Farmers get 12 billion in farm aid

[Gulo Blue]

I find everyone's faith in our government corporate welfare handouts disturbing

Someone's gotta post it.

 

[Michchamp]

I like the meme where it has the former Pope saying that and choking the guy.

 

[Michchamp]

 

[Gulo Blue]

This conversation adds perspective to the 120 billion dollar drop in facebooks value today. 20% of FB nearly equal to the value of the entire farm output of the US.

 

[Spartanmack]

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.

Why would supply necessarily drop as automation is slowly rolled out? That makes no sense, particularly when we are currently paying farmers to not produce. We clearly have additional capacity even if transition to more efficient methods did impact supply, which is by no means an obvious outcome.

 

[tigermud]

This conversation adds perspective to the 120 billion dollar drop in facebooks value today. 20% of FB nearly equal to the value of the entire farm output of the US.

Twitter dropping now also, could the declines in users have anything to do with getting too political. NFL, FB, TWITTER, Heck DSF too, it's a trend, heck even my local church, nobody talks to each other anymore it's all just disdain on disdain Right or Left. lines are drawn. not sure if it's too late to turn anything around or not, I suspect it is.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/27/twitter-earnings-q2-2018.html

Perhaps FB and Twitter are going to learn that shadow banning and squashing free speech or those one disagrees with only ensures their downfall

 

[Gulo Blue]

Why would supply necessarily drop as automation is slowly rolled out? That makes no sense, particularly when we are currently paying farmers to not produce. We clearly have additional capacity even if transition to more efficient methods did impact supply, which is by no means an obvious outcome.

I never said supply would drop as automation rolled out. I think the opposite would be true most of the time. I can't follow your thought process or why you think I'm saying the things you think I'm saying.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Vader pictures above are weird. I tried to post one, but it didn't appear in the preview, so I tried a second picture and it worked. Saw just one picture yesterday. Today, I see two pictures in my lack of faith post.

 

[Spartanmack]

I never said supply would drop as automation rolled out. I think the opposite would be true most of the time. I can't follow your thought process or why you think I'm saying the things you think I'm saying.

because in the post I quoted you said...

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.

 

[Gulo Blue]

because in the post I quoted you said...

Saying that automation is too slow to react to a sudden drop in supply is not the same thing as saying that it would cause a drop in supply.

 

[Spartanmack]

Saying that automation is too slow to react to a sudden drop in supply is not the same thing as saying that it would cause a drop in supply.

the way it was worded, it's not clear that's what you were saying. And we have excess capacity that can be converted to productive capacity so I don't really see that as an issue regardless of what stage of evolution the ag industry is in.

And as the Ag industry automates and adopts more efficient technologies (mechanical, biological, chemical, etc), yields go up, driving capacity higher as well.

 

[Gulo Blue]

the way it was worded, it's not clear that's what you were saying. And we have excess capacity that can be converted to productive capacity so I don't really see that as an issue regardless of what stage of evolution the ag industry is in.

And as the Ag industry automates and adopts more efficient technologies (mechanical, biological, chemical, etc), yields go up, driving capacity higher as well.

In response to criticism of farm subsidy, I pointed out why farm subsidies are important. Events like droughts or wars can disrupt production. If you let the market drive the industry, it provides what we need, which leave you short in the event of unforeseen drops in supply. By subsidizing the industry, we have excess capacity. We can not only handle sudden drops, we can export and have other nations rely on us, which has ethical and strategic value.


Automation doesn't play a direct role in the level of capacity the industry converges on (of course it can change prices which changes demand in some industries, but food demand is considered relatively inelastic). It does what's profitable, and building machines to just sit there is not profitable. If you want excess capacity, you subsidize to make idle capacity (whether automated or not) profitable.


The problem isn't the way I worded things. If I'm leaving out enough detail to get from A to B you'd be asking why I say one thing follows another or at least challenging the things I'm actually saying. That's not what you're doing. You are reading things that aren't there.

 

[Spartanmack]

In response to criticism of farm subsidy, I pointed out why farm subsidies are important. Events like droughts or wars can disrupt production. If you let the market drive the industry, it provides what we need, which leave you short in the event of unforeseen drops in supply. By subsidizing the industry, we have excess capacity. We can not only handle sudden drops, we can export and have other nations rely on us, which has ethical and strategic value.


Automation doesn't play a direct role in the level of capacity the industry converges on (of course it can change prices which changes demand in some industries, but food demand is considered relatively inelastic). It does what's profitable, and building machines to just sit there is not profitable. If you want excess capacity, you subsidize to make idle capacity (whether automated or not) profitable.


The problem isn't the way I worded things. If I'm leaving out enough detail to get from A to B you'd be asking why I say one thing follows another or at least challenging the things I'm actually saying. That's not what you're doing. You are reading things that aren't there.

and I pointed out that subsidies aren't as important as you think. if you let the market drive the industry, it innovates which absolutely affects capacity, improving efficiency and yield. Just look at what happened in the energy industry - when was the last time you heard the term peak oil? Thank you very much fracking. Is anyone talking about The Population Bomb anymore? With innovation you naturally get excess capacity and/or increased exports which you can turn on or halt in the event of a shock. What's the lag on planting an empty field, a growing season? Not likely to cause mass starvation. Halting exports has next to zero lag. Subsidizing isn't the only way to get excess capacity but it's the way you also get the most inefficiency, graft and corruption and one of the best ways to disincentivize innovation.

The problem isn't only the way you worded things, I also disagree with what you're saying.

 

[Gulo Blue]

and I pointed out that subsidies aren't as important as you think. if you let the market drive the industry, it innovates which absolutely affects capacity, improving efficiency and yield. Just look at what happened in the energy industry - when was the last time you heard the term peak oil? Thank you very much fracking. Is anyone talking about The Population Bomb anymore? With innovation you naturally get excess capacity and/or increased exports which you can turn on or halt in the event of a shock. What's the lag on planting an empty field, a growing season? Not likely to cause mass starvation. Halting exports has next to zero lag. Subsidizing isn't the only way to get excess capacity but it's the way you also get the most inefficiency, graft and corruption and one of the best ways to disincentivize innovation.

The problem isn't only the way you worded things, I also disagree with what you're saying.

How does innovation cause excess capacity? What causes a businessman to decide to invest in production capacity that exceeds the projected market?

 

[Spartanmack]

How does innovation cause excess capacity? What causes a businessman to decide to invest in production capacity that exceeds the projected market?

Profit. increasing yields increases supply, prices can drop and producers can make more money. Demand doesn't increase as prices drop, because as you say, it's relatively inelastic. Now farmers who don't have access to the newer tech can't produce profitably and they go out of business and their land is idled or, as I also said, the increase production goes into the export market, at least until population growth drives demand higher or we have that supply shock.

Maybe this is one of those overly simplistic basic economic theories that doesn't work in the real world which is why we need subsidies, otherwise, why would we have them?

 

[sggatecl]

Agriculture Department Will Pay $4.7 Billion To Farmers Hit In Trade War

The Department of Agriculture will pay $4.7 billion to farmers growing soybeans, cotton and other products hit by tariffs in the Trump administration's hard-line trade war with China, announcing the first batch of payments from a $12 billion government aid package.

Starting next Tuesday, the agency will take applications from farmers who produce corn, cotton, dairy, hogs, sorghum, soybeans and wheat — products that were targeted in China's retaliatory tariffs, after the U.S. imposed a 25 percent levy on $34 billion worth of Chinese imports.

Most of the money — more than $3.6 billion — will go to soybean farmers. China has been the No. 1 export market for U.S. soybeans, buying nearly a third of all American-grown soybeans in 2017.

I'm willing to bet these farmers would much rather have trade than aid. Oh well, you get what you vote for.

I wonder if they will be drug testing this new wave of welfare applicants?

 

[biggunsbob]

I heard on a radio show that the family farm being passed down through the generations is a dying industry. I need to find that data.

 

[Spartanmack]

Agriculture Department Will Pay $4.7 Billion To Farmers Hit In Trade War



I'm willing to bet these farmers would much rather have trade than aid. Oh well, you get what you vote for.

I wonder if they will be drug testing this new wave of welfare applicants?

they probably would. while I'm not a fan of subsidies or trade wars, I dislike the one-sided trade agreements we have even more. I actually think this is a calculated move, not unforeseen collateral damage. It's a gamble but if it pays off, we get another better trade deal and the subsidies can (most likely will have to) go away.

 

[Spartanmack]

I heard on a radio show that the family farm being passed down through the generations is a dying industry. I need to find that data.

do a google search for news about the farming industry from the 1980s. Also, Kennedy was shot and we landed on the moon.

 

[tomdalton22]

do a google search for news about the farming industry from the 1980s. Also, Kennedy was shot and we landed on the moon.

come on...the moon landing was fake