Dean's World

The family farm has been destroyed for decades -who is anyone trying to kid? Corporations run agriculture in the US. The "farmers" just rent out their land, equipment and labor. Ever see real agricultural production in practice? Try checking out Tyson facilities (if you can get in), take a drive through the Midwest and ask the farmers who makes the decisions on their land. Visit a dairy farm in Vermont and ask them who calls the shots.

That said - I admit I'm quite ignorant on this "remove farm subsidies" issue and haven't done my homework. Anyone want to put it in a nutshell for a lazy reader? What is it supposed to accomplish? I'm quite skeptical about all this effort being touted to "help" and "save" Africa. My BS detector goes off. Someone assure me it isn't just more exploitation couched in altruist language.

Maggie: The U.S. Government currently sets the prices for most agricultural goods, and pays substantial amounts of money to farms to keep them in business.

That all by itself would be objectionable to some, but even minor efforts to cut back on that back in the 1980s led to the massive "Farm Aid" movement and concerts and fundraisers and all that stuff. Many farmers insist than unless the government regularly cuts them checks, AND sets prices artificially high for them, they can't make a buck.

Wherever you stand on that, what it does mean is that poor emerging nations which MIGHT be able to make money by exporting crops have to compete with the subsidized crops put out by the US, Canada, and the Europeans. The countries are poor and cannot match the subsidies. So instead of ending the subsidies, what the rich nations do is often buy food from Western farmers and ship it as aid to poor Africans, essentially keeping them as welfare recipients instead of producers.

Morally speaking the whole thing's an abomination, but just wait to see what garbage you'll be treated like if it ever looks politically like there's a genuinely serious effort to end farm subsidies.

I applaud Bush and the other G8 leaders to at least be brave enough to talk about this, but my suspicion is that most of them know it's not going to happen. The romanticization of the family farmer, rancher, dairy, etc. is too great.

We should end farm subsidies whether the other G7 do or not. If those countries' taxpayers are stupid enough to subsidize my food, let them.

The subsidies are also one of the factors that let the corporate farms drive out the real family farmers. With subsidies keeping profit margins artificially high, farming becomes more attractive to the big corporations. With their larger resources, they're more willing to bid up the costs of land in pursuit of those government-assured profits, because the government is assuming part of the risk. That makes it harder for real family farmers to compete.

Note that I'm not actually opposed to corporate farming. I believe it's more efficient and productive without subsidies. But it would still be more efficient and productive. And it's ironic that people fight for subsidies to protect family farms when they have an opposite effect.

And as for subsidies themselves: end them. End them, end them, end them. I'm not a hard-core libertarian. I think that government has some legitimate roles to play in the marketplace. But setting prices is not one of them.

The dairy farming in Wisconsin is done by small family farms. The farmers are contract producers for corporate dairies, at least one of which is a co-operative owned by the dairy farmers. I happen to know that the controllers for the pasturizers on the farms producing for at least one of the dairies are purchased by the dairy (I used to do the setup and configuration of them) but that is not the same as the corporation owning the farms.

But they should have been an *emergency* measure only.

And thus, we're back to Heinlein: "There's nothing so permanent as a temporary emergency."

Similarly, when it comes to government, there's nothing so permanent as a temporary subsidy -- or a temporary tax.

And so working families everywhere have to pay extra for a dietary staple, milk. Here's a real, honest-to-goodness conspiracy between the government and industry to keep prices high and steal from the working man, all right out in the open; and nobody seems to know or care. Yet let the price of gasoline rise in response to clear, predictable market forces, and everyone starts spinning wild conspiracy theories. It makes no sense.

And don't even get me started on sugar subsidies...

The income tax was a temporary measure in times past but once it was ratified by Constitutional amendment it became more than temporary.

Furthermore, it won't be going away unless we amend the Constitution to get rid of it--which seems a rather unlikely errand.

I don't know if eliminating aggie subsidies is a magic-bullet.
For instance, in Kenya (as of the late 80s, I don't know if they changed the policy but I doubt it) you couldn't import farm machinery for plantations. You had to use human labor because Danial Arap Moi didn't want to put people out of work. This makes their farms very inefficient and thus makes it harder for them to compete in any way except to keep wages very, very low.
Also, we will still have dictators taking any profits and the people eating monkey kabob.

With the current crop of thugs and kleptocrats ruling that continent there is little hope that anything we do short of wholesale regime change will do any good for anybody but Mercedes Benz and Rolls Royce dealerships.

Tim, try reading up on the subject, first. It's been studied to death. Or -perhaps- try reading the comments of thse who have self-evidently read up on the question.

Over 80% (IIRC it's 85%) of US crops are grown by large corporations. They grow these crops because they make money doing so.

In fact, they grow so much that the US is a net food exporter. All thanks to subsidies.

To put this in proper perspective: do we give (say) GM, Honda, or Proctor &Gamble subsidies, just to do business? No. We expect them to manage on their own. Each company has the responsibility to generate a profit, or alter their operations until they can.

Mike, you raise a good point, but we might as well try. What harm will it do? Besides eliminating subsidies for large businesses?

I have to say it: Mad props. This is not a move I ever would have expected out of Mr. Bush.

That said: you're right, Dean -- the political obstacles here are tremendous. Nonetheless, it is something that needs to happen, and the leader of the free world saying it can happen is a great start.

Oh, I dunno, sometimes crazy ole Maxine kinda makes sense.

Usually after a case of Icehouse... Heh.

NOT.

Tim, I try not to do that, I really do. And I apologize if my last sounded snarky, but I figured any intelligent, public spirited citizen knew at least a little about modern US agribusiness. At least to the extent that it is mostly a big business these days.

And -since you fit the definition, even if you are a squishy lefty- I figured you were at that point. Besides, you (obviously {g}) couldn't resist taking a shot at Bush in passing... ;)

After that, I figured that you (again, as a squishy lefty) would have been against subsidies for big businesses, especially when they artificially inflate food prices.

So we (the feds, really) give agrobusinesses subsidies to keep prices high, and lower production. Then we have other programs to help lower income groups afford the higher prices we've created by subsidizing large businesses.

This is just me talkin', but that's just screwy.

Have we found something else to agree on? :)

Actually, Dean raised a point which (to me) is a real stinker: the crops the West sends to Africa destroys the value of the locally-grown stuff, since free is always cheaper. It's a two-way killer: we ruin their agriculture, and -hey- there goes the GDP...

I'm pessimistic about it actually happening, tho. Too many entrenched interests.

Upon reflection, it occurs to me that this is a good topic for liberals to hold their nose, and support Bush. Yes, yes, I know, you're feeling queasy already. But he is -I believe- not only doing the right thing, but doing what any decent (or at least liberal {g}) leader would do: help out the truly needy.

Ken: the conservation reserve rule has been terribly abused. One trick is to put land under cultivation which normally would be used in the first place. The first thing this does is bump up the total crops grown. Then they take the land back out of use, get a credit for the "loss" of crops, and get another credit for conserving land which never would have been used, if it weren't for the asinine price support rules which have evolved over the past century.