Logos Stick said:

---

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.

---

You deny the obvious truth that if prices for food increased here that other countries would export food to us?

Do you consider every inconvenient truth to be "jumping the shark"?

aTmAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

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.

---

You deny the obvious truth that if prices for food increased here that other countries would export food to us?

Do you consider every inconvenient truth to be "jumping the shark"?

---

.

So what part of the panhandle do you live in, and how many acres do you farm?

Canyon is EXACTLY right that free markets are driving farmers to get bigger, or sell to their neighbors so they can get bigger. The margins are too small to stay in business as a "small" farmer unless you have a different job to pay the bills and hobby farm on the side.

aTmAg said:

---

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.

---

Oh, so now you want to break out CRP land.

You know how I know you have absolutely no clue about what caused the dust bowl???

SunrayAg said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

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.

---

You deny the obvious truth that if prices for food increased here that other countries would export food to us?

Do you consider every inconvenient truth to be "jumping the shark"?

---

So what part of the panhandle do you live in, and how many acres do you farm?

Canyon is EXACTLY right that free markets are driving farmers to get bigger, or sell to their neighbors so they can get bigger. The margins are too small to stay in business as a "small" farmer unless you have a different job to pay the bills and hobby farm on the side.

---

So you are a farmer, I assume? And thus somehow think that farming is exempt from the laws of economics? I assure you it is not.

High regulations, cost of living, taxes, etc. push the cost of production up for everybody. Including farmers. Yet, like everybody else, farmers have to compete worldwide, so they cannot charge whatever the hell they want, as they will be undercut by foreign competitors. So the price they can charge remains around the same (ignoring inflation) and their costs continue to climb. That makes margins thinner and thinner. For small players, who are less able to handle those regulations, the margins become negative and they have to sell to a bigger competitor. THAT is what is pushing farms to get big. It's government INTRUSION into the market, not the market itself.

After all, if it was really just natural peak between economies of scale and diseconomies of scale, then there would have been Rockefeller like guys buying up every farm a hundred years ago. They didn't back then, because it wasn't an advantage to do so. Back then there was nearly no regulations, very low costs, and much more room for margin. That is partly why so many people were able to make a living on a family farm.

It is entirely possible, that if we just eliminated subsidies, that the margins for everybody in America would become negative. That is why I wouldn't just show up and cut subsidies and leave it at that. I would eliminate those regulations first or at the same time.

SunrayAg said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

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.

---

Oh, so now you want to break out CRP land.

You know how I know you have absolutely no clue about what caused the dust bowl???

---

I never specified CRP land. Just in general that people will use their land for farming if prices went up enough. Hell, I would grow crap in my back yard if food became expensive enough. It's no different than people turning on more oil wells when the price of oil gets high enough.

aTmAg said:

---

SunrayAg said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

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.

---

Oh, so now you want to break out CRP land.

You know how I know you have absolutely no clue about what caused the dust bowl???

---

I never specified CRP land. Just in general that people will use their land for farming if prices went up enough. Hell, I would grow crap in my back yard if food became expensive enough. It's no different than people turning on more oil wells when the price of oil gets high enough.

---

Except for the part where pretty much every acre that is suitable for farming is already being farmed, and the marginal land that shouldn't be farmed is sitting out, holding soil, filtering water, and preventing another dust bowl… that's the part you missed.

Kansas Kid said:

---

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

---

A. This isn't 1983, and those PIK/set aside policies went away decades ago
B. The vast majority of CRP acreage was designated to the most highly erodible soils which generally are less inherently productive and/or located in areas that are likely more impacted by flooding, erosion, etc……. Not much Class I corn land in Iowa went in.

SunrayAg said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

SunrayAg said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

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.

---

Oh, so now you want to break out CRP land.

You know how I know you have absolutely no clue about what caused the dust bowl???

---

I never specified CRP land. Just in general that people will use their land for farming if prices went up enough. Hell, I would grow crap in my back yard if food became expensive enough. It's no different than people turning on more oil wells when the price of oil gets high enough.

---

Except for the part where pretty much every acre that is suitable for farming is already being farmed, and the marginal land that shouldn't be farmed is sitting out, holding soil, filtering water, and preventing another dust bowl… that's the part you missed.

---

Yeah, that is total BS. I have land in my family on both sides that could be farmed that is not.

The notion that every square foot of 3M+ square miles that could be farmed is farmed is asinine.

SunrayAg said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

SunrayAg said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

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.

---

Oh, so now you want to break out CRP land.

You know how I know you have absolutely no clue about what caused the dust bowl???

---

I never specified CRP land. Just in general that people will use their land for farming if prices went up enough. Hell, I would grow crap in my back yard if food became expensive enough. It's no different than people turning on more oil wells when the price of oil gets high enough.

---

Except for the part where pretty much every acre that is suitable for farming is already being farmed, and the marginal land that shouldn't be farmed is sitting out, holding soil, filtering water, and preventing another dust bowl… that's the part you missed.

---

I'm curious if you think that farm land is currently at its highest and best use? Maybe without govt intervention the farm land switches uses in order to gain efficiency. Pretty novel concept.