Farmers Seek Subsidies as U.S. Eats More Imports

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/business/03farm.html

We can't compete, so tax people more so that we can charge them higher prices. STFU. Where are all those midwest and southeast conservative values, now?

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 3:07 PM. Reason : 46]

12/2/2006 3:06:33 PM

I agree. Farm subsidies are one of the most infuriating wastes of taxpayer money out there.


The worst is when we pay jackasses to grow tobacco, then buy it from them only to destroy it.

12/2/2006 3:08:47 PM

the tobacco and peanut quotas and price supports are a thing of the past, and farm subsidies are in many ways a national security issue. a nation that relies on imported food is very vulnerable if that supply gets interrupted. also, a lot of the imported grain comes from nations (such as Canada) who subsidize their farmers, allowing them to sell to us for a lower price.

12/3/2006 12:13:13 AM

Then why shouldn't we eat Canadian stuff at a cheaper price?

Also, don't we export a shit-ton of food products too? There's no reason for us to subsidize export industries for "national security reasons."

12/3/2006 12:15:14 AM

The worst part is what our farm subsidies do to farmers in other countries.

12/3/2006 12:16:51 AM

I love the post-911 bullshit people are shoving down our throats to justify everything under the sun. If china wants to cut us off, prices for food will go up, making it more profitable for american farmers. See how that works, comrade?



Out of all the threats that we could possibly face, food is one the huge ass united states could handle with no problem. You're going to need another bogeyman to justify the greed and laziness of these farmers.


[Edited on December 3, 2006 at 12:47 AM. Reason : V everything old is new again]

12/3/2006 12:40:17 AM

skok, that line has been used WAY WAY WAY WAY before 9/11

I think WW II was when it cropped up.

12/3/2006 12:45:04 AM

yeah, ask the British how that dependency on other countries worked for them back then

12/3/2006 1:07:49 AM

^I guess you are referring to Britain's journey from empire to first-rate country? Oh man, that was soo bad for them.

Next bogeyman. This is fish in a barrel.

12/3/2006 1:25:24 AM

Remember the lend-lease program? Part of it was to send the means to produce food to Britain because they couldn't produce enough to feed themselves during WWII, but go on believing that a nation that relies on imported food is not a "fish in a barrel" if you want to.

12/3/2006 1:48:21 AM

nah, our corporate farmers can compete, its the independents that can't


we don't rely on imported food....

we export it, we are the greatest producer/exporter of food in the world i think

[Edited on December 3, 2006 at 2:24 AM. Reason : a]

12/3/2006 2:16:27 AM

Subsistance farming for the win. Granted not everyone has this option, but unless you live in an urban area is it really that hard to grow a tiny garden with 3 or 4 or your favorite veggies instead of buying junk from the grocery store? [/hippie]

12/3/2006 7:56:47 AM

If I remember correctly, Britain was perfectly capable of feeding itself, the problem was technical: fuel to power the machines, parts to keep the machines running, chemicals, manpower to work the fields, etc.

That said, does anyone really expect another world-war anytime soon? I don't, and that's not to say there will never be one, but what's wrong with waiting until another world war is a likely outcome to actually prepare for it? China is going to get uppity and start attacking its neighbors before it attacks America, we can ban imports at that time and have plenty of time to become self sufficient. Of course, it might make sense to only ban overseas imports, as imports from Canada or Mexico are unlikely to be interrupted since they can come by rail.

12/3/2006 10:20:40 AM

^^ok, Pol Pot.

if you want to live in a grossly inefficient or back-asswards society, there is no shortage of them around the globe. no need to return America to the Dark Ages.

12/3/2006 11:26:35 AM

if everyone grew their own garden then the price of seeds would sky rocket, and we'd be back bitching about how much it sucked to sow the potato patch this year.

i'm all for people doing their own gardening, hell, i plan on it because homegrown stuff tastes better to me... but to say that subsistance farming as a national referendum is a good idea... i don't know, i can't get behind that.

12/3/2006 12:22:33 PM

Where was he advocating a national subsistence farming mandate in what he just said?

12/3/2006 11:00:52 PM

mandated or not, it's retarded unless you just enjoy doing it.

12/3/2006 11:09:44 PM

All he was doing was advocating something he supports people doing. It would be no different than saying "raising your own cattle is nice"...he even said "not everyone has the option". WTG making the predictable leap-in-logic to communism that so many of you libertarians love to do.

12/3/2006 11:19:00 PM

Wow, I thought self sufficiency was the backbone of the libertarian/Republican model. But I guess not. Should I have called it a "Victory Garden"? Come comrade, till your soil like a good serf.

12/4/2006 12:13:46 AM

It is definately tough to make it as a farmer today. The last farmer in my close family got out of it a few years ago with support from his parents who built the farm over a 30 year period. They did very well for themselves, but I trust them when they tell me farming is really in trouble. They now own over 2000 acres, largely irrigated, which they lease to other farmers and a hunting club.

Last year we went out and picked a few buckets of potatos that a farmer was just going to leave in the ground and let rot. The market was so bad that he was better off cutting his losses than spending the money involved with harvesting them to sell.

12/4/2006 12:29:53 AM

it's stupid that our best idea is to pay farmers to farm, but I don't want to live in a country where we depend on another country for one of the most basic human needs. end of story.

12/4/2006 12:30:42 AM

Or, in the case of the tobacco buyout, we pay farmers not to farm. Well, we pay them not to grow tobacco, but they can still grow other crops. My girlfriend's parents took advantage of that.

12/4/2006 12:33:34 AM

tobacco subsidies are stupid

12/4/2006 12:36:25 AM

Nope, rational non-coersive interdependence is the backbone of the libertarian model, I don't want to say what the Republican model is.

12/4/2006 12:46:08 AM

the biggest threat to america's food supply is not subsidies, but proprietary seed technology. GM foods do not produce seeds that can be grown later on, they have to be bought each year.

It's sickening. Also, the United States should engage its trade partners to remove subsidies so producers can compete on a level playing field.

12/4/2006 3:44:54 AM

Quote :

"Wow, I thought self sufficiency was the backbone of the libertarian/Republican model. But I guess not. Should I have called it a "Victory Garden"? Come comrade, till your soil like a good serf. "

You can be self sufficient--and more economically EFFICIENT (on both a micro and macro level) by working at something you are better suited for and having enough money to buy food from those who raise the food commercially and much more efficiently than you ever could.

12/4/2006 3:45:12 AM

You are implying that I mean for people to only be farmers. This is by no means true. I am saying that it is not out of the realm of possibility for people to have a full time job and come home and take a few minutes to tend to a few select fruits or vegetables of their liking. They don't have to sell them or try and turn some sort of a profit. The benefit is not having to buy substandard produce from commercial growers that is chalked full of pesticides and probably had to travel hundreds of miles to get the store in the first place.

12/4/2006 4:14:46 AM

Quote :

"Subsistance farming for the win. Granted not everyone has this option, but unless you live in an urban area is it really that hard to grow a tiny garden with 3 or 4 or your favorite veggies instead of buying junk from the grocery store? [/hippie]"

I don't agree with the subsistance farming......however I do think everybody should have a small garden at their home if they have a yard


or in my case a medium size garden

12/4/2006 8:07:38 AM

Let me redefine my intent. I don't prescribe that everyone gets some live stock and a field and say screw growers. So total subsistance farming is not my aim, but as ^ said it is a wonderful idea for people to grow a little garden and do their part for themselves and the environment.

12/4/2006 9:26:47 AM

^ Why can't I just buy by home-grown food from you? Perhaps you could set up a store and sell to the community at large. We could call it Food Lion!

12/4/2006 9:37:39 AM

Quote :

"part for themselves and the environment."

Probably costs me more, so I don't know that it will help ME

I'd probably not do it organically, so I doubt it'd be great for the environment either.

12/4/2006 9:58:57 AM

Seeds and soil for 3-4 vegetables in a small garden is going to cost you more than driving to and buying them from a store over the period of a growing season? And learning how to grow things organically is as easy as going to the library or using teh intarwebs.

^^ The point is to grow some things yourself so that you don't have to buy or sell for a small portion of your produce.

12/4/2006 10:16:42 AM

I didn't say it was difficult to grow organically, I said I wouldn't do it. Its easier to dump pesticides on there.

And yes, buying the seeds and tending it myself is more expensive than swinging by the grocery store (since I'm there anyway for other things I can't grow myself, unless I start milking the cat)

When you add my time cost into tending the garden, its obvious it isn't worth it. I could be posting on TWW.

12/4/2006 10:22:36 AM

The problem with the subsistence farming would be if people got no utility out of it. If someone enjoys tending a garden in their spare time, that's wonderful. However if they consider it work, chances are they make more money, and society is better off, if they just work their own job and buy the food from some larger company that can take advantage of economies of scale to produce the food faster and cheaper.

12/4/2006 11:14:25 AM

^Yup.

12/4/2006 11:58:59 AM

Quote :

"You are implying that I mean for people to only be farmers. This is by no means true. I am saying that it is not out of the realm of possibility for people to have a full time job and come home and take a few minutes to tend to a few select fruits or vegetables of their liking."

no, that's not at all what i'm implying.

^^kris is saying the same thing as me. if you enjoy doing it, then fine, but it's somewhere between difficult and impossible to justify doing it in practical terms.


also, how many of you have ever tended a garden? how many of you have ever dug potatos, picked beans, plowed anything, shucked corn, etc? i've done all of the above, and let me tell you, it is not the highest and greatest use of my time by any bottom line measure. if i wanted to do it for fun, that would be different, but i've done it and don't like it, so i just get what i want commercially grown.

me growing my own food wouldn't work out much better than a commercial farmer flying jets on combat missions. there is a reason that we each specialize in something.

[Edited on December 4, 2006 at 3:58 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

12/4/2006 3:55:28 PM

those who like totally organic vegetables should come to my house and see what the worms did to my turnip tops.

12/4/2006 4:38:27 PM

organic is the sux and is a stuck up thing to do, but if you have the $$ go for it. Personally I see the theft of GM crops by brazil and other countries more of a risk the the USA ag scene. And we do need to keep farms in business for the simple fact that once you turn farmland into housing developments (hello Cary) its awful hard to go the other way. But subsidies are not the answer just need to weed out the dumber farmers and turn it over the the guys who know what they are doing.

12/4/2006 5:10:32 PM

Food will be fabricated using nanotechnology in the future anyway.

12/4/2006 5:35:33 PM

If there is anything stupider than farm subsidies, its fucking subsistence farming. It's only worth it for poor people or stupid people who can't do math.

12/5/2006 1:34:02 AM

Farm subsidies have their place, not as much now thanks to the speed the we can transport food and the length of time we can keep it fresh, but at one time, it was a neccesary measure to fight starvation that could be caused by natural shifts in the weather.

12/5/2006 1:47:20 AM

Yep, the market power of God, you forgot that one Kris.

12/5/2006 7:28:36 AM

I prefer to think of it as naturally caused market instability, and we know the only way to tackle market instability is to widen the market or use government intervention.

12/5/2006 12:25:42 PM

It's all those people shopping at Super Compare Foods.

The Coke in there is imported from Mexico!

12/5/2006 5:03:25 PM

You can stop worrying about farm subsidies. There are less and less farmers each year. You say that 9/11 caused a food scare. When mad cow disease hit the USA beef prices fell hard. The avain flu virus or Bird flu can still hit american poultry. other strains of the Avian flu have already occured in America. The security of the food you eat is based on that country's rules and regulations for its farmers. The midwest states are irrigatting at a high enough rate now that its projected by the year 2030 the water sources for irrigation will be maxed out. That will end the Corn belt and part of the wheat belt. Support your local farmers or eat recyled food.

12/6/2006 9:14:11 AM

Quote :

"and we know the only way to tackle market instability"

I think you meant to say "The only way I know"

Because I know about this nifty thing called the pricing system that does a better job.

12/6/2006 9:38:59 AM

If all that is true then it seems we should worry about farm subsidies even more...

12/6/2006 9:55:03 AM

everyone wants cheap food. The US citizens spend less of their total income on food than most every other country in the world. Some subsadies are not great but some are well needed. Its getting to the point in NC that the land the farmers tend is worth more to put houses on it than farm it.

12/6/2006 11:43:40 AM

Judging by the high price of housing, it seems to me that mankind could be better served with more houses and fewer farms.

12/6/2006 12:27:31 PM

Quote :

"Because I know about this nifty thing called the pricing system that does a better job."

It's the one causing the problem. It's the very thing we have to patch up.

Quote :

"The US citizens spend less of their total income on food than most every other country in the world."

That's going to be obvious, we have more money than almost every other country in the world, obviously we will spend proportionally less of it on food.

Quote :

"Its getting to the point in NC that the land the farmers tend is worth more to put houses on it than farm it."

They should go into real estate then.

12/6/2006 3:15:46 PM