1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

40% of farm income

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Carl Herrera, Nov 1, 2019.

  1. Carl Herrera

    Carl Herrera Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    45,153
    Likes Received:
    21,570
  2. conquistador#11

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2006
    Messages:
    35,963
    Likes Received:
    22,343
    And that's the large farms benefiting from modern Mao reform.
    Mom and dad farms are kaput.
     
    FrontRunner likes this.
  3. Buck Turgidson

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    84,998
    Likes Received:
    83,176
  4. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,913
    Likes Received:
    47,629
    Socialism is taking over this country -- enough with the handouts.
     
    FranchiseBlade likes this.
  5. Jugdish

    Jugdish Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    8,281
    Likes Received:
    8,140
  6. London'sBurning

    London'sBurning Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    4,810
    GOP: Yadda yadda yadda free market should dictate blah blah blah less government blah blah blah can't pick and choose winners in a truly free democratic society blah blah blah
     
  7. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    34,620
    Likes Received:
    33,563
    Wow... That hair is SO much better on him than the thing he has now.
     
    Ottomaton and NewRoxFan like this.
  8. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    34,061
    Likes Received:
    13,411
    Yeah, it's socialism. And it's also a good idea. Farming is an industry we really need and it faces very significant systemic risks. To properly abrogate those risks the free market way, you'd employ hedges and buy a ton of insurance and bake it all into the price -- but then you'd be undercut by international suppliers who can be cheaper because they have their governments mitigate their risks. Laissez-faire would be a disaster for American farming and therefore our own food security. You either need to employ government to keep foreign suppliers out (or raise import tariffs), or else to mitigate your risks so that you can compete with them on a roughly equal playing field.

    Some of this, like the compensation for losses to the trade war, are temporary. But we're always going to have government stepping in to make sure our farms can be going concerns. We're the 3rd largest producer in an effort to feed 7.5 billion people.
     
  9. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    61,253
    Likes Received:
    28,758
    I know little of farming . .. but changing owners every few years because of failures
    does not seem a recipe for consistent food supply . . . . so the let them fail and be absorbed or bought out
    won't help much at all

    Rocket River
     
  10. dmoneybangbang

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    20,941
    Likes Received:
    12,825
    And it’s very off putting these folks have the mindset “socialism” for them but not for others.
     
  11. London'sBurning

    London'sBurning Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    4,810
    I'm agreement with you in so far that we as a species need food to live. Doesn't it strike you as odd though when the stock market is at record highs and our economy is supposed to be strong that this type of government intervention is necessary? Doesn't it show that the tariff trade war has been a disaster and is hurting what should be a thriving economy?

    I could understand government intervention if we were in the middle of a Recession or Depression and helping farmers as they literally provide so much of the food we consume on a daily basis.

    As far as the effort to feed the global population, it could be done. Yet people deal with malnutrition daily and die of starvation. To prop up "effort" when in actuality we have more food that rots before we can consume it as a justified excuse to prop up farmers is some feel good sentiment send off that isn't correct. It's making the correlation that this government intervention is necessary because people will die of starvation if they don't. People are already dying of starvation when we already have more food than we know what to do with. It just sounds good to say to justify defense of bad foreign policy with the trade war.

    We're in a thriving economy. Why are farmers struggling in a "thriving" economy? Why is our government intervening in this matter in a "thriving" economy? Would it not be better to lift the tariffs that are hurting our farmers so they can get their profit from the free market like even they want? Why are we catering to a cry baby President who might get his feelings hurt if he conceded that the trade war has been a disaster. If we lifted tariffs, wouldn't we thereby reduce the amount of government intervention and allow farmers to earn their own profits?
     
  12. London'sBurning

    London'sBurning Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    4,810
    It really just seems like we're throwing tax money at farmers that could be used elsewhere were it not for bad foreign policy with the tariff trade war. We'd rather let a cry baby President be stubborn that the tariff trade war is a good idea and throw billions in tax dollars to cover up evidence that states otherwise. Weak.

    Sometimes being the bigger man is admitting you were wrong. It would benefit farmers if Trump simply admitted he was wrong about the tariff trade war and that it had negative consequences for the farming supporters that voted him into office and is lifting the tariffs so that they can resume business as usual. It'd be too damaging for Trump's ego to do that though. So lets throw billions at the problem to keep dear leader happy while not actually fixing what's causing such strong government intervention. Weak.
     
  13. DaDakota

    DaDakota If you want to know, just ask!

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    123,886
    Likes Received:
    32,777
    Sure are, and we can save a lot by cutting back on military spending too - we don't need to be funding a war footing......

    DD
     
  14. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    34,061
    Likes Received:
    13,411
    I wouldn't say I really agree with how Trump is going about his trade war with China. I'm not particularly confident. But, I also think we've been seeing a conflict coming and that sooner or later we were going to have to reset our relationship to recognize China as a new hegemonic power and figure out how we're to co-exist. So, I don't think having a trade war (properly executed) was in itself a bad idea. We have real disputes that need resolution. If a Dem president comes in and just calls it off and lowers the barriers, that'd be pretty disappointing. We perhaps just need a new strategy to get a good agreement to end it.

    But the subsidies for the trade war are only one of several socialist mechanisms here -- farmers get other government interventions all the time, in good times and bad. We can let many markets suffer through downturns, have bankruptcies, go offshore, or whatever. But there's a few industries that I think we need to make sure are domestic and robust all the time because they are so essential to the functioning of the rest of our society, especially things that are services or commodities subject to spoilage -- food, water, electricity, law enforcement, transit, healthcare, things like that. Which means we have to pay more to make sure they are 100% reliable. The text-book capitalist free market doesn't do 100% reliability. So you can't, imo, solely rely on free markets to deliver. And we continue to struggle to find the right market construct to give us 100% reliability with all the efficiency we would otherwise hope to get from the free market. But if we let the market decide then we'll have to go through periods when domestic farms can't earn a profit, the domestic industry will wither and our capacity to produce will be reduced.
     
    FrontRunner and Nook like this.
  15. dmoneybangbang

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    20,941
    Likes Received:
    12,825
    We had a strategy called TPP in 2016 but multi lateral trades became out of favor.

    The issue of subsidies is who gets them and why someone else gets them. From 2008-2016, GOP orthodoxy was producers vs takers. If the GOP could be honest about subsidies instead of playing this black and white movie about bootstraps then we could have better discussions about how America can thrive in the 21st century.

    All I hear out some farmers mouths is “socialism for me, not for you.” That’s unacceptable.
     
    FrontRunner likes this.
  16. DaDakota

    DaDakota If you want to know, just ask!

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    123,886
    Likes Received:
    32,777
    Basically trying to BUY the farmers votes, when Trump caused the damned problem in the first place.

    DD
     
    FrontRunner likes this.
  17. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    34,061
    Likes Received:
    13,411
    Yes, Obama was pursuing a different strategy for this clash, then Trump came in and upended the whole thing to go a different way. Again, I'm not saying I like his trade war, only that a conflict was going to come one way or another. Even with the TPP.

    I'm not making Trump's argument, I'm making a socialist argument (ironically since I'm simultaneously bashing Warren in another thread for her mis-applied communism in another industry). If you want to argue about the hypocrisy of the GOP position or of farmers', you'll have to do it with somebody else because I've never been either of them.
     
  18. dmoneybangbang

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    20,941
    Likes Received:
    12,825
    Oh I agree. This fight was inevitable.

    I was more agreeing with you and giving my opinion. I also agree with you about Warren.

    It’s about balance and being honest about what’s going on. Warren goes too far and GOP orthodoxy falls way short.
     
    #18 dmoneybangbang, Nov 1, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2019
  19. dachuda86

    dachuda86 Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2008
    Messages:
    16,308
    Likes Received:
    3,580
    no not literally socialism lol. Not even close.

    Do you all get dumber every day?
     
  20. dmoneybangbang

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    20,941
    Likes Received:
    12,825
    Lol. So giving tax payer money to prop an industry isn’t close to socialism?

    Do you get dumber every day?
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now