Esp. someone who works for a defense contractor on one of the military's biggest boondoggles in history.No Spin Ag said:aTmAg said:
Hell no. Let the free market work.
Gotta respect being true to the whole "let the free market decide" way of thinking.
Do you support farm safety-net policies?
9,929 Views |
218 Replies |
Last: 10 days ago by Aggies1322
And that is why government should have nothing to do with it. We should want food to be produced as efficiently as possible. Which is why we should have the free market take100% control of it.country said:
A cheap, stable, and safe food supply is a tenant of national security.
mccjames said:
HTTPS://fiscaldata.treasury.gov
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/government-revenue/
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/
Your data is fiscal year to date. The federal fiscal year end begins October 1 so your numbers are for the first two months of expenditures.
Per your data, expenditures are up 18% year-over-year so needless to say we are in for a massive increase in the deficit for this fiscal year.
I can't disagree with the guess. But I recognize that this issue gets very complex very quickly and to simplify it down to a simple statement of the free market always wins is a little much in my opinion. My head still spins from all the economics covered in Food Policy during my days at A&M. I'm not sure the vast majority of folks that opine on the matter have more than an elementary understanding of how it all works, myself included.Aggies1322 said:country said:
A cheap, stable, and safe food supply is a tenant of national security. One of the few charges for the federal government clearly outlined in the constitution is to provide for national security. The issue isn't deriving farm policy to ensure we can continue to feed our population in a cheap, stable, and safe manner. The issue is we spend trillions of dollars on other items that don't have anything to do with national security. I'm not sure I support all that is in the farm bill. I do support the idea of a farm bill. Like all things government, it needs consistent scrutiny to continue to do its job in the most efficient manner possible. I'm not certain that in today's world that is possible but it's not the hill to die on at this point.
The question is whether price controls or subsidies are actually "securing" stable food supply or not. My guess is that we can provide food without the govt trying to control prices or give handouts.
One example of removing government and studying its effects is the '96 farm bill which axed the wool and mohair incentive. As a result, the number of sheep and goats we raise has dwindled to next to nothing in comparison to what we once produced. The price hasn't gotten out of control so from that standpoint, I would say the free market has done its job. But on the stability side of things, if someone like Australia decides to axe their trade agreements with us, lamb is going up outside of our control. I would say we can live with that consequence given the luxurious nature of lamb, but if something like corn production moves nearly entirely to another country, that is a different animal on our pocketbooks under the same scenario.
I think it is a topic worthwhile of debate within our federal government. I simply don't know the long-term answer, nor do I know how risk averse we should be to protect our sovereignty.
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.
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.
country said:I can't disagree with the guess. But I recognize that this issue gets very complex very quickly and to simplify it down to a simple statement of the free market always wins is a little much in my opinion. My head still spins from all the economics covered in Food Policy during my days at A&M. I'm not sure the vast majority of folks that opine on the matter have more than an elementary understanding of how it all works, myself included.Aggies1322 said:country said:
A cheap, stable, and safe food supply is a tenant of national security. One of the few charges for the federal government clearly outlined in the constitution is to provide for national security. The issue isn't deriving farm policy to ensure we can continue to feed our population in a cheap, stable, and safe manner. The issue is we spend trillions of dollars on other items that don't have anything to do with national security. I'm not sure I support all that is in the farm bill. I do support the idea of a farm bill. Like all things government, it needs consistent scrutiny to continue to do its job in the most efficient manner possible. I'm not certain that in today's world that is possible but it's not the hill to die on at this point.
The question is whether price controls or subsidies are actually "securing" stable food supply or not. My guess is that we can provide food without the govt trying to control prices or give handouts.
One example of removing government and studying its effects is the '96 farm bill which axed the wool and mohair incentive. As a result, the number of sheep and goats we raise has dwindled to next to nothing in comparison to what we once produced. The price hasn't gotten out of control so from that standpoint, I would say the free market has done its job. But on the stability side of things, if someone like Australia decides to axe their trade agreements with us, lamb is going up outside of our control. I would say we can live with that consequence given the luxurious nature of lamb, but if something like corn production moves nearly entirely to another country, that is a different animal on our pocketbooks under the same scenario.
I think it is a topic worthwhile of debate within our federal government. I simply don't know the long-term answer, nor do I know how risk averse we should be to protect our sovereignty.
Your whole statement lends itself to the free market over the govt. The govt can employ hundreds of geniuses and they would still fail to produce proper price controls and subsidies, why? Because of the complex dynamics behind millions of inputs requiring access to the same scarce resources. The free market solves this problem through price. Price fluctuates up and down depending on supply/demand. The govt arbitrarily choosing price controls (even with as much data and wisdom as they can muster), will fail to produce the real time efficiency and results of price fluctuations in the free market. If Australia axes their trade agreement, then price will increase on that good to the point that Americans may again find it valuable to raise sheep.
That is sort of how this all works. The price controls create inefficiencies in the free market. That is a bad thing and it results in a ton of wasted capital. Growing sugar in the contiguous US is significantly more expensive than it is in the Caribbean, but the govt has incentivized us to do so. What does that mean? A lot of wasted capital trying to get yields that would be much easier (and cheaper) to attain from the Caribbean. That's a problem.
Love it when the owner of millions of $ of real estate cries poverty with hand in hand. Murica.
Most of farm land is leased.txwxman said:
Love it when the owner of millions of $ of real estate cries poverty with hand in hand. Murica.
Owners are usually widows and children of farmers from 20-50 years ago.
Judging by U.S. manufacturing, IT departments, and, apparently, sugar production, going a full free-market route will likely lead to corn, soybeans, and beef being grown elsewhere and imported. Then, in a crisis, the rest of the world can laugh at us the way we laughed at parts of Europe for relying on Russia for oil.
The REASON manufacturing has moved overseas is because our government has regulated, taxed, and welfared the cost of living so high that it is no longer viable to produce here anymore. It was not simply because CEOs suddenly decided "let's hire people thousands of miles away and ship their goods over the ocean for the hell of it!" They did it to survive. Government is the cause.BBRex said:
Judging by U.S. manufacturing, IT departments, and, apparently, sugar production, going a full free-market route will likely lead to corn, soybeans, and beef being grown elsewhere and imported. Then, in a crisis, the rest of the world can laugh at us the way we laughed at parts of Europe for relying on Russia for oil.
The correct answer is to roll back all of that government to make production viable again. Adding MORE government on top (subsidies) will only make it worse.
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)?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.
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?Hagen95 said: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)?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.
Hence the reason for this statement in my original post...Quote:
The REASON manufacturing has moved overseas is because our government has regulated, taxed, and welfared the cost of living so high that it is no longer viable to produce here anymore. It was not simply because CEOs suddenly decided "let's hire people thousands of miles away and ship their goods over the ocean for the hell of it!" They did it to survive. Government is the cause.
The correct answer is to roll back all of that government to make production viable again. Adding MORE government on top (subsidies) will only make it worse.
When we are talking <$20B in federal expenditures, I just see no reason to axe the program. Get rid of government regulation, etc., let the dust settle, and then revisit.Quote:
I'm not certain that in today's world that is possible but it's not the hill to die on at this point.
Forever is a long time.
Despite its domestic production, China has been a net importer [DOC] of agricultural products since 2004. Today, it imports more of these productsincluding soybeans, corn, wheat, rice, and dairy productsthan any other country. Between 2000 and 2020, the country's food self-sufficiency ratio decreased from 93.6 percent to 65.8 percent.
Despite its domestic production, China has been a net importer [DOC] of agricultural products since 2004. Today, it imports more of these productsincluding soybeans, corn, wheat, rice, and dairy productsthan any other country. Between 2000 and 2020, the country's food self-sufficiency ratio decreased from 93.6 percent to 65.8 percent.
Using China and free market in the same sentence should give you a spasm. There is nothing about freedom in China.aTmAg said: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?Hagen95 said: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)?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.
This is a great way to get back to the dust bowl era.MarkTwain said:
Remove all the absurd nonsensical regulations against farmers involving water use and management, for just a small example rules that require farmers to monitor and regulate even small, temporary puddles on their land, excessively strict limits on irrigation water usage even in drought-prone areas, mandatory buffer zones along streams that significantly reduce usable farmland, or requiring permits for basic agricultural activities like tilling land that could be considered "disturbing wetlands," often leading to confusion and significant bureaucratic burdens for farmers, even when their practices do not pose a significant environmental threat. Absurd permitting regulations that are nothing more than a way of the bureaucracy to bleed out the little farmers and extort the biggest operators.
You do realize that there are a lot more uses for land out there than just farming, right? That that - especially int he case of riverine systems - upstream impacts can significantly effect downstream users, correct?
You also understand that water (fresh water) is a finite resource and if you allow everybody to punch a hole in the ground and pump to their heart's desire, the aquifers that have taken millions of years to form and that we use will deplete in a very short amount of time, correct?
The amount of farmland isn't a problem here - we have plenty. And plenty that goes unused.
No reason? How about the fact that we are in record debt keep breaking yearly deficit records? That if don't dig out ourselves, then the bond bubble will pop whenever it wants to and our government will have to decide between really important things like military salaries and social security?country said:Hence the reason for this statement in my original post...Quote:
The REASON manufacturing has moved overseas is because our government has regulated, taxed, and welfared the cost of living so high that it is no longer viable to produce here anymore. It was not simply because CEOs suddenly decided "let's hire people thousands of miles away and ship their goods over the ocean for the hell of it!" They did it to survive. Government is the cause.
The correct answer is to roll back all of that government to make production viable again. Adding MORE government on top (subsidies) will only make it worse.When we are talking <$20B in federal expenditures, I just see no reason to axe the program. Get rid of government regulation, etc., let the dust settle, and then revisit.Quote:
I'm not certain that in today's world that is possible but it's not the hill to die on at this point.
Let me guess.. "start with somebody else's subsidy. Don't take mine."
Japan and Europe also love to tax their citizens at a rate of 50%-60%.CanyonAg77 said:Kansas Kid said:
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
I'm not sure a remote island nation is the best analog for the US Economy.
But I did find an interesting chart at that link
It seem that Japan and Europe remember how many of their people nearly starved Post WWII, and don't want to see that happen again
BTW, France and Germany are watching their governments collapse as I type this. Greece has already seen it happen. Ukraine is in a war. Italy is massively in debt. The UK isn't faring much better at the moment either.
Fortunately for them, they have the luxury of exporting more than they import. Similarly, I import a lot more food into my house than I export. But that's no big deal since overall I have a trade surplus with the outside world.rab79 said:
Forever is a long time.
Despite its domestic production, China has been a net importer [DOC] of agricultural products since 2004. Today, it imports more of these productsincluding soybeans, corn, wheat, rice, and dairy productsthan any other country. Between 2000 and 2020, the country's food self-sufficiency ratio decreased from 93.6 percent to 65.8 percent.
We on the other hand, have a trade deficit with the outside world. That's like a farmer who is unable to pay his bills. Sure he exports more food than he eats, but he imports far more than he exports overall.
If trade were to be cut off, we would be SCREWED. They would not be.
Pssssttttt....there was no "surplus" in 2001.mccjames said:
According to treasury they say revenue is 4.92 trillion
SS spending is 250 Billion, Medicare is 206 Billion Total of 456 Billion. So it doesn't look that impossible, difficult yes but not impossible.
Biggest issue is we are spending 6.75 trillion which is just not sustainable. 23% of GDP and that is a significant drop from the 30% during COVID years.
Last time we had surplus was 2001 but we were sub trillion in deficit for multiple years. It needs to be the target.
Read up on Xiaogang and how the farmers there saved China from famine by illegally embracing the free market.Hagen95 said:Using China and free market in the same sentence should give you a spasm. There is nothing about freedom in China.aTmAg said: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?Hagen95 said: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)?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.
If the playing field is almost level to the tune that our farmers only need $10 billion in subsidies, then the answer isn't subsidies at all.B-1 83 said:There is no true "free market" when it comes to ag commodities. They're a world-wide trading piece with massive subsidies and discrepancies in input costs from country to country. The little the government gives farms these days simply levels the playing fieldaTmAg said:And yet you have trust in the humans in GOVERNMENT to not screw it up?Logos Stick said: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.Ulysses90 said:
I support a free market in which farmers are free to buy crop insurance and to trade in futures contracts to hedge.
Unlike the free market, government has killed millions of people through famine by screwing up farming policy. Farmers run the risk of losing EVERYTHING if they don't cover themselves. You think that enough farmers would do that, to risk nationwide catastrophe? Really?
The answer is to reduce stupid regulations, get the feds out of the ag business for the most part and promote innovation. That has always - always - been the driver to cheaper and better products. Capitalism drives innovaton, innovation reduces costs. It's always been that way.
Do you not understand what a net importer of ag products means?
Do you know what net exporter OVERALL means?rab79 said:
Do you not understand what a net importer of ag products means?
That sounds terrific, except when your competitors aren't playing by the same rules and principles.schmellba99 said:If the playing field is almost level to the tune that our farmers only need $10 billion in subsidies, then the answer isn't subsidies at all.B-1 83 said:There is no true "free market" when it comes to ag commodities. They're a world-wide trading piece with massive subsidies and discrepancies in input costs from country to country. The little the government gives farms these days simply levels the playing fieldaTmAg said:And yet you have trust in the humans in GOVERNMENT to not screw it up?Logos Stick said: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.Ulysses90 said:
I support a free market in which farmers are free to buy crop insurance and to trade in futures contracts to hedge.
Unlike the free market, government has killed millions of people through famine by screwing up farming policy. Farmers run the risk of losing EVERYTHING if they don't cover themselves. You think that enough farmers would do that, to risk nationwide catastrophe? Really?
The answer is to reduce stupid regulations, get the feds out of the ag business for the most part and promote innovation. That has always - always - been the driver to cheaper and better products. Capitalism drives innovaton, innovation reduces costs. It's always been that way.
You guessed wrong. I have no skin in the game outside of tax dollars. If it isn't clear by what I've said thus far, I error on the side of free market in regard to farm policy. However, cutting $20B out of the federal government for an expenditure that can be justified as national security isn't the starting point to correct all the wrongs our government has done IMO.aTmAg said:No reason? How about the fact that we are in record debt keep breaking yearly deficit records? That if don't dig out ourselves, then the bond bubble will pop whenever it wants to and our government will have to decide between really important things like military salaries and social security?country said:Hence the reason for this statement in my original post...Quote:
The REASON manufacturing has moved overseas is because our government has regulated, taxed, and welfared the cost of living so high that it is no longer viable to produce here anymore. It was not simply because CEOs suddenly decided "let's hire people thousands of miles away and ship their goods over the ocean for the hell of it!" They did it to survive. Government is the cause.
The correct answer is to roll back all of that government to make production viable again. Adding MORE government on top (subsidies) will only make it worse.When we are talking <$20B in federal expenditures, I just see no reason to axe the program. Get rid of government regulation, etc., let the dust settle, and then revisit.Quote:
I'm not certain that in today's world that is possible but it's not the hill to die on at this point.
Let me guess.. "start with somebody else's subsidy. Don't take mine."
Yeah, it means you can't EAT plastic beads and washing machines!
If we cut our stupid regulations, taxes, government, etc. then we would beat the pants off of China. Government intrusion only makes things worse. We have to make sure we intrude less than China like we used to.B-1 83 said:That sounds terrific, except when your competitors aren't playing by the same rules and principles.schmellba99 said:If the playing field is almost level to the tune that our farmers only need $10 billion in subsidies, then the answer isn't subsidies at all.B-1 83 said:There is no true "free market" when it comes to ag commodities. They're a world-wide trading piece with massive subsidies and discrepancies in input costs from country to country. The little the government gives farms these days simply levels the playing fieldaTmAg said:And yet you have trust in the humans in GOVERNMENT to not screw it up?Logos Stick said: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.Ulysses90 said:
I support a free market in which farmers are free to buy crop insurance and to trade in futures contracts to hedge.
Unlike the free market, government has killed millions of people through famine by screwing up farming policy. Farmers run the risk of losing EVERYTHING if they don't cover themselves. You think that enough farmers would do that, to risk nationwide catastrophe? Really?
The answer is to reduce stupid regulations, get the feds out of the ag business for the most part and promote innovation. That has always - always - been the driver to cheaper and better products. Capitalism drives innovaton, innovation reduces costs. It's always been that way.
IfaTmAg said:If we cut our stupid regulations, taxes, government, etc. then we would beat the pants off of China. Government intrusion only makes things worse. We have to make sure we intrude less than China like we used to.B-1 83 said:That sounds terrific, except when your competitors aren't playing by the same rules and principles.schmellba99 said:If the playing field is almost level to the tune that our farmers only need $10 billion in subsidies, then the answer isn't subsidies at all.B-1 83 said:There is no true "free market" when it comes to ag commodities. They're a world-wide trading piece with massive subsidies and discrepancies in input costs from country to country. The little the government gives farms these days simply levels the playing fieldaTmAg said:And yet you have trust in the humans in GOVERNMENT to not screw it up?Logos Stick said: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.Ulysses90 said:
I support a free market in which farmers are free to buy crop insurance and to trade in futures contracts to hedge.
Unlike the free market, government has killed millions of people through famine by screwing up farming policy. Farmers run the risk of losing EVERYTHING if they don't cover themselves. You think that enough farmers would do that, to risk nationwide catastrophe? Really?
The answer is to reduce stupid regulations, get the feds out of the ag business for the most part and promote innovation. That has always - always - been the driver to cheaper and better products. Capitalism drives innovaton, innovation reduces costs. It's always been that way.
Who said start? I'm talking about what the correct policy is. And the correct policy is to allow the free market to flourish. ESPECIALLY if we consider food to be a natural security concern. That will ensure that our food industry is as efficient as possible.country said:You guessed wrong. I have no skin in the game outside of tax dollars. If it isn't clear by what I've said thus far, I error on the side of free market in regard to farm policy. However, cutting $20B out of the federal government for an expenditure that can be justified as national security isn't the starting point to correct all the wrongs our government has done IMO.aTmAg said:No reason? How about the fact that we are in record debt keep breaking yearly deficit records? That if don't dig out ourselves, then the bond bubble will pop whenever it wants to and our government will have to decide between really important things like military salaries and social security?country said:Hence the reason for this statement in my original post...Quote:
The REASON manufacturing has moved overseas is because our government has regulated, taxed, and welfared the cost of living so high that it is no longer viable to produce here anymore. It was not simply because CEOs suddenly decided "let's hire people thousands of miles away and ship their goods over the ocean for the hell of it!" They did it to survive. Government is the cause.
The correct answer is to roll back all of that government to make production viable again. Adding MORE government on top (subsidies) will only make it worse.When we are talking <$20B in federal expenditures, I just see no reason to axe the program. Get rid of government regulation, etc., let the dust settle, and then revisit.Quote:
I'm not certain that in today's world that is possible but it's not the hill to die on at this point.
Let me guess.. "start with somebody else's subsidy. Don't take mine."
I don't have to worry about the fact that I can't eat my paycheck, as I know I can buy all the food I need. That's the situation China finds itself in.rab79 said:
Yeah, it means you can't EAT plastic beads and washing machines!
That is NOT the situation we find ourselves in. Again, we are like a farmer who can't afford to pay his expenses. Sure we can eat our own produce, but that will only last so long until we are screwed.
And yet you are arguing for MORE government which guarantees the problem to get worse.B-1 83 said:IfaTmAg said:If we cut our stupid regulations, taxes, government, etc. then we would beat the pants off of China. Government intrusion only makes things worse. We have to make sure we intrude less than China like we used to.B-1 83 said:That sounds terrific, except when your competitors aren't playing by the same rules and principles.schmellba99 said:If the playing field is almost level to the tune that our farmers only need $10 billion in subsidies, then the answer isn't subsidies at all.B-1 83 said:There is no true "free market" when it comes to ag commodities. They're a world-wide trading piece with massive subsidies and discrepancies in input costs from country to country. The little the government gives farms these days simply levels the playing fieldaTmAg said:And yet you have trust in the humans in GOVERNMENT to not screw it up?Logos Stick said: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.Ulysses90 said:
I support a free market in which farmers are free to buy crop insurance and to trade in futures contracts to hedge.
Unlike the free market, government has killed millions of people through famine by screwing up farming policy. Farmers run the risk of losing EVERYTHING if they don't cover themselves. You think that enough farmers would do that, to risk nationwide catastrophe? Really?
The answer is to reduce stupid regulations, get the feds out of the ag business for the most part and promote innovation. That has always - always - been the driver to cheaper and better products. Capitalism drives innovaton, innovation reduces costs. It's always been that way.
Then we do so out our own peril come the next election. That group predominately votes republican. Plus, the free market and farming is a bit more complicated.aTmAg said:
Hell no. Let the free market work.
There is nothing "complicated" enough about farming to make it violate the laws of supply and demand.BluHorseShu said:Then we do so out our own peril come the next election. That group predominately votes republican. Plus, the free market and farming is a bit more complicated.aTmAg said:
Hell no. Let the free market work.
And I'm not talking about the politics of the matter, I'm only talking about the correct thing to do economically.
Featured Stories
See All
FINAL from Reed Arena: No. 13 Texas A&M 92, Abilene Christian 54
by Richard Zane
A&M's season ends with microcosmic second-half collapse in Las Vegas
by Olin Buchanan
Learned, Loved, Loathed: USC 35, Texas A&M 31 (2024 Las Vegas Bowl)
by Olin Buchanan
Presenting Texas Aggies United's 'Battle At Reed' Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United