To subsidize or not to subsidize: Dairy

Originally Posted by haypoint

Funny, I get accused of supporting Big Government and Big Business and you want to give more power to Big Business and that shifts more government cooperation with Big Business.

A couple hundred years ago, if the richest citizens would have bought off the government like they do today, there's be a run on pitch forks and torches.

Yet you want to turn the farming community on its ear because you fear someone is getting something for nothing. Ruining the lives of the American dairyman will not cut your taxes, will not lower the price of milk and will not promote small farms. Exacttly the opposite will be the likely outcome. Bring it on if that's what you want.

Originally Posted by blooba

There is a BIG difference between big gov and big business. An improperly run big business will(or should) go bankrupt, look at these big banks that shoulda went outta business. No matter what they say, they were not too big to fail...lol A Government can never go out of business without complete anarchy.

Cutting subsidies will not cut my taxes? about $250/yr goes from my pocket to subsidies whether its my money now they are spending or my money later they are spending its still my money.

No it won't lower the price of milk but if it gets too high I will be able to buy myself a dairy cow,be self reliant and "stick it to the man" and break even instead of losing money by paying my share of the subsides and not taking advantage of the cheap milk.

Originally Posted by willow_girl

>>The programs I cited have done real and lasting good for the people who have benefited from them, and (I would argue) for society as a whole. Seniors are vastly better off today due to Social Security <<

No argument from me, but I'm still waiting on you to tell me a long term gov't program that is both good policy and wisely implemented. You said gov't could do that, but you still haven't told me a program that you think fits your description.


>>So we should just count on businesses to do the right thing? What's the recourse if they don't?<<

Capitalism is the recourse. Enron did the wrong thing and the market destroyed them. Gov't didn't get involved until after the SHTFI. admit bad things will still happen in the short run, but absent gov't protections, the market gets rid of the companies that don't give a good product at a fair price.

>>Here's a question for you. If supply and demand should set price, without government interference, would it be OK for the electric company to charge an exorbitant price to a customer whom it knows is bedridden and on oxygen, and desperately needs a stable source of electricity in order to survive? <<

Bad example because electricity is gov't controlled top to bottom. Gov't sets up a monopoly because the gov't benefits from the taxes and control. And you are taking the conversation away from the value of gov't subsidies.

>>Which countries are those? I went looking, and did find a list of the ones with the greatest economic growth in 2011. They were Mongolia, Turkmenistan, Ghana, Qutar, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Panama, Zimbabwe, China and Iraq. Please feel free to relocate to any of these fast-growing nations if that is your wish. As for me, I prefer life here in the good ol' U.S. of A. <<

I said 50 years, not last year. Hong Kong, Singapore, and China are 3 that I was thinking of. And before you change the subject again, I don't advocate everything about those companies, only pointing out that the citizens as a whole prosper most when gov't gets mostly out of the way.

>>The veracity of this statement hinges on the word "prospered." China, as we see above, has experienced explosive economic growth, but its people do not enjoy political freedom and many live in poverty. Shall we measure "prosperity" by the number of millionaires, or by living conditions for average citizens? <<

China's improvement has been relatively recently, only since they have moved towards capitalism. Where they have yet to abandon central planning, on the farms for instance, a peasant class still exists. Please don't confuse the issue by supposing that I am advocating their political system. I advocate political democracy and economic democracy, aka capitalism, an imperfect but best available system.

>>I think we have a basic philosophical difference here. You see our government as a juggernaut bent on crushing free enterprise; I see it as a source of checks and balances for the power wielded by the powerful (for instance, multinational corporations). At the end of the day, in our democratic republic, government is what the majority of the people want it to be. <<

Actually, I agree with that. It's just you want gov't to protect your pet industry and I want gov't to create a level playing feild with law that applies equally to all.

>>Now, go gather up three or four friends and play the game "Monopoly" for a few hours. Does it conclude with everyone in business, prospering and trading freely with one another? Or does it end with one person holding all the wealth while the rest are bankrupt? So much for "mostly free capitalism," eh? Have fun!

Originally Posted by Wind in Her Hair

I have long said that when consumers start paying REAL prices for subsidized goods and services, they will know, understand and determine for themselves their REAL value.

that includes gasoline

Originally Posted by gracie88

So here's a question - I'm not a fan of subsidies, let me say that first. I get that they make sense in that they stabilize food prices and dairies by nature don't cope with price swings well, but I have idealogical issues with any industry that needs that kind of public support to make a go of it. My MIL grew up on a farm back in the day. Way back in the day, when you put your 5-yr old first born to work milking cows by hand... The dairy was only part of the farm, they also raised pigs which was apparently pretty typical. So they grew crops and the poo went on the crops, they grew milk cows which ate the crops and provided milk and poo, and they raised pigs which ate the crops and excess milk and milk by-products and apparently were the main actual cash crop, given that the dairy may or may not make a profit, but pork always did. It wasn't just a little farm with a couple milk cows, it wouldn't compare to dairy numbers now since the milking was all done by hand, but it was comparable to any other dairy of the time. Her mother also raised chickens with broody hens before they got incubators which is another interesting story, but I digress. Anyway, it seems like, with greater diversity, comes greater stability, so at what point did it become a good idea to have these huge, specialized dairies that are so fragile that we have to subsidize them to keep them alive? See, I got to my question eventually I would like to see the government encourage more decentralized and less specialized food production. I think it would make the food supply overall more resilient.

Originally Posted by gracie88

So here's a question - I'm not a fan of subsidies, let me say that first. I get that they make sense in that they stabilize food prices and dairies by nature don't cope with price swings well, but I have idealogical issues with any industry that needs that kind of public support to make a go of it. My MIL grew up on a farm back in the day. Way back in the day, when you put your 5-yr old first born to work milking cows by hand... The dairy was only part of the farm, they also raised pigs which was apparently pretty typical. So they grew crops and the poo went on the crops, they grew milk cows which ate the crops and provided milk and poo, and they raised pigs which ate the crops and excess milk and milk by-products and apparently were the main actual cash crop, given that the dairy may or may not make a profit, but pork always did. It wasn't just a little farm with a couple milk cows, it wouldn't compare to dairy numbers now since the milking was all done by hand, but it was comparable to any other dairy of the time. Her mother also raised chickens with broody hens before they got incubators which is another interesting story, but I digress. Anyway, it seems like, with greater diversity, comes greater stability, so at what point did it become a good idea to have these huge, specialized dairies that are so fragile that we have to subsidize them to keep them alive? See, I got to my question eventually I would like to see the government encourage more decentralized and less specialized food production. I think it would make the food supply overall more resilient.

Originally Posted by willow_girl

>>Umm hello? Go back and read my previous posts ... I cited several.<<

Oh, I didn't realize you were saying that Social Security was good policy and wisely implemented. So you think that the program that is on track to bankrupt the USA, if Obama doesn't do it first, is wisely implemented? You think the program that gives Warren Buffet, G. H. W. Bush, and every other millionaire over age 65 a monthly welfare check is wisely implemented? (note: I'm not knocking the wealthy, just the welfare payment.)

>>Other factors come into play besides price. While capitalism is good at weeding out inefficient companies, what about evil ones? Shouldn't Monsanto be defunct by now, given how widely it is hated? <<

As much as you and I might dislike what Monsanto does, the hate isn't as wide as you believe. They have many customers happily buying their products. And unfortunately, they have non-capitalistic lobbyists making them plenty of gov't dollars and protections as well. Enron, evil and gone. Worldcomm, corrupt and gone. Bernie Madoff's company, corrupt and gone. All of these companies were protected by the gov't at some point.

>>And you are dodging my question. There is no morality in pure capitalism. Anything that increases profits or market share is good. So burning coal without scrubbers is good, because scrubbers cost money ... and disposing of hazardous waste improperly is OK because it saves a buck. Right?<<

Perhaps, but where a company harms others or the environment, we have laws to protect us. Remember, I'm not for zero gov't. Also, would you buy widgets from a company that is known to dump toxins in the drinking water? I wouldn't and together with a few million of our HT friends, we could mount an effective boycott.

>>I would argue that countries prosper when governments are stable, implement wise regulatory policies, do not excessively run up debt, and don't engage in unnecessary warfare.<<

Well I agree that all that is also important.

>>If you go back and read my previous posts, you'll see that I advocate moving toward a free-market solution, but doing it gradually and wisely, in such a way that it doesn't destroy the industry.<<

So we aren't all that far off from one another, I just want to move faster than you. I have been hearing for at least 25 years from farmers who advocate that subsidies end in 5 years. But the end of that 5 years never gets here, so I'm impatient and doubtful of any future promised improvements. It's kind of like the almost mythical balanced budget that every presidential candidate promises in the future.

>>Yet it neatly replicates much of human history. Kings and serfs ...<<

Originally Posted by rambler

All free enterprise, business, leads to bigger, more specialized business. That is the down side to free enterprise. If you are into Star Trek, the Ferengi way.

All govt controlled worlds leads to loss of personal freedom, less work per individual, and total dependency. Again in the Star Trek world, The Borg.

Neither extreme is a good thing, be miserable to live on a Ferengi world, but I do notice they did business with and were friends with the Ferengi. The Borg, on the other hand, were mortal enemies.....

It's best to live somewhere in the middle, with a little govt control of a younger free enterprise system. As we in the USA did in the 1950s through 80s.

To your question: Farmers were taught in the 1960s and 70s that specialization is where it's at, you can't make money or feed your family from the 160 acre farm any more. Bigger tractors, bigger barns, and so forth were coming from the factories. The 7 corner grociery stores in my town were turning into the 2 giant grociery stores open 24/7 we have now.

Your grandparents needed a set of tools to plant crops, a set of tools to house and milk cows,a nd a set of tools to house and feed pork. There were no child labor laws, and they didn't need to pay the cell phone bill, sat TV bill, or internet bill every month.

They didn't have to meet the USDA or FSA or NRCS rules and setbacks and regulations.

It's very costly to own a tractor, silage chopper, and wagons to fill the silo, when you only use them 2 weeks a year. It's cheaper to hire that done, fella with a big chopper, big wagons, can do the work for you and many others for less cost than if each of you has small versions of those machines.

And so on and on.

There is a smalltime dairy creamery here, they make their own cheese. They promote their hometown, smaller than Kraft or AMPI roots.

They are putting up their 3rd dairy in my county. This one is 2000 cows. The other 2 are 3000 and 4000 cows.

Remember,t his is a small family run business, appeal to the 'keep things small' folks like you.

My neighbor sells to AMPI, he expanded a few years ago, one of the bigger dairies left owned by a farmer, he has cattle, and crops, and chickens, used to have pigs donno if he got back in after the bad prices a decade ago... He has 120 cows.

It's all in how you look at it, I guess.

--->Paul