/grain, Run from cane sugar, Gin from juniper berries, etc), that is also usually adjusted through a tax to compensate (so if the drop in grain prices, lowers the cost of alcohol by $1, a $1 tax is applied).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2011 4:46:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 8:18:34 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 8/3/2011 10:47:52 PM, Tiel wrote:
Reply: No, it's not keeping anything afloat. It's the only thing the system has ever been. It's the very thing that was destined to destroy it all along. It is failing, as all such things governed by such are destined to fail. Your perspective of it "keeping afloat" is nothing more than you realizing that it is failing and attributing it's last breaths to the very thing that as destined to destroy it.

It's failing because of bogus policies like farm subsidies, welfare, social security, equal pay for equal work laws, minimum wage laws, price controls, etc

Self interest and greed are the greatest motivators in the majority of humans and is what drives humans to start companies, employ people who need jobs, provide goods and services at affordable prices, construct factories, build machines, etc



Reply: No it's not. People do those things because they want the lifestyle that comes along with it. People want those products. People want those services. The greedy ones are just the wants who try and take control of it so everyone has to go through them to get the things that they want. It's a corrupt flawed system and it will fail. Your failure to see this won't stop it from happening. The smarter people get, the more they are going to see the flaws within the system. People have more information at their finger tips than ever before. Once capitalist ideals aren't passed on from old to young anymore because of a mental shift within a generation, the system will change. This is not the first time such things have happened. It's similar to how the monarchy/dictator design got replaced politically. The capitalist/domination design will be replaced economically in a similar way.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 1:31:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/5/2011 4:46:20 PM, Tiel wrote:
Reply: No it's not. People do those things because they want the lifestyle that comes along with it. People want those products. People want those services. The greedy ones are just the wants who try and take control of it so everyone has to go through them to get the things that they want. It's a corrupt flawed system and it will fail. Your failure to see this won't stop it from happening. The smarter people get, the more they are going to see the flaws within the system. People have more information at their finger tips than ever before. Once capitalist ideals aren't passed on from old to young anymore because of a mental shift within a generation, the system will change. This is not the first time such things have happened. It's similar to how the monarchy/dictator design got replaced politically. The capitalist/domination design will be replaced economically in a similar way.

The greedy ones are those are interested in providing affordable and high quality goods and services to the masses in order to become extraordinarily wealthy.

Since most people are inherently greedy many other people compete with one another to provide higher quality goods and services at lower prices and except for the rare occasion of a monopoly occuring, there is always competition forcing companies to compete forcing prices to lower.

Competition is necessary for capitalism to succeed, it's the most important factor, so I don't see where you are getting this idea of capitalism being some system where one entity/individual controls the entire market of a certain good or service while you have completely thrown away the competition factor.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.