aTmAg said:

---

Hagen95 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

When it comes to food security, New Zealand as I posted above has already run the experiment. There will be pain in the short run and farmers will need to in some cases adjust their crops to better fit their land but we won't run out of food. Also some farms will go out of business either because the farmer isn't a good entrepreneur or his land isn't suitable for growing crops profitably.

Remember we are the first country in the history of mankind where if you are poor, you are more likely to die of complications of obesity than starvation. The American farmer is absolutely amazing in what they have done with productivity and I believe they would on average be more productive if the government got out of their business.

---

I appreciate the effort, but using NZ (population of 5.2 million) isn't a good comparison. Can you find something a little more applicable to the US (335 million)?

---

How about the fact that China, when they had nearly double our current population, starved millions of people via government run farming? Then, after a few farmers decided to break the rules and embrace free market exploding their production, the government adopted free market farming across the entire country, which ended their famines forever?

---

We don't have the US government running farming. Comparing what we've been doing for decades to what China did to try to make a point against what we are doing is disingenuous.

The worst that happens with the US subsidies is some market distortion. The best that happens is a stable food supply.

Perhaps allowing farmers to go it alone and get crop insurance etc would work. I haven't seen any analysis on it. But the subsidies we give to ag is waaaaaay down on the list of things to be concerned about as far as spending.

Quote:

---

The entire reason farmers pushed for the USDA in the first place was to increase the barrier of entry and to protect themselves from smaller competition. They did so in ORDER to be able to jack up prices. Not to keep them down or keep riots from happening or any of that nonsense.

---

Wut?

So, in the middle of a Civil War (war always ramps up prices) at a time when 53% of Americans were engaged in farming, the Lincoln Administration looked around and said

"We have too many people farming, we need to drive out the small farmers, and jack up prices.

Forget Bobby Lee down in Virginia, THIS is important."

Logos Stick said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Hagen95 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

When it comes to food security, New Zealand as I posted above has already run the experiment. There will be pain in the short run and farmers will need to in some cases adjust their crops to better fit their land but we won't run out of food. Also some farms will go out of business either because the farmer isn't a good entrepreneur or his land isn't suitable for growing crops profitably.

Remember we are the first country in the history of mankind where if you are poor, you are more likely to die of complications of obesity than starvation. The American farmer is absolutely amazing in what they have done with productivity and I believe they would on average be more productive if the government got out of their business.

---

I appreciate the effort, but using NZ (population of 5.2 million) isn't a good comparison. Can you find something a little more applicable to the US (335 million)?

---

How about the fact that China, when they had nearly double our current population, starved millions of people via government run farming? Then, after a few farmers decided to break the rules and embrace free market exploding their production, the government adopted free market farming across the entire country, which ended their famines forever?

---

We don't have the US government running farming. Comparing what we've been doing for decades to what China did to try to make a point against what we are doing is disingenuous.

The worst that happens with the US subsidies is some market distortion. The best that happens is a stable food supply.

Perhaps allowing farmers to go it alone and get crop insurance etc would work. I haven't seen any analysis on it. But the subsidies we give to ag is waaaaaay down on the list of things to be concerned about as far as spending.

---

You know what is more disingenuous? Asking for another example country that is applicable to a our 335 million people when he knows damn well that we are the 3rd most populous nation on Earth and that neither China or India are free market bastions. So I provided the best example I could think of for a huge country.

How about another: Guess which large nation does subsidize their farmers.... India. Guess which country is famous for starvation and abject poverty? I'll leave it to you to fill in that blank.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Exactly what regulations do you think are driving toward monster farms?

---

Go read up on "regulatory capture" and get back to me. It happens in every industry. Farming is not immune.

---

Not doing your work for you.

Your assertion, your burden of proof

---

Actually, the burden of proof is on you.

[Actuall, it is on you and you are not going to make insinuations about other posters if you are too lazy to provide proof to your own post. -Staff]

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

The entire reason farmers pushed for the USDA in the first place was to increase the barrier of entry and to protect themselves from smaller competition. They did so in ORDER to be able to jack up prices. Not to keep them down or keep riots from happening or any of that nonsense.

---

Wut?

So, in the middle of a Civil War (war always ramps up prices) at a time when 53% of Americans were engaged in farming, the Lincoln Administration looked around and said

"We have too many people farming, we need to drive out the small farmers, and jack up prices.

Forget Bobby Lee down in Virginia, THIS is important."

---

I'm talking about regulations such as the meat inspection act and subsidies, which didn't happen until much later.

aTmAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Hagen95 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

When it comes to food security, New Zealand as I posted above has already run the experiment. There will be pain in the short run and farmers will need to in some cases adjust their crops to better fit their land but we won't run out of food. Also some farms will go out of business either because the farmer isn't a good entrepreneur or his land isn't suitable for growing crops profitably.

Remember we are the first country in the history of mankind where if you are poor, you are more likely to die of complications of obesity than starvation. The American farmer is absolutely amazing in what they have done with productivity and I believe they would on average be more productive if the government got out of their business.

---

I appreciate the effort, but using NZ (population of 5.2 million) isn't a good comparison. Can you find something a little more applicable to the US (335 million)?

---

How about the fact that China, when they had nearly double our current population, starved millions of people via government run farming? Then, after a few farmers decided to break the rules and embrace free market exploding their production, the government adopted free market farming across the entire country, which ended their famines forever?

---

We don't have the US government running farming. Comparing what we've been doing for decades to what China did to try to make a point against what we are doing is disingenuous.

The worst that happens with the US subsidies is some market distortion. The best that happens is a stable food supply.

Perhaps allowing farmers to go it alone and get crop insurance etc would work. I haven't seen any analysis on it. But the subsidies we give to ag is waaaaaay down on the list of things to be concerned about as far as spending.

---

You know what is more disingenuous? Asking for another example country that is applicable to a our 335 million people when he knows damn well that we are the 3rd most populous nation on Earth and that neither China or India are free market bastions. So I provided the best example I could think of for a huge country.

How about another: Guess which large nation does subsidize their farmers.... India. Guess which country is famous for starvation and abject poverty? I'll leave it to you to fill in that blank.

---

Population is an attribute that has little to do with it. The fact that China is a communist country and we are not, does.

aTmAg said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

The entire reason farmers pushed for the USDA in the first place was to increase the barrier of entry and to protect themselves from smaller competition. They did so in ORDER to be able to jack up prices. Not to keep them down or keep riots from happening or any of that nonsense.

---

Wut?

So, in the middle of a Civil War (war always ramps up prices) at a time when 53% of Americans were engaged in farming, the Lincoln Administration looked around and said

"We have too many people farming, we need to drive out the small farmers, and jack up prices.

Forget Bobby Lee down in Virginia, THIS is important."

---

I'm talking about regulations such as the meat inspection act and subsidies, which didn't happen until much later.

---

Yet you typed

Quote:

---

The entire reason farmers pushed for the USDA in the first place

---

For those that say we need these policies to ensure food security, let's look at government policy that has been done to do the exact opposite by reducing supply of food for people.

Most of the period with US government involvement in Ag has been to reduce acreage planted in given crops via set asides and production quotas. Can someone tell me how reducing the production of crops is supposed to make us MORE secure in our food supply? This is also a hidden tax on consumers just like the ethanol mandate which was also done to improve farm incomes at the expense of other industries and takes acres away from food production.

Example
"The Reagan Administration re-created the PIK policy in 1983. The 1983 crop year remains the high-water mark for set aside policy when farmers reduced planting by nearly 78 million acres. That year farmers drastically reduced acres planted to corn by more than 20 million acres compared to the average planted acres in the five previous years; 60 million acres planted to corn in 1983 compared to nearly 83 million average acres planted to corn (1978-1982). As the economic crisis worsened, Congress created the modern Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in the Food Security Act of 1985. CRP grew to nearly 25 million acres in 1988 and 30 million in 1989 (green bars, Figure 1). When combined with set aside, nearly 78 million acres were taken out of production in 1988, approaching the level from 1983. "

https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2020/06/production-controls-set-aside-acres-part-1-reviewing-history.html

What happens when you have a glut of any product?

Logos Stick said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Hagen95 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

When it comes to food security, New Zealand as I posted above has already run the experiment. There will be pain in the short run and farmers will need to in some cases adjust their crops to better fit their land but we won't run out of food. Also some farms will go out of business either because the farmer isn't a good entrepreneur or his land isn't suitable for growing crops profitably.

Remember we are the first country in the history of mankind where if you are poor, you are more likely to die of complications of obesity than starvation. The American farmer is absolutely amazing in what they have done with productivity and I believe they would on average be more productive if the government got out of their business.

---

I appreciate the effort, but using NZ (population of 5.2 million) isn't a good comparison. Can you find something a little more applicable to the US (335 million)?

---

How about the fact that China, when they had nearly double our current population, starved millions of people via government run farming? Then, after a few farmers decided to break the rules and embrace free market exploding their production, the government adopted free market farming across the entire country, which ended their famines forever?

---

We don't have the US government running farming. Comparing what we've been doing for decades to what China did to try to make a point against what we are doing is disingenuous.

The worst that happens with the US subsidies is some market distortion. The best that happens is a stable food supply.

Perhaps allowing farmers to go it alone and get crop insurance etc would work. I haven't seen any analysis on it. But the subsidies we give to ag is waaaaaay down on the list of things to be concerned about as far as spending.

---

You know what is more disingenuous? Asking for another example country that is applicable to a our 335 million people when he knows damn well that we are the 3rd most populous nation on Earth and that neither China or India are free market bastions. So I provided the best example I could think of for a huge country.

How about another: Guess which large nation does subsidize their farmers.... India. Guess which country is famous for starvation and abject poverty? I'll leave it to you to fill in that blank.

---

Population is an attribute that has little to do with it. The fact that China is a communist country and we are not, does.

---

Then tell that to Hagen95 who demanded an example of equivalent population. I was responding to him when I brought up.

And today China is communist in name only. They were commie as hell when they starved millions of their own people, and then moved toward the free market as a result. They are nothing like they were when they were carrying around their little red books. In some ways, their native entrepreneurs have more freedom than ours do here. Are they as free as we were during the industrial revolution? No. Nobody else in history has been. And nobody was as prosperous as we were back then either.

Is farming and ranching the last vocation where one can work as hard as they want to, enjoy a comfortable life and pay virtually no taxes (property/sales/income)?

I've never met an ag family that didn't admit to breaking even in all but the very worst of years. And that with a barn full of fancy equipment, toys and new trucks on the regular. Expenses magically rise to or exceed the income level year in and year out, yet the enterprise just gets bigger.

Logos Stick said:

---

What happens when you have a glut of any product?

---

In this case you have more food security which is the argument that has been promoted throughout this thread as to why we need government support.

Of course the US exports about 20% of its ag commodities so I guess we always have a "glut".

cheeky said:

---

Is farming and ranching the last vocation where one can work as hard as they want to, enjoy a comfortable life and pay virtually no taxes (property/sales/income)?

I've never met an ag family that didn't admit to breaking even in all but the very worst of years. And that with a barn full of fancy equipment, toys and new trucks on the regular. Expenses magically rise to or exceed the income level year in and year out, yet the enterprise just gets bigger.

---

I guess I missed the "don't pay taxes" class at A&M.

The tax code is written such that you pay less in tax if you reinvest in your business. Does your local mechanic need a brand new truck with his name on the side? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe he just decided he'd rather get a new truck and not pay as much in taxes.

Years of playing to the tax code leads to a better infrastructure, no matter the business. And farming needs to be done in a timely matter, so newer equipment helps productivity.

The toys aren't deductible, mentioning them sounds like sour grapes.

I am blessed that my wife's salary has us the 25% tax bracket. And as a farmer, I pay both sides of my social security and medicare, at 15.3%. Total: 40.3% on the first dollar of farm income.

So, at the end of the year, if I have crop to sell, and current income-taxable expense is sitting near zero, what is my incentive to sell? For every $100 worth of crop, I only get to keep $59.70

Would you work extra hours at your job if you only got to keep 60 cents on the dollar for those extra hours?

To grossly over simplify, if I have $100,000 in income, I pay $40,000 in taxes. Net $60,000. If, instead, I buy a $100,000 tractor, I pay no taxes. Now my net is zero, but I have a $100k tractor, which I essentially paid $60k for.

Net worth not buying tractor +$60k

Net worth buying tractor: +100K

And if I finance that tractor, my cash flow out might only be $20k or so for that year.

6 pages in and I didn't read them all, so it's possibly already been posted, but Eisenhower's famous quote seems appropriate here: "Farming looks awfully easy when your plow is a pencil"

Not unrelated, he also coined the term the Industrial Military Complex.

So much irony in the guy wanting to revoke conservative cards benefits from that scam.

I know it's fun to debate positions and test arguments here, but the real first step in making progress on farm subsidy spending is to clean up the abuses and the bad policies. Same is true of the military spending except 25X more so. Funny how you don't hear any caterwauling about that from the conservative card czar.

sam callahan said:

---

6 pages in and I didn't read them all, so it's possibly already been posted, but Eisenhower's famous quote seems appropriate here: "Farming looks awfully easy when your plow is a pencil"

Not unrelated, he also coined the term the Industrial Military Complex.

So much irony in the guy wanting to revoke conservative cards benefits from that scam.

I know it's fun to debate positions and test arguments here, but the real first step in making progress on farm subsidy spending is to clean up the abuses and the bad policies. Same is true of the military spending except 25X more so. Funny how you don't hear any caterwauling about that from the conservative card czar.

---

Or he is staying on the topic of the thread.. one of the TOS of the site is to not derail. There are trillions of dollars of inefficient spending from the govt, this thread was specifically about farm subsidies.

pointing out hypocrisy isn't a derail, especially if it is addressing someone posting conservative purity tests.

sam callahan said:

---

6 pages in and I didn't read them all, so it's possibly already been posted, but Eisenhower's famous quote seems appropriate here: "Farming looks awfully easy when your plow is a pencil"

Not unrelated, he also coined the term the Industrial Military Complex.

So much irony in the guy wanting to revoke conservative cards benefits from that scam.

I know it's fun to debate positions and test arguments here, but the real first step in making progress on farm subsidy spending is to clean up the abuses and the bad policies. Same is true of the military spending except 25X more so. Funny how you don't hear any caterwauling about that from the conservative card czar.

---

I guess you didn't notice the thread I started bashing GOP members who were opposed to Hegseth. If you were right, then wouldn't I be demanding an insider? Somebody from within the swamp? You think I want Hegseth because I think he is going to INCREASE abuses and bad policies within the military?

Kansas Kid said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

What happens when you have a glut of any product?

---

In this case you have more food security which is the argument that has been promoted throughout this thread as to why we need government support.

Of course the US exports about 20% of its ag commodities so I guess we always have a "glut".

---

How does running the price into the ground make us more secure? Farmers don't work for free. So we have a year or two or three of gluts and the farmers go bankrupt. What happens then?

sam callahan said:

---

pointing out hypocrisy isn't a derail, especially if it is addressing someone posting conservative purity tests.

---

There is nothing hypocritical about my stance. I don't argue against subsidies everywhere except one industry. I want ALL subsidies to end, whether it is for corporations or individuals.


You are for subsidies, therefore your conservative card is revoked too. If you don't like it, then stop supporting liberal policies. FDR started farm subsidies in the US. That should tell you all you need to know about how liberal this position is.

Logos Stick said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

What happens when you have a glut of any product?

---

In this case you have more food security which is the argument that has been promoted throughout this thread as to why we need government support.

Of course the US exports about 20% of its ag commodities so I guess we always have a "glut".

---

How does running the price into the ground make us more secure? Farmers don't work for free. So we have a year or two or three of gluts and the farmers go bankrupt. What happens then?

---

Just like every other business, the ones that go bankrupt are generally the weaker players and their land goes to the better farmers that can produce more for less. This is the only industry I know where people think anyone in the business going bankrupt is a tragedy. Bankruptcy is part of a solid capitalist system and drives more efficiency and innovation.

Do you think we should take the same approach and put price supports under oil? Without oil, our farmers go bankrupt because no farm runs without diesel and gasoline not to mention the destruction of the rest of the economy.

Kansas Kid said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

What happens when you have a glut of any product?

---

In this case you have more food security which is the argument that has been promoted throughout this thread as to why we need government support.

Of course the US exports about 20% of its ag commodities so I guess we always have a "glut".

---

How does running the price into the ground make us more secure? Farmers don't work for free. So we have a year or two or three of gluts and the farmers go bankrupt. What happens then?

---

Just like every other business, the ones that go bankrupt are generally the weaker players and their land goes to the better farmers that can produce more for less. This is the only industry I know where people think anyone in the business going bankrupt is a tragedy. Bankruptcy is part of a solid capitalist system and drives more efficiency and innovation.

Do you think we should take the same approach and put price supports under oil? Without oil, our farmers go bankrupt because no farm runs without diesel and gasoline not to mention the destruction of the rest of the economy.

---

Many go without gas when the price gets extremely high because of supply constraints. They stop taking vacays, they carpool, they downsize cars, etc... That allows the supply to go to those in the critical path. Kind of hard to go without food.

Logos Stick said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

What happens when you have a glut of any product?

---

In this case you have more food security which is the argument that has been promoted throughout this thread as to why we need government support.

Of course the US exports about 20% of its ag commodities so I guess we always have a "glut".

---

How does running the price into the ground make us more secure? Farmers don't work for free. So we have a year or two or three of gluts and the farmers go bankrupt. What happens then?

---

Just like every other business, the ones that go bankrupt are generally the weaker players and their land goes to the better farmers that can produce more for less. This is the only industry I know where people think anyone in the business going bankrupt is a tragedy. Bankruptcy is part of a solid capitalist system and drives more efficiency and innovation.

Do you think we should take the same approach and put price supports under oil? Without oil, our farmers go bankrupt because no farm runs without diesel and gasoline not to mention the destruction of the rest of the economy.

---

Many go without gas when the price gets extremely high because of supply constraints. They stop taking vacays, they carpool, they downsize cars, etc... That allows the supply to go to those in the critical path. Kind of hard to go without food.

---

People eat out less and eat at home. Or they substitute chicken for beef. Or the substitute Ramen noodles, beans and rice, etc. To pretend that the exact same thing doesn't happen to food is simply wrong.

There is NO better system to distribute goods and services than the free market. To pretend otherwise is simply foolhardy.

Kansas Kid said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

What happens when you have a glut of any product?

---

In this case you have more food security which is the argument that has been promoted throughout this thread as to why we need government support.

Of course the US exports about 20% of its ag commodities so I guess we always have a "glut".

---

How does running the price into the ground make us more secure? Farmers don't work for free. So we have a year or two or three of gluts and the farmers go bankrupt. What happens then?

---

Just like every other business, the ones that go bankrupt are generally the weaker players and their land goes to the better farmers that can produce more for less. This is the only industry I know where people think anyone in the business going bankrupt is a tragedy. Bankruptcy is part of a solid capitalist system and drives more efficiency and innovation.

Do you think we should take the same approach and put price supports under oil? Without oil, our farmers go bankrupt because no farm runs without diesel and gasoline not to mention the destruction of the rest of the economy.

---

Did you miss out on the too big to fail years of government bailouts for various industries. There was a long thread here about how we couldn't let Boeing fail because "reasons".

Not to mention the average American needs to eat less not more food.

Kansas Kid said:

---

Not to mention the average American needs to eat less not more food.

---

Correct. We have an obesity epidemic. Especially among our poor.

Hagen95 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

What happens when you have a glut of any product?

---

In this case you have more food security which is the argument that has been promoted throughout this thread as to why we need government support.

Of course the US exports about 20% of its ag commodities so I guess we always have a "glut".

---

How does running the price into the ground make us more secure? Farmers don't work for free. So we have a year or two or three of gluts and the farmers go bankrupt. What happens then?

---

Just like every other business, the ones that go bankrupt are generally the weaker players and their land goes to the better farmers that can produce more for less. This is the only industry I know where people think anyone in the business going bankrupt is a tragedy. Bankruptcy is part of a solid capitalist system and drives more efficiency and innovation.

Do you think we should take the same approach and put price supports under oil? Without oil, our farmers go bankrupt because no farm runs without diesel and gasoline not to mention the destruction of the rest of the economy.

---

Did you miss out on the too big to fail years of government bailouts for various industries. There was a long thread here about how we couldn't let Boeing fail because "reasons".

---

I bet Kansas was not among those arguing to subsidize Boeing. I know I wasn't.

If Boeing cannot survive, then it should go out of business and it's parts bought up by more efficient managers.

aTmAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

What happens when you have a glut of any product?

---

In this case you have more food security which is the argument that has been promoted throughout this thread as to why we need government support.

Of course the US exports about 20% of its ag commodities so I guess we always have a "glut".

---

How does running the price into the ground make us more secure? Farmers don't work for free. So we have a year or two or three of gluts and the farmers go bankrupt. What happens then?

---

Just like every other business, the ones that go bankrupt are generally the weaker players and their land goes to the better farmers that can produce more for less. This is the only industry I know where people think anyone in the business going bankrupt is a tragedy. Bankruptcy is part of a solid capitalist system and drives more efficiency and innovation.

Do you think we should take the same approach and put price supports under oil? Without oil, our farmers go bankrupt because no farm runs without diesel and gasoline not to mention the destruction of the rest of the economy.

---

Many go without gas when the price gets extremely high because of supply constraints. They stop taking vacays, they carpool, they downsize cars, etc... That allows the supply to go to those in the critical path. Kind of hard to go without food.

---

People eat out less and eat at home. Or they substitute chicken for beef. Or the substitute Ramen noodles, beans and rice, etc. To pretend that the exact same thing doesn't happen to food is simply wrong.

There is NO better system to distribute goods and services than the free market. To pretend otherwise is simply foolhardy.

---

If we need X calories to feed the nation and we have < X because we don't produce enough, there is no substitution. Its pretty simple.

Kansas Kid said:

---

Not to mention the average American needs to eat less not more food.

---

So those who are fat get rationed?! LOL. We've now jumped the shark here.

Is Hegseth talking about slashing military spending? All I have heard is cleaning out the woke nonsense, which would be welcome.

What is he going to do about the corruption, kickbacks, carve outs, mismanagement of assets, budget inflating tactics? The defense contractors have become good at what they are incentivized to do - milk the government.

I feel pretty confident that an analysis of your posts would reveal a teeny tiny fraction that criticizes all of that waste and I don't think it's a coincidence that it's because it impacts your career.

I am conflicted on farm subsidies and you can have my aTmAg issued conservative card, because that means jack squat.

I certainly think a massive overhaul of them is warranted - but that needs to be done with people that understand farming. Until then, at least I derive some benefit from them in a cheaper and more secure food supply. The blackhole of military waste not only is a drag on the whole economy, it harms our military readiness and security.

Hagen95 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

What happens when you have a glut of any product?

---

In this case you have more food security which is the argument that has been promoted throughout this thread as to why we need government support.

Of course the US exports about 20% of its ag commodities so I guess we always have a "glut".

---

How does running the price into the ground make us more secure? Farmers don't work for free. So we have a year or two or three of gluts and the farmers go bankrupt. What happens then?

---

Just like every other business, the ones that go bankrupt are generally the weaker players and their land goes to the better farmers that can produce more for less. This is the only industry I know where people think anyone in the business going bankrupt is a tragedy. Bankruptcy is part of a solid capitalist system and drives more efficiency and innovation.

Do you think we should take the same approach and put price supports under oil? Without oil, our farmers go bankrupt because no farm runs without diesel and gasoline not to mention the destruction of the rest of the economy.

---

Did you miss out on the too big to fail years of government bailouts for various industries. There was a long thread here about how we couldn't let Boeing fail because "reasons".

---

More misguided government spending. These programs are bailouts for the shareholders, bond holders and in some cases unions. Does anyone think if Boeing went bankrupt they would cease to operate? No they wouldn't. Their shareholders would get wiped out and the bond holders would lose some of their investment but they would emerge with the equity of the business with minimal debt. Some of their money losing business would close but not the bulk of it.

Trivia question, how many airlines in this countries history have NOT gone bankrupt? It is a short list yet we still have a ton of supply of air service.

Logos Stick said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

What happens when you have a glut of any product?

---

In this case you have more food security which is the argument that has been promoted throughout this thread as to why we need government support.

Of course the US exports about 20% of its ag commodities so I guess we always have a "glut".

---

How does running the price into the ground make us more secure? Farmers don't work for free. So we have a year or two or three of gluts and the farmers go bankrupt. What happens then?

---

Just like every other business, the ones that go bankrupt are generally the weaker players and their land goes to the better farmers that can produce more for less. This is the only industry I know where people think anyone in the business going bankrupt is a tragedy. Bankruptcy is part of a solid capitalist system and drives more efficiency and innovation.

Do you think we should take the same approach and put price supports under oil? Without oil, our farmers go bankrupt because no farm runs without diesel and gasoline not to mention the destruction of the rest of the economy.

---

Many go without gas when the price gets extremely high because of supply constraints. They stop taking vacays, they carpool, they downsize cars, etc... That allows the supply to go to those in the critical path. Kind of hard to go without food.

---

People eat out less and eat at home. Or they substitute chicken for beef. Or the substitute Ramen noodles, beans and rice, etc. To pretend that the exact same thing doesn't happen to food is simply wrong.

There is NO better system to distribute goods and services than the free market. To pretend otherwise is simply foolhardy.

---

If we need X calories to feed the nation and we have < X because we don't produce enough, there is no substitution. Its pretty simple.

---

We are a food EXPORTER and were so long before we had government subsidies. At worst, we would just not export as much food and eat it ourselves as the price here would be higher than abroad.

aTmAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

What happens when you have a glut of any product?

---

In this case you have more food security which is the argument that has been promoted throughout this thread as to why we need government support.

Of course the US exports about 20% of its ag commodities so I guess we always have a "glut".

---

How does running the price into the ground make us more secure? Farmers don't work for free. So we have a year or two or three of gluts and the farmers go bankrupt. What happens then?

---

Just like every other business, the ones that go bankrupt are generally the weaker players and their land goes to the better farmers that can produce more for less. This is the only industry I know where people think anyone in the business going bankrupt is a tragedy. Bankruptcy is part of a solid capitalist system and drives more efficiency and innovation.

Do you think we should take the same approach and put price supports under oil? Without oil, our farmers go bankrupt because no farm runs without diesel and gasoline not to mention the destruction of the rest of the economy.

---

Many go without gas when the price gets extremely high because of supply constraints. They stop taking vacays, they carpool, they downsize cars, etc... That allows the supply to go to those in the critical path. Kind of hard to go without food.

---

People eat out less and eat at home. Or they substitute chicken for beef. Or the substitute Ramen noodles, beans and rice, etc. To pretend that the exact same thing doesn't happen to food is simply wrong.

There is NO better system to distribute goods and services than the free market. To pretend otherwise is simply foolhardy.

---

If we need X calories to feed the nation and we have < X because we don't produce enough, there is no substitution. It's pretty simple.

---

We are a food EXPORTER and were so long long before we had government subsidies. At worst, we would just not export as much food and eat it ourselves as the price here would be higher than abroad.

---

And he somehow thinks that if somehow we went <x, which we won't, that we can't import food like a countries have to. He also forgets that almost half our corn crop goes to ethanol where there is a phenomenal substitute called gasoline. If we are worried about food supply, why do we put a ton of it into gas tanks?

Logos Stick said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Not to mention the average American needs to eat less not more food.

---

So those who are fat get rationed?! LOL. We've now jumped the shark here.

---

No, they get healthy because they have stored a lot of excess food around their waist. It would also then reduce people on disability and reduce Medicare/Medicaid costs.

Kansas Kid said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

What happens when you have a glut of any product?

---

In this case you have more food security which is the argument that has been promoted throughout this thread as to why we need government support.

Of course the US exports about 20% of its ag commodities so I guess we always have a "glut".

---

How does running the price into the ground make us more secure? Farmers don't work for free. So we have a year or two or three of gluts and the farmers go bankrupt. What happens then?

---

Just like every other business, the ones that go bankrupt are generally the weaker players and their land goes to the better farmers that can produce more for less. This is the only industry I know where people think anyone in the business going bankrupt is a tragedy. Bankruptcy is part of a solid capitalist system and drives more efficiency and innovation.

Do you think we should take the same approach and put price supports under oil? Without oil, our farmers go bankrupt because no farm runs without diesel and gasoline not to mention the destruction of the rest of the economy.

---

Many go without gas when the price gets extremely high because of supply constraints. They stop taking vacays, they carpool, they downsize cars, etc... That allows the supply to go to those in the critical path. Kind of hard to go without food.

---

People eat out less and eat at home. Or they substitute chicken for beef. Or the substitute Ramen noodles, beans and rice, etc. To pretend that the exact same thing doesn't happen to food is simply wrong.

There is NO better system to distribute goods and services than the free market. To pretend otherwise is simply foolhardy.

---

If we need X calories to feed the nation and we have < X because we don't produce enough, there is no substitution. It's pretty simple.

---

We are a food EXPORTER and were so long long before we had government subsidies. At worst, we would just not export as much food and eat it ourselves as the price here would be higher than abroad.

---

And he somehow thinks that if somehow we went <x, which we won't, that we can't import food like a countries have to. He also forgets that almost half our corn crop goes to ethanol where there is a phenomenal substitute called gasoline. If we are worried about food supply, why do we put a ton of it into gas tanks?

---

Starving the fatties and hoping like hell that other countries can - and will - feed us is really jumping the shark.

Kansas Kid said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

What happens when you have a glut of any product?

---

In this case you have more food security which is the argument that has been promoted throughout this thread as to why we need government support.

Of course the US exports about 20% of its ag commodities so I guess we always have a "glut".

---

How does running the price into the ground make us more secure? Farmers don't work for free. So we have a year or two or three of gluts and the farmers go bankrupt. What happens then?

---

Just like every other business, the ones that go bankrupt are generally the weaker players and their land goes to the better farmers that can produce more for less. This is the only industry I know where people think anyone in the business going bankrupt is a tragedy. Bankruptcy is part of a solid capitalist system and drives more efficiency and innovation.

Do you think we should take the same approach and put price supports under oil? Without oil, our farmers go bankrupt because no farm runs without diesel and gasoline not to mention the destruction of the rest of the economy.

---

Many go without gas when the price gets extremely high because of supply constraints. They stop taking vacays, they carpool, they downsize cars, etc... That allows the supply to go to those in the critical path. Kind of hard to go without food.

---

People eat out less and eat at home. Or they substitute chicken for beef. Or the substitute Ramen noodles, beans and rice, etc. To pretend that the exact same thing doesn't happen to food is simply wrong.

There is NO better system to distribute goods and services than the free market. To pretend otherwise is simply foolhardy.

---

If we need X calories to feed the nation and we have < X because we don't produce enough, there is no substitution. It's pretty simple.

---

We are a food EXPORTER and were so long long before we had government subsidies. At worst, we would just not export as much food and eat it ourselves as the price here would be higher than abroad.

---

And he somehow thinks that if somehow we went <x, which we won't, that we can't import food like a countries have to. He also forgets that almost half our corn crop goes to ethanol where there is a phenomenal substitute called gasoline. If we are worried about food supply, why do we put a ton of it into gas tanks?

---

Not to mention that people here would start producing more to cash in on the higher prices. A bunch of land that is sitting unused would become farmland. The free market always finds a way.