Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/6/07 01:33 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Farmers won't just throw their hands up and sell the farm. That's a stupid canadian move, probably influenced by the French. I don't get you find this notion that American farmers will play the game EXACTLY how you think they will.

Talk to someone older than 25 about your proposal, and see what they say.

Big farmers will probably move their farms to developing countries and those who cannot afford to do that, will bankrupt. Something similar to what happened to factories.

At 2/6/07 01:25 PM, JoS wrote:

Your arguement is based on the Supply vs Demand. However you are making two assumptions that are incorrect. One you are assuming that the current price is one set by the market, which it is not. It is skewed by the subsidies. The second incorrect assumption is that supply will increase.

And you assume that prices would go up and everything would be all happy with the world. You can't predict what would happen with economics due to the fact that it's one of the most inconsistent things in the world. The 'assumptions' you make are no more valid than mine.

And I would love for you to explain to me how prices are not set by the market through supply and demand.

Supply would actually decrease if you drop subsidies because ti would no longer be profitable for Americans to farm. Therefore nearly all the farms in America woudl stop producing anything, they definatly would not produce more.

I think you just killed your argument. This is why we have subsidies.

If it is no longer profitable to farm, no one would do it, then the government would have to spend more money to run the farms entirely as opposed to making a $1.25 compensation on a pound of potatos.

Do you understand what capitalism is? If you did you would understand that Canada, the US and the EU have very uncapitalist economies. People say we have one, but we do not. We have in America, the EU and Canada a protectionist market.
Subsidies are incompatable with capitalism. Capitalism leaves everything to the market without interferance. Subsidies screw around with the market. You want to see a truely capitalist market, look no farther than Africa, the most capitalist markets in the world. Capitalism is not about making as much money as possible, its about letting the market take care of, well everything.

No, we have a capitalist market. The type you refer to in which the market takes care of itself without interferance is laissez-fare. Also, it is extremely hard to catergorize the United States market under any one type. There are parts that are socialist, yet there are parts that are almost laissez-fare.

The subsidies are protecting American industry. And yes, capitalism is about as making much money as possible.

*note that the link provided has a lot of definitions for capitalism, but they all seem to have a common theme. economy for profit.

Since its been agreed that removing subsidies would hurt us, why would we do it. Why hurt our own country to help the developing nations. And if shit hit the fan, it would be hard for us to recover. And let the Africans worry about selling food to the other starving Africans before selling it to say, the US.

Oh, and JoS, removing the subsidies would bring prices down and cause farmers to go out of business. Think about it this way. We got 3 farmers. We only 1 farmers worth of crops. With subsidies, they can rotate the duty and the one who grows can sell all of his crop. Without, then all 3 must grow, and there is 3 times as much crop, which is also 3 times more than the demand. In order to sell their crops, they will try to have lower prices than each other, which is a cycle, which leads the prices down, and overall each farmer gets less money and there is wasted leftover crop. Now they don't have the money they need to plant as large a harvest, and that cycle will continue, until eventually some or all are driven out of business or they are each gettin 1/3 original crop, and therefore 1/3 original money.

Critics of Subsidies

Did you know for every 1 euro of sugar the EU produces, the government provides 3.5 euros in subsidies?

Okay now for the supply vs demand debate. I think we can all agree demand will not move essentially. Everyone still needs to eat, therefore food demand is inelastic. However the supply will fluctuate based on price. I will use the example of sugar. If the world price is 1 euro a lbs and you also recieve 3.5 in subsidies that means you take in 4.5 per lbs. Now if we remove subsidies to make up the money you lose will you a.)drop your prices even further or b.) raise them? Anyone who picks a is out of their mind.

At 2/6/07 05:39 PM, JoS wrote:

Okay now for the supply vs demand debate. I think we can all agree demand will not move essentially. Everyone still needs to eat, therefore food demand is inelastic. However the supply will fluctuate based on price. I will use the example of sugar. If the world price is 1 euro a lbs and you also recieve 3.5 in subsidies that means you take in 4.5 per lbs. Now if we remove subsidies to make up the money you lose will you a.)drop your prices even further or b.) raise them? Anyone who picks a is out of their mind.

Then you have to take in stock the sugar growing season and it's yeild, and the amount thats being exported.

Agriculture is one of the few businesses that are still left to chance and the season.

If a farmer has a good season, many farmers are having a good season. The supply outwieghs the demand and prices drop resulting in loss of profit for the farmer.

I mean, look at the US Great Depression. Farmers were throwing thier food away and dumping it on roads as protest because it was more expansive to package and ship thier food, then the return that was expected.

It doesn't matter how good of a season you have. Any farmer who tries to stay in business after subsidies are gone will go broke. Subsidies lower the market price, they do not raise it. Anyone who argues that subsidies raise prices should go take an economics class. Floor prices and quotas raise prices, subsidies lower prices.

At 2/6/07 05:39 PM, JoS wrote: Critics of Subsidies

Ok...the first thing I don't like is that it's a wikipedia source...I hate wikipedia but that's besides the point, I'll use it for debate here.

1) The article says that poor businessmen don't recieve compensation in exchange for having poor business, but farmers do.

Consider the fact that there are a lot MORE businesses that do poorly in the United States alone then there are farmers in general. If we were to give those people relief, the federal government would be spending trillions more dollars than they do on just the farmers.

Also, consider the fact that while food is an important commodity to existence, anyone can grow their own food. I know that growing up, my mother had a green thumb, so to speak, and could very literally grow enough crops to feed the family while my dad went out to work (which in retrospect wouldn't be too bad of an idea because then we would save money on food and it would have provided healthy exercise for my siblings and myself). So if we can all do that, the farming industry is almost pointless, other than farms that breed cattle for meat, etc.

Now take in the fact that anyone can grow their own food and couple it with the fact that in America, there is a supply that far outweighs the demand, and we STILL have farmers that don't use their fields yearly. The subsidies are put in place to provide protection to our farmers because they all can't constantly grow crops for sale on the market. And what insurance company is going to give coverage to someone who is SURE to crash if left alone and unsupported. That's why small businesses get insurance because there's a reasonable chance that they will succeed and be a good investment for the company.

2) The article also said that the subsidies promote poverty in small under developed countries.

"Agriculture is one of the few areas where developing countries have a competitive advantage."

No one is twisting their arms to buy from American farming companies. There are roughly 50 different sections (countries and provinces) that have their own governments and take part in world trade. I know that they don't produce nearly enough food continentally to provide for everyone, but don't you think that it would be a better idea to sell their own crops to each other, and put embargos and other restrictions on the purchase of crops from other countries? If they can create a self-sufficient trade internally in Africa, then that will be one step closer to developing the continent as a whole. Before they worry about selling their crops internationally at good prices, it would be a good idea to get their crops sold in general for a profit.

3) The part discussing how the biggest commercial farms recieve the most money from the subsidies is hardly anything new. It's working for them like taxes work for the rich. If you're rich in this country the government will protect every buck you make and every shit you take (Jack Black), but if you're poor, then things fall harder on you. The subsidies may need to be reformed a bit to suit the needs of smaller farms in America and not just the largest commercial ones.

4) The article began discussing how large farms buy up smaller farms with their federal subsidies to consolidate the agricultural industry. This isn't anything new. The automotive industry has been doing it for years. There are maybe two or three real car industries left and the rest are just branches from the main corporations. Example

In a way, it's better that the small farms get bought out because then they will be virtually garunteed security under the larger business. While it does create a sort of monopoly, the farms still most likely retain their own brand names and styles, but are affiliates of the larger corporation.

5) That last part about environment may as well be thrown away. Everything we do as humans collevtilvly harms the environment these days. Disney World was built on swamp lands, destroying a huge ecosystem in Florida.

Did you know for every 1 euro of sugar the EU produces, the government provides 3.5 euros in subsidies?

Good tid bit...I'll use that if I ever make it on Jeoprady one day lol...but really, I didn't know that one.

Okay now for the supply vs demand debate. I think we can all agree demand will not move essentially. Everyone still needs to eat, therefore food demand is inelastic. However the supply will fluctuate based on price. I will use the example of sugar. If the world price is 1 euro a lbs and you also recieve 3.5 in subsidies that means you take in 4.5 per lbs. Now if we remove subsidies to make up the money you lose will you a.)drop your prices even further or b.) raise them? Anyone who picks a is out of their mind.

Even if they removed the subsidies and everything was still fine and well, there would still be the huge amounts of food leftover in places like the United States that would go unused that the farmers would expect to be compensated for due to the fact that they work for the federal government in most cases.

Small, local farmers would virtually go out of business or sell out to larger corporations because it wouldn't be worth it to try and compete with them.

At 2/6/07 05:49 PM, JoS wrote: It doesn't matter how good of a season you have. Any farmer who tries to stay in business after subsidies are gone will go broke. Subsidies lower the market price, they do not raise it. Anyone who argues that subsidies raise prices should go take an economics class. Floor prices and quotas raise prices, subsidies lower prices.

I believe that's what everyone against your stance has been trying to argue this entire time.

At 2/6/07 06:24 PM, random8982 wrote: I believe that's what everyone against your stance has been trying to argue this entire time.

People have been saying subsidies are raising the prices of products. The WTO has ruled agricultural subsidies to be illegal. Hell even The Economist is against subsidies for agriculutural products.

At 2/6/07 06:28 PM, JoS wrote:

At 2/6/07 06:24 PM, random8982 wrote:

People have been saying subsidies are raising the prices of products. The WTO has ruled agricultural subsidies to be illegal. Hell even The Economist is against subsidies for agriculutural products.

First off, I don't care what the WTO thinks.

Second, subsidies by themselves don't raise the cost of goods. Removing them would raise the costs of goods and a tremendous hit towards the economic livelyhood of our farmers.

My whole point isn't about how we could not hurt the farmers in Canada, the US and the EU. I am well aware of the fact that without subsidies most if not all of the farms will have to close up shop. Its the price we pay for the kind of economy we want. We expect other markets to remove subsidies and barriers to trade, but we do not do the same to our economies.

Our farmers will lose their jobs, but this will also create jobs by freeing up massive amounts of government money that could better spent on things like education and health care, creating more jobs and making sure our citizens recieve great education and health care.

At 2/6/07 10:19 PM, JoS wrote:

Our farmers will lose their jobs, but this will also create jobs by freeing up massive amounts of government money that could better spent on things like education and health care, creating more jobs and making sure our citizens recieve great education and health care.

That could also be done by making the government more cost effective by not wasting money on $90 boxes of 300 screws.

At 2/6/07 01:25 PM, JoS wrote: Subsidies are incompatable with capitalism. Capitalism leaves everything to the market without interferance. Subsidies screw around with the market. You want to see a truely capitalist market, look no farther than Africa, the most capitalist markets in the world. Capitalism is not about making as much money as possible, its about letting the market take care of, well everything.

Yeah, because Africa's thriving economy, and widespread economic stability is a model to which we all should aspire...

We forced that economic model on them. they didn't choose it. We said capitalism is great and everyone should do it. We forced them to take down barriers to trade in the name of free trade, but never took ours down. When they do not do as we want we go to the WTO, get a ruling and force them to comply. When the tables are turned and they get a ruling we take our sweet time if we even do anything at all.

I am not saying this will solve all of Africa's problems, but it would be a massive step towards ending poverty and famine in the region.

I think Britain should subside our agriculture. Are farming is dying out.
Our milk and beef comes from france and our Lamb comes from New Zealand it's stupid,

I think Britain should subside our agriculture. Are farming is dying out.
Our milk and beef comes from france and our Lamb comes from New Zealand it's stupid,

We do subsidise agriculture hugely, ever heard of CAP?

As for the main argument I agree with......Jos, strangely enough. Since the International trading system is predicated on free trade and the universal application of that principle then I think that rich countries should stop denying other countries their comparative advantage. Currently the international trade system is Listian in the obvious hypocrisy and anti-developmental stance.

"It is a very clever common device that when anyone has attained the summit of greatness, he kicks away the ladder by which he has climbed up, in order to deprive others of the means of climbing up after him. . . . Any nation which by means of protective duties and restrictions on navigation has raised her manufacturing power and her navigation to such a degree of development that no other nation can sustain free competition with her, can do nothing wiser than to throw away these ladders of her greatness, to preach to other nations the benefits of free trade, and to declare in penitent tones that she has hitherto wandered in the paths of error, and has now for the first time succeeded in discovering the truth."
Friedrich List

I wonder why the Romans didn't contract their farming out to the Visigoths, or the Turks?

At 2/7/07 11:10 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: I wonder why the Romans didn't contract their farming out to the Visigoths, or the Turks?

We saw what happened when the contracted thier military out to the Visigoths and the Turks.

At 2/7/07 05:46 AM, zzzzd wrote: I think Britain should subside our agriculture. Are farming is dying out.
Our milk and beef comes from france and our Lamb comes from New Zealand it's stupid,

Well considering how little arable land Britain has, no it's not. Britain made a choice long ago to let agriculture to other countries and focus being the #1 industry in the world; the left agriculture to peripherical countries, which is Jos' suggestion.

At 2/7/07 12:10 AM, JoS wrote:

I am not saying this will solve all of Africa's problems, but it would be a massive step towards ending poverty and famine in the region.

Soo, I would put out several American business's and farmers so that Africans can have more money to kill each other with.

No thanks.

At 2/7/07 12:10 AM, JoS wrote: I am not saying this will solve all of Africa's problems, but it would be a massive step towards ending poverty and famine in the region.

Are you suggesting ending famine in Africa by making it easier for African farmers to export the food that is so desperately needed by their fellow countrymen to gluttonous Western countries? That will simply serve to exacerbate the problem; African farmers must first and foremost provide for their own people. Unfortunately, due to free trade, the precious food is being sold to the highest bidder instead of the man who most requires the food in order to survive. This is simply an example of how capitalism kills and free trade kills.

At 2/8/07 10:45 PM, Begoner wrote: This is simply an example of how capitalism kills and free trade kills.

Yeah, because we'd all prefer to have an overbearing government controlling our lives. Fuck that noise! Freedom sucks.

At 2/8/07 10:45 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 2/7/07 12:10 AM, JoS wrote: I am not saying this will solve all of Africa's problems, but it would be a massive step towards ending poverty and famine in the region.

Are you suggesting ending famine in Africa by making it easier for African farmers to export the food that is so desperately needed by their fellow countrymen to gluttonous Western countries?

With farm subsidies it is cheaper for Africans to buy wheat grown in North America then locally grown food. Therefore all their money is spent on imported food, meaning their money exits teh country and the local farmers make nothing, only western businessmen make money. Now if this cheap food isnt being sent over they will buy their food from the farmer loacally, who will in turn spend that money locally and the money stays in the conomy, it doesn't leave.

At 2/8/07 11:09 PM, JoS wrote: With farm subsidies it is cheaper for Africans to buy wheat grown in North America then locally grown food.

That's a good thing.

Now if this cheap food isnt being sent over they will buy their food from the farmer loacally, who will in turn spend that money locally and the money stays in the conomy, it doesn't leave.

No, if the price of food is greater in the West than it is locally, what incentive to local businessmen have to sell their product domestically rather than obtaining a greater price for it abroad? None; the fact that their own people are starving doesn't factor into their calculations, as they are good, obedient capitalists, who act selfishly and rationally in the pursuit of money. In any case, it is preferable to allow Africans to purchase food from North American countries, thus ensuring a constant supply of food to those in need of it, rather than forcing dirt-poor citizens to pay extortionate rates from local businessmen. The priority should be to provide a steady stream of food to all; one means by which this can be achieved is by unloading cheap external produce in Africa. I care more about those who live in poverty and are starving than a businessman who wishes to exploit his countrymen in order to make money. In fact, Europe and the West in general should erect tariffs against goods from developing countries which are neglecting their own citizens in order to expand economically.

At 2/9/07 03:19 PM, Begoner wrote: In fact, Europe and the West in general should erect tariffs against goods from developing countries which are neglecting their own citizens in order to expand economically.

Can't expand economically if you don't keep money IN your economy. Them buying cheap grain from overseas only means that they get cheap grain. If they bought the more expensive local grain, their economy would grow, because then the farmers would be able to afford to grow more food, feed more people, employ more people, which means more people would have money to buy food, etc etc etc.

It's a more complicated extension of the "give a man a fish/teach hom how to fish" parable.

At 2/9/07 06:14 PM, Ravariel wrote: Can't expand economically if you don't keep money IN your economy. Them buying cheap grain from overseas only means that they get cheap grain. If they bought the more expensive local grain, their economy would grow, because then the farmers would be able to afford to grow more food, feed more people, employ more people, which means more people would have money to buy food, etc etc etc.

It's a more complicated extension of the "give a man a fish/teach hom how to fish" parable.

Economic expansions entails boosting a nation's capacity to produce goods or services. Relying heavily on imports in order to satiate the food needs of a country's citizenry does not impede this; in fact, it spurs it. A well-fed workforce which has access to cheap food will retain more income which can be spent on "luxuries" (not in the Rolls-Royce sense, obviously, but maybe a cell phone or a sweater). Perhaps the farming sector of the economy will be damaged (although subsidies can correct this problem); nonetheless, growth elsewhere will offset this detrimental effect. Workers will be more productive, contributing to an outward shift in the aggregate supply curve; there will also be a rightward shift in the aggregate demand curve for goods that aren't food (unless the farming sector is subsidized, in which case it, too, will benefit from this increase in demand). That is the best kind of economic growth a country can have; it's certainly better than having the engine of economic growth be isolationism.

At 2/9/07 03:19 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 2/8/07 11:09 PM, JoS wrote: With farm subsidies it is cheaper for Africans to buy wheat grown in North America then locally grown food.

That's a good thing.

No its a bad thing. If you are importing all your food your money is just leaving the country and you get a trade deficit. It makes everyone poorer.

At 2/9/07 10:50 PM, JoS wrote: No its a bad thing. If you are importing all your food your money is just leaving the country and you get a trade deficit. It makes everyone poorer.

Hmm, with the USA's already huge imbalance in trade I wonder why the US would be against something that would force this on them.

. . .whoops.