Farmers get 12 billion in farm aid

[Gulo Blue]

it's not $12B, it's an incremental $12B on top of $20B/year we already spend. And we're not leaving it to the free market, this subsidy is a buffer to support farmers hurt by tariffs from the moronic trade war - there's nothing "free market" about that.

Where did I say it was left to the free market?

I'm saying we don't leave it to the free market, nor should we.

So when is all this subsidized meat going to hit the market?

 

[Gulo Blue]

There are probably better ways to think about it than using Netflix as a unit of measurement. It will require google and division though.


Going from $20 to $32 billion is going from $63 to $100 per person. That seems trivial in comparison to the annual cost of food for a person.


On the other hand, a LOT of the cost of food comes from processing and shipping and groceries and restaurants. If I just look at farm output, it's $137 billion. So compared to that number, the subsidy jumped from 14.6% to 23.4%



15% seems like a more reasonable number. Stupid tariffs. Stupid Trump.

 

[Michchamp]

I find everyone's faith in our government corporate welfare handouts disturbing... like this would actually be a subsidy to get some farmer in a straw hat and overalls to plant another field of wheat or something???

The money is going to some huge agricultural conglomerates like US Foods or Conagra, and they will use it to buy up & pay off some competitive organic farmers, who will now not grow anything. Or pay out a dividend, or "special performance bonus" to their C-suite execs

 

[Michchamp]

The lobbyists who greased the skids might get a bonus too.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I find everyone's faith


The money is going to some huge agricultural conglomerates like US Foods or Conagra, and they will use it to buy up & pay off some competitive organic farmers, who will now not grow anything.

Nothing like being paid to sit around and do nothing.

Sounds kind of like mobbed up wise guys on a union construction site.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I find everyone's faith in our government corporate welfare handouts disturbing... like this would actually be a subsidy to get some farmer in a straw hat and overalls to plant another field of wheat or something???

The money is going to some huge agricultural conglomerates like US Foods or Conagra, and they will use it to buy up & pay off some competitive organic farmers, who will now not grow anything. Or pay out a dividend, or "special performance bonus" to their C-suite execs

I don't doubt that lobbyists steer the money to all sorts of places that aren't helpful. But that's the gray area between subsidy and corruption.



That's different from looking at the tremendous amount of waste and thinking that we shouldn't subsidize that. It would be nice if we could get the waste somewhere useful, but that is expensive and while there are charities that could absorb some of the distribution cost and effort, connecting the waste to the charities that can use it is difficult and there's no money in it. The waste not finding uses is a problem. The waste getting created in the first place is not. Farmers getting paid to not produce is equally, not ideal, but better than not having that extra capacity on hand.

 

[Michchamp]

Nothing like being paid to sit around and do nothing.

Sounds kind of like mobbed up wise guys on a union construction site.

kinda like that, yeah!

though at least they'll spend the money and stimulate demand. and construction workers are well paid (usually...)

...and hopefully the construction site is a new public library, train station, or school.

 

[Michchamp]

I made the link red so it would stand out.

My fellow Americans should be constantly reminded of that story as long as Trump is in office. CONSTANTLY.

 

[Spartanmack]

Where did I say it was left to the free market?

I'm saying we don't leave it to the free market, nor should we.

So when is all this subsidized meat going to hit the market?

you seemed to indicate that the $12b may be needed as a buffer to potential supply shocks or whatever, which is itself not really the case since a lot of supply shocks (not related to natural disasters) are the result of regulation, not free markets. my point is you can't look at the $12b in isolation, we're already subsidizing the agricultural industry to the tune of $20b. we were nowhere near leaving the food supply entirely to the free market, not even close and this is making it less so - we're going in the wrong direction and making it worse.

as for the meat, I don't know - I do know a few years back when corn prices spiked, ranchers slaughtered their herds en masse and beef prices dropped considerably. I don't know where we stand in terms of herd size relative to demand. What I do know is we could import beef (and lamb, possibly pork too) from South America and Australia pretty cheap so we don't need to be handing out checks to farmers (families or big agribusiness) - they can become more efficient or find a new line of work. The same is true for things like sugar, corn, cotton, ethanol and a lot of other consumables.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I thought I read pork was specifically targeted early on, in the first round of tariffs. Should be a big deal here.



"The Farm Problem" is an old, challenging economic topic. Inelastic supply. Inelastic demand. Lower wage expectations for labor that can't compete with jobs in other sectors.


And it's strategic. An army marches on it's stomach. You have to be ready for natural disasters or for wars.

 

[Michchamp]

I thought I read pork was specifically targeted early on, in the first round of tariffs. Should be a big deal here.



"The Farm Problem" is an old, challenging economic topic. Inelastic supply. Inelastic demand. Lower wage expectations for labor that can't compete with jobs in other sectors.


And it's strategic. An army marches on it's stomach. You have to be ready for natural disasters or for wars.

Yes, our drones need to be well fed.

 

[Spartanmack]

true, but you can automate even on farms and temporarily displace that labor - perhaps offer a stop gap subsidy to help the displaced in transition. We can also stop subsidizing the west's defense budgets and march that army a little less often or in smaller size and trade with friendly nations for some of the food to feed that army - it's highly improbable that we'd go to war with Argentina, Brazil and Australia all at once or that all 3 of those would be taken over by our enemies all at the same time. Although those South Americans have a nasty tendency to elect their versions of Bernie Sanders and sometimes worse which ends up mucking up trade...

 

[biggunsbob]

says the guy who posts the same three posts in every thread. You should go camping again.

Lucky for you the camp grounds have wi-fi too so I can post late at night while camping, and keep bugging you with life,liberty ,and the pursuit of happiness in the face of GOP Right wing oppression, and corruption.

 

[biggunsbob]

true, but you can automate even on farms and temporarily displace that labor - perhaps offer a stop gap subsidy to help the displaced in transition. We can also stop subsidizing the west's defense budgets and march that army a little less often or in smaller size and trade with friendly nations for some of the food to feed that army - it's highly improbable that we'd go to war with Argentina, Brazil and Australia all at once or that all 3 of those would be taken over by our enemies all at the same time. Although those South Americans have a nasty tendency to elect their versions of Bernie Sanders and sometimes worse which ends up mucking up trade...[/QUOTE


Well America could always go back way the GOP handled Latin and South America . It?s not like they have a great track Record in that area of the country either. Maybe America and both parties should just leave other countries alone.

 

[Gulo Blue]

true, but you can automate even on farms and temporarily displace that labor - perhaps offer a stop gap subsidy to help the displaced in transition. We can also stop subsidizing the west's defense budgets and march that army a little less often or in smaller size and trade with friendly nations for some of the food to feed that army - it's highly improbable that we'd go to war with Argentina, Brazil and Australia all at once or that all 3 of those would be taken over by our enemies all at the same time. Although those South Americans have a nasty tendency to elect their versions of Bernie Sanders and sometimes worse which ends up mucking up trade...

Rolling out more automation is a really slow process. And expensive. Usually it's for steady work that's you feel is going to stay steady in the future. It's not a good solution for dealing with a shock to the supply or demand.

 

[Spartanmack]

Lucky for you the camp grounds have wi-fi too so I can post late at night while camping, and keep bugging you with life,liberty ,and the pursuit of happiness in the face of GOP Right wing oppression, and corruption.

you don't bug me with any of that, I'm all for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What I and presumably most other posters here could do without is your barely literate inane, repetitious nonsense.

 

[Spartanmack]

Rolling out more automation is a really slow process. And expensive. Usually it's for steady work that's you feel is going to stay steady in the future. It's not a good solution for dealing with a shock to the supply or demand.

the slower it goes, the more time there is for labor to adjust.

 

[Spartanmack]

Well America could always go back way the GOP handled Latin and South America . It?s not like they have a great track Record in that area of the country either. Maybe America and both parties should just leave other countries alone.

Latin and South America aren't "part of the country." They're both made up of separate sovereign nations.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Latin and South America aren't "part of the country." They're both made up of separate sovereign nations.

To be fair, Bob also did refer to them as "other countries," in addition to "that area of the country."

And it was the most recent reference in the post, so I would view it as carrying more weight than the earlier reference.

So I would give him credit for that.

 

[Gulo Blue]

the slower it goes, the more time there is for labor to adjust.

Slow adjusting is a problem in terms of maintaining an adequate supply. In the event of a drop in supply, people still need to eat. You may not have time for slow mechanisms to generate more supply. Excess capacity through subsidy has given us a tremendous buffer against that. Is 15% too much of a buffer? Fair question. Maybe. 15% minus however much of it goes to more corrupt elements that aren't contributing to food supply security is probably a reasonable number. The presence of corruption does mean food supply subsidy is bad. The corruption is bad, the subsidy is good. Being a tremendous exporter of food is either morally good, strategically good, or both.