aTmAg said:

---

SunrayAg said:

---

REEEEEEEE I support free markets and there should be no farm programs!!!

Is the same as saying…


I support eliminating all farms on US soil and buying every mouth full of food from countries with no burden of laws and regulations that drive up production costs. And I also support every small town drying up and dying…

---

It's the same for people who are ignorant and do not understand economics.

The proper answer is to reduce our regulations and taxes that drive up production costs. Not to add MORE government idiocy.

---

You think government idiocy is bad now wait until electric tractors are mandated.

You want a true free market get the speculators out of futures trading.

End current policy which allows producers to profit by growing a substandard crop cheaply. Cheap enough that the net insurance payment produces a profit

Sub in just a catastrophic crop policy for specific agreed-to Acts of God like hail

SPI-FlatsCatter 84 said:

---

End current policy which allows producers to profit by growing a substandard crop cheaply. Cheap enough that the net insurance payment produces a profit

Sub in just a catastrophic crop policy for specific agreed-to Acts of God like hail

---

All weather is an act of God...

Correct

Logos Stick said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

I support a free market in which farmers are free to buy crop insurance and to trade in futures contracts to hedge.

---

I agree in most cases, but for Ag, it affects everyone if they don't cover themselves properly. I don't have that level of trust in the farmers (or humans in general). And if bad enough, it could be catastrophic.

---

This...I am torn on it. The government sucks at just about everything, but things like this almost seem like they belong in the same ballpark as "national defense". If we truly had a noble and moral government who loved this country and wanted the best for us, I would have no problem trusting them...but we are constantly lied to and manipulated and cheated...so I don't know. It's really a gamble to trust them with anything.

Quote:

---

End current policy which allows producers to profit by growing a substandard crop cheaply.

---

Wut?

are parts of it mismanaged? absolutely

is the collusion between the food stamps side and subsidy side unhealthy? you bet

but a cornerstone of the free market is allowing failure and I don't think any of us want to experience that in our food supply. especially when our domestic producers have to fight the headwinds of excessive regulation and tariffs.

the seasonal nature, intensive infrastructure, massive capital investment, and highly specialized knowledge means you aren't going to quickly shift gears into high production if suddenly needed.

thoughtful, regular revised, and targeted safety net programs are a trade I am willing to make...even if those comfortably milking government military contracts tsk tsk it.

aTmAg said:

---

Hell no. Let the free market work.

---

Gotta respect being true to the whole "let the free market decide" way of thinking.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

I support a free market in which farmers are free to buy crop insurance and to trade in futures contracts to hedge.

---

I agree in most cases, but for Ag, it affects everyone if they don't cover themselves properly. I don't have that level of trust in the farmers (or humans in general). And if bad enough, it could be catastrophic.

---

This...I am torn on it. The government sucks at just about everything, but things like this almost seem like they belong in the same ballpark as "national defense". If we truly had a noble and moral government who loved this country and wanted the best for us, I would have no problem trusting them...but we are constantly lied to and manipulated and cheated...so I don't know. It's really a gamble to trust them with anything.

---

Even if they were trustworthy, they would do damage and make things worse. The free market produces the most efficient flow of goods and services. Whenever government alters that natural flow, it makes things worse. There is a reason that people aren't putting their own hard earned money there. They care more about their own money than the government ever will.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

I support a free market in which farmers are free to buy crop insurance and to trade in futures contracts to hedge.

---

I agree in most cases, but for Ag, it affects everyone if they don't cover themselves properly. I don't have that level of trust in the farmers (or humans in general). And if bad enough, it could be catastrophic.

---

This...I am torn on it. The government sucks at just about everything, but things like this almost seem like they belong in the same ballpark as "national defense". If we truly had a noble and moral government who loved this country and wanted the best for us, I would have no problem trusting them...but we are constantly lied to and manipulated and cheated...so I don't know. It's really a gamble to trust them with anything.

---

Even a noble and moral government sucks at central planning of the economy vs letting the invisible hand of the free market drive actions. It might be better than what we have now but it is impossible for a central planner to have enough knowledge and the right incentives to outperform the market.

ETA. Any government that wants to central plan is by definition not moral or noble.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

I'm fairly sure there are levels of subsidy, or at minimum, protected markets, for most utilities.

And as far as a better market if the government stayed out, possible.

But we are talking $10 billion in an industry that grosses $580 billion this year.

And $10 B is about $30 per person per year

---

And that is the argument used with many government programs. It isn't the money paid by the governement that is the issue, I believe it creates tons of waste and stifles innovation. Why is a bad thing that farmers can go bankrupt like every other industry in the country?

The subsidies only benefit big corp farms. There are intentional bottlenecks to squeeze out small producers. Subsidize processing facilities so people can buy local meat. The countryside would explode with producers. Subsidize greenhouses and high tunnels so every neighborhood has a vegetable producer. Pass the Prime Act.

The farm bill is just corp welfare.

aTmAg said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

I support a free market in which farmers are free to buy crop insurance and to trade in futures contracts to hedge.

---

I agree in most cases, but for Ag, it affects everyone if they don't cover themselves properly. I don't have that level of trust in the farmers (or humans in general). And if bad enough, it could be catastrophic.

---

This...I am torn on it. The government sucks at just about everything, but things like this almost seem like they belong in the same ballpark as "national defense". If we truly had a noble and moral government who loved this country and wanted the best for us, I would have no problem trusting them...but we are constantly lied to and manipulated and cheated...so I don't know. It's really a gamble to trust them with anything.

---

Even if they were trustworthy, they would do damage and make things worse. The free market produces the most efficient flow of goods and services. Whenever government alters that natural flow, it makes things worse. There is a reason that people aren't putting their own hard earned money there. They care more about their own money than the government ever will.

---

I want to be a "free markets" guy, but i don't know that it has ever been tried outside of the small scale (even communism works at the small family or tribe level if honestly employed)...can you give me examples of a nation engaging in true free markets?

It certainly doesn't exist when dealing with countries like China etc.

Kansas Kid said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

I support a free market in which farmers are free to buy crop insurance and to trade in futures contracts to hedge.

---

I agree in most cases, but for Ag, it affects everyone if they don't cover themselves properly. I don't have that level of trust in the farmers (or humans in general). And if bad enough, it could be catastrophic.

---

This...I am torn on it. The government sucks at just about everything, but things like this almost seem like they belong in the same ballpark as "national defense". If we truly had a noble and moral government who loved this country and wanted the best for us, I would have no problem trusting them...but we are constantly lied to and manipulated and cheated...so I don't know. It's really a gamble to trust them with anything.

---

Even a noble and moral government sucks at central planning of the economy vs letting the invisible hand of the free market drive actions. It might be better than what we have now but it is impossible for a central planner to have enough knowledge and the right incentives to outperform the market.

ETA. Any government that wants to central plan is by definition not moral or noble.

---

Why don't we use for national defense? And should we? Have we ever?

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

I support a free market in which farmers are free to buy crop insurance and to trade in futures contracts to hedge.

---

I agree in most cases, but for Ag, it affects everyone if they don't cover themselves properly. I don't have that level of trust in the farmers (or humans in general). And if bad enough, it could be catastrophic.

---

This...I am torn on it. The government sucks at just about everything, but things like this almost seem like they belong in the same ballpark as "national defense". If we truly had a noble and moral government who loved this country and wanted the best for us, I would have no problem trusting them...but we are constantly lied to and manipulated and cheated...so I don't know. It's really a gamble to trust them with anything.

---

Even if they were trustworthy, they would do damage and make things worse. The free market produces the most efficient flow of goods and services. Whenever government alters that natural flow, it makes things worse. There is a reason that people aren't putting their own hard earned money there. They care more about their own money than the government ever will.

---

I want to be a "free markets" guy, but i don't know that it has ever been tried outside of the small scale (even communism works at the small family or tribe level if honestly employed)...can you give me examples of a nation engaging in true free markets?

It certainly doesn't exist when dealing with countries like China etc.

---

The US during our industrial revolution was the most free a nation had ever been in world history. It's no coincidence that we also had world record economic growth during that time as well. We raised more people out of poverty than ever before, had millions of people immigrate here despite having absolutely no welfare state at all.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

I support a free market in which farmers are free to buy crop insurance and to trade in futures contracts to hedge.

---

I agree in most cases, but for Ag, it affects everyone if they don't cover themselves properly. I don't have that level of trust in the farmers (or humans in general). And if bad enough, it could be catastrophic.

---

This...I am torn on it. The government sucks at just about everything, but things like this almost seem like they belong in the same ballpark as "national defense". If we truly had a noble and moral government who loved this country and wanted the best for us, I would have no problem trusting them...but we are constantly lied to and manipulated and cheated...so I don't know. It's really a gamble to trust them with anything.

---

Even a noble and moral government sucks at central planning of the economy vs letting the invisible hand of the free market drive actions. It might be better than what we have now but it is impossible for a central planner to have enough knowledge and the right incentives to outperform the market.

ETA. Any government that wants to central plan is by definition not moral or noble.

---

Why don't we use for national defense? And should we? Have we ever?

---

Unlike food, national defense is non-excludable and non-rivalrous service. So there is no incentive for the private sector to provide it. So it's better to have government inefficiently provide it than nobody to provide it at all.

Farmer_J said:

---

The subsidies only benefit big corp farms. There are intentional bottlenecks to squeeze out small producers. Subsidize processing facilities so people can buy local meat. The countryside would explode with producers. Subsidize greenhouses and high tunnels so every neighborhood has a vegetable producer. Pass the Prime Act.

The farm bill is just corp welfare.

---

Bullcrap

Focusing on "subsidies for insurance" it sounds like the real winners are insurance companies.

The dollar amounts aren't enough information. It would only make sense that the largest farm companies would get the most money. I would want to know the formulas used for how it's distributed.

Are any of y'all's careers in agriculture?

Mine is, and I just want to get a baseline of where these opinions come from.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

I support a free market in which farmers are free to buy crop insurance and to trade in futures contracts to hedge.

---

I agree in most cases, but for Ag, it affects everyone if they don't cover themselves properly. I don't have that level of trust in the farmers (or humans in general). And if bad enough, it could be catastrophic.

---

This...I am torn on it. The government sucks at just about everything, but things like this almost seem like they belong in the same ballpark as "national defense". If we truly had a noble and moral government who loved this country and wanted the best for us, I would have no problem trusting them...but we are constantly lied to and manipulated and cheated...so I don't know. It's really a gamble to trust them with anything.

---

Even if they were trustworthy, they would do damage and make things worse. The free market produces the most efficient flow of goods and services. Whenever government alters that natural flow, it makes things worse. There is a reason that people aren't putting their own hard earned money there. They care more about their own money than the government ever will.

---

I want to be a "free markets" guy, but i don't know that it has ever been tried outside of the small scale (even communism works at the small family or tribe level if honestly employed)...can you give me examples of a nation engaging in true free markets?

It certainly doesn't exist when dealing with countries like China etc.

---

It has been done. New Zealand went to an essentially free market model in the 80s and they just ripped the bandaid off. It is 7% of their economy vs about 1% in the US. In other words, they still thrive.

There was a lot of hardship for a few years post reform which is to be expected and I could support some transitional support like NZ did for 3-4 years.

https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/27282-New-Zealand-Agriculture

There are no futures on specialty crops. CBOTs yes, but not for what you consume fresh. Just FYI…

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Farmer_J said:

---

The subsidies only benefit big corp farms. There are intentional bottlenecks to squeeze out small producers. Subsidize processing facilities so people can buy local meat. The countryside would explode with producers. Subsidize greenhouses and high tunnels so every neighborhood has a vegetable producer. Pass the Prime Act.

The farm bill is just corp welfare.

---

Bullcrap

---

The stated policy of the USDA is to reduce the number of farmers. Would love to hear you make a case that the USDA is trying to increase the amount of farmers.

Quote:

---

So it's better to have government inefficiently provide it than nobody to provide it at all.

---

Doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders at the waste and corruption that goes on.

Not the federal government's job. We are broke. Sorry can't afford it.

This. Thank you.

I'd love to see a link to that alleged policy of USDA

We need to return common sense to the farm policy programs. PL480 was once a program thru which the US gave surplus commodities to countries in need. Our excess supplies of corn, wheat, beans , rice, etc was shipped around the world. Then President Bush had the crazy idea to just give these countries each cash and let them buy whatever from their own area. So Middle East countries could buy Asian crops with our money. Gee, wasn't that really smart…

Not to mention all the grain embargo's imposed by the United States, which restricted selling our products to certain countries, killing the prices. Like the 1980 embargo of Russia, and plenty of others over the last 60 years.

Our farm programs today are actually cheap food programs, designed to help keep prices down and subsidize the end users- including animal feed, ethanol, exporters, and consumers. Without today's farm programs, MANY producers would eventually be forced out and prices would be MUCH more volatile. Many simply could not get financing each year.

A great example would be today's livestock and egg prices. Without the current very cheap corn, wheat , and other grain prices, ALL meat and egg prices would be MUCH higher today.

I just hope our government stays out of regulating meat and egg prices. Would like to see those prices go much higher to hear some squealing from those complaining about the current farm program. They have no idea what would happen without a safety net. Many current farmers and ranchers are the last generation of their family willing to do the work and I've seen Zero interest from those not involved in a family operation to start from scratch.

Best explanation on the thread

Everything else aside, and not commenting on, since this is a rare case where the Democrats are pushing the smaller figure, go with that one, 10 bill, and treat the 2 billion to the debt or deficit.

?update-time=1393276030220&size=responsiveFlow640

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

End current policy which allows producers to profit by growing a substandard crop cheaply.

---

Wut?

---

If you aren't aware of this practice then you are woefully uninformed

"Insurance farmers " have been playing that game forever……since the programs started

Spend $1000 growing a crop that can be insured for a Net Net $1,500-$2,000/ac

SPI-FlatsCatter 84 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

End current policy which allows producers to profit by growing a substandard crop cheaply.

---

Wut?

---

If you aren't aware of this practice then you are woefully uninformed

"Insurance farmers " have been playing that game forever……since the programs started

Spend $1000 growing a crop that can be insured for a Net Net $1,500-$2,000/ac

---

Sign me up!

Been farming for 47 years and never saw a deal like that

Here you go. Theres plenty more

Whats next ? Cow tipping?

https://www.justice.gov/usao-nd/pr/buxton-man-sentenced-crop-insurance-violation-ending-series-four-cases-involving-potato

As with insurance on anything, there can be fraud. However on farm crops, your individual yield history and the current years price which is set in February or March determine your dollar coverage. So if you have repeated low yields, your coverage average is reduced each year.
For example, if you had a 100 bushel corn historical average and a current dismal price of $4, and bought 75 percent insurance, you would have coverage of $300 per acre. Which after land expense, preparation, seed, chemicals, starter fertilizer, fuel, etc Does Not make it profitable for insurance fraud. Same generalization with Every crop I'm familiar with in our area. Decreasing the historical yield average means reduced coverage for future years and all banks only loan money on the insurance guarantee.

I'm not sure where you got your numbers or which crop you are referencing but nothing in my area would be profitable under your example.

There were zero farm program payments in our area on grain crops the last two years and None are projected in 2025 as prices were slightly above the 2018 set Target Prices for corn, soybeans, wheat, grain sorghum, and rice. None of these are profitable to produce in our area currently. There are probably 90 percent less farmers in our area compared to 1990.
The only crop consistently profitable in southeast Texas is sod grass- Bermuda and St. Augustine grass.