Screwing the Cow
 

Somebody sent me this link recently. Its a searchable database for Federal agricultural subsidies. Its great, you can look by zip code and see which of your neighbors is stealing from you. You can't help but notice, however, that the biggest operations are the ones which are really getting the heavy subsidies. If anyone tries to tell you that subsidies are there to keep the small farms viable, they are full of crap.

http://www.ewg.org/farm/

I just wanna know two things:

What the hell is a "loan deficiency payment"? And... how can I get one?

My third biggest money-getter is the "Bureau of Correctional Industries". Say what?

My veterinarian - of all people - is 18th, getting $138. for "conservation". I'll have to ask her.

is that $138 or $138,000 and the formatting just got fudged?

Some dude/company in my ZIP code got like $200,000+ over the 4 year period. Wow.

It's $138; we're pretty suburban in my ZIP, except for a few lagging farms that are pretty much for public fun like Xmas tree farms and pumpkin picking lots.

There is a little good news on this front, the Senate voted to cap payments next year at $275,000. Of course the House could wreck the language of the bill... if in fact the Senate language is solid. I'll have to dig around some more. Check out the payments being made out West, by searching the states for their highest recipients. dhamsaics $200,000 local is chump change.

What a coincidence. I was just checking this out last week with a co-worker (who was raised on a family farm) who is using this site with an economics class. To be fair, there are lots, LOTS of smaller, family operations in MN that received 5 and 6 figure assistance as well as the bigger operations. That's a lotta fertilizer.

     It wasn't anywhere near the top but Westark Ear Nose and Throat clinic was on the list. Westark was the local community college, it recently became the U of A Ft.Smith. The really weird part? Every other name I checked was paid out of a nearby office. This clinic was paid out of an office in Kansas. Go figure.

This and other equivalent programs are instituted for specific international reasons. Whether the details are executed properly is another story. Primary target of agricultural subsidies is France. France refused to make agriculture a free market industry. French farms are socialistic. For example, French farms are too small and inefficient because of government intervention. French national integrity, for reasons I don't understand, are tied to the land and the small farm. French routinely stifle sales of American agriculture behind bureaucratic hypocrisy. Also the reasons for a recent world wide banana war.

Victims of American agricultural subsidies include Canada and Australia. America so drove down wheat prices as to make farmers in those countries suffer. But then it is a global economy, no matter what terrorists and demonstrators at world economic councils 'feel' (usually without even basic knowledge of economics).

The topic of subsidies becomes even more complex as Charlie Rose once demonstrated in repeated interviews with multiple farm owner/families. But to pass judgement on what this web site demonstrates is to take a myopic viewpoint. The website may demonstrate how socialist programs make a less productive, socialist economy. But it does not address the bigger, more serious problem that created so many such programs.

If you think this program is rediculous, then just wait till Bush and Company start protecting USX (formally US Steel) using reasoning that only a naive MBA could appreciate.

They are not arguing that it is NOT a global economy, they are protesting against the unfairness of it *sighs*
I was at some of those protests, it has much more to do with things like American tariffs that protect the inefficient industries you are always complaining about from being bitchslapped by economic realities.

I mean the reasons are obvious, any government knows that it lives or dies on its economic management before anything else and the concept of half-killing industries (that often have powerful political lobbies, like the Japanese rice industry - a joke financially)in the process of making them economically viable is political suicide.

Australia has a policy of zero tariffs - the only industry we protect to the best of my knowledge is cars. If you take a look at our trade white paper (www.dfat.gov.au/ini/wp.html) (you know you do far too much international studies when you memorise things like that) it revolves around the concept of true free trade, not the selective bullshit America keeps pouting while using economic muscle to bully everyone into unfair agreements.

It’s good to see Europe is making some token efforts toward opening its markets to free trade wit the third world in fruits and vegetables, it’s a good start.

Want one reason so many people hate America? Its the unfairness of wealth, if these people weren’t in such desperate poverty they wouldn't become the 'terrorists' tw seems to be talking about. Why are they in such desperate poverty? Because half the things they can produce are made unviable by tariffs in first world countries to protect commercially unviable businesses

Grrrr why the HELL does word (set to ENGLISH english, keep trying to spell words with a Z.

The problem, however (and I'm not picking a side in this, really) is that basically the core of their argument is that it's not "fair".

Man, life isn't fair. Get the fuck over it. Not you personally, but everyone. I see all these people bitching about "it's not fair" - yeah, neither is cancer! Neither is multiple sclerosis! Neither is getting shot in the eyeball on September 4, 1995 and losing vision in your right eye! Neither is getting dumped by that bitch after she fucked your buddy!

People need to take the energy they put into protesting things that "aren't fair" and put it toward developing a solution. There is no <b>right</b> to a market, foreign or domestic. But you <b>do</b> have the right to offer a solution to what you perceive (either rightly so or not) to be a problem.

I'm not coming down on you, Jag. You're just the one that mentioned it. I feel for the people that have trouble because of tariffs and all the problems that are created by international trade, but business does not have a right to a market.

Unfortunately for a lot of foreign markets, the US government is going to (understandably) favor domestically created products. What do the foreign companies need to do? <b>Make a product that's better than the US counterpart.</b> That's what they should be devoting their energy to.

Life's not fair, unfortunately. To these people I say "stop complaining and do something useful." That's where the money's at.

Dham, mabye i didn't stress it enough.
I know life isn't fair, i know tariffs aren't fair, i also know why they are there, i don't have a problem with it, its in each nations interest to look after its national interest first. I'm doing first year uni international studies atm, we do this stuff in great, great detail.
I'm just saying its a: economically counterproductive in the long term b: well...unfair *laughz
The problem is, and its a fundamental one, is that our democratic system does not encourage long term solutions - beacause the politician won't be around to reap the benifits. Democracy is a shithouse system - until we find something better =) but that is a whole seperate thread =)

?
How can you make a better sheep? A better ton of grain? That only applies to some markets. Really it only applies to top-end secondary and teridtory level economies, australia is still primary (as an example, and i can't see the countries that really need the trade (such as for example, afghanisatan, palastine, name your third world country) exporting top end electronic goods or IT infrastructure solutions in the near future.

I know the one above it did, so did
happen to you to?

Fortunatley, no. I've been pretty pleased, overall, with the women I've had serious relations with. One was an unpleasant bitch whom I was smart enough to ditch, and the other is... well, you know :)

Anyway. Bigger fatter sheep :)

Dunno about grain though, that's definitely a toughie. The farmers are obviously going to have more of a problem, simply because it's so easy (relatively speaking) to produce a pretty good working replica of their product (cute little sheep, grain, etc). Problem is, domestic products are <b>always</b> going to be cheaper than foreign, even without tarrifs - it ain't cheap to ship sheep! God, I hate rhyming. Anyway, I have to go to work. :)

tw brings up some interesting points. The French government intervenes to try to maintain the smaller "family farms". Why? It makes emotional sense (am I violating a tone copyright?) from the perspective of a country decimated by war twice last century. They lost the capacity to feed themselves and are trying to make sure that never happens again. From a market viewpoint their attempts to control food production seem destined to cause the shortages they wish to avoid. Its a matter of trust, the French trust government more, and the Americans trust the market more, (of course more in words than action) to feed the people without disruption. Now the French are trying to protect their farmers from American farms which were grown unaturally because of our governments interventions. This all ignores the different relationship that French and Americans have with their food...quality vs quantity...

The biggest disruption in American agriculture was the same event which the French are still compensating for. Americas wars were in themselves artificial subsidies leading to accelerated centralization and mechanization, due to increased demand and reduced manpower, which along with specific subsidies created market disruptions altering our farming practices at a pace that promotes fear among interested observers.

I know quite a number of the farmers on the list for my county. Most are in the four figure range while a few crack the five figure level. I believe the payments they received are mostly for the dip in corn production caused by recent droughts. Its some kind of crop failure insurance deal. A growing attitude among them is that they have to apply for these subsidies as a good business practice, since everybody else is subsidized. I noticed one local guy I know quite well who just started applying for subsidies in the last two years. He hates these government interventions since they protect incompetence.

Tax farming is now almost universal among US farmers. Some see the caps as a way to protect small operators but as long as we have subsidies we will have overproduction, the real problem. To me, the most disturbing part is that we are creating a welfare mentality among some of the most competent, capable, and independent folks in the country. The over-production problem, on a superficial level, seems like a good problem to have but as Jag and others have noted, it prevents third world farmers from developing their own agriculture, which leaves people exposed to the whims of war and trade disputes and screws with developing economies.

wouldnt that be your reason? civilization is british, civilisation is american, right?

something like that..

color vs colour

"Civilisation" is decidedly British (and I guess Australian too). "Civilization" is American English. Maybe jaguar is using an American-English spell checker?

Because the OED supports -ize.

*sigh*. I'm no fan of tarriffs, but blaming terrorism on them is a pretty bad stretch. Particularly when you check out Osama's net worth.

Now the French are trying to protect their farmers from American farms which were grown unaturally because of our governments interventions. This all ignores the different relationship that French and Americans have with their food...quality vs quantity...

And that relationship is a key thing. I'm interested in quality. The French have a sacred, historical and cultural relationship with their food. Most Americans have no idea what cheese really is :) In Italy the government takes more control of foreign corporate invasion. Just cross that border and the advertisements disappear...They value, protect and perpetuate their unique historic and regional contributions to consumers.

Slowly Americana seem to becoming more aware and wary of food production and source- mainly due to genetically engineered and hormone enhanced food - and beginning to effect some change the market. The demand for quality and willingness to pay, has enabled a few smaller farmers around here to reimagine their operations- direct to consumer produce, artisnal dairy/cheese cooperatives- and there is a market. Evidence of this trend is seen in a growing corporate player like Whole Foods (for better or worse) gobbling up neighborhood co-ops and building their empire across the US.

And 19403 is right next door. Looks like the guy who runs the farm part of the Norristown Farm Park is picking up a few bucks this way.

NO. That is the point.
Example: we can produce rice, that without tariffs, could be sold far below the market price in Japan, transport costs included. We can do the same with lamb inside the US, and grain. It really is the big.

Rusotto: Why do people like Bin Laden have popular support? Because people are desperate, it is akin, as i've said before to the rise of hitler after WW1, Germany was broke, poverty was rampant, people get desperate and look to people who provide scapegoats and easy answers. Its obviously more than tarriffs, but it is the extreme wealth divide, not to mentioan cultural invasion. I'm not saying the first world is evil etcetcetc, i'm not saying there is an easy or short term fix, but it is the reason.

As for dictionary versions, i'ts set to english english here, yet it still seems to be forcing some american spellings, ah well *sighs*, ill live wiht the ugly little red lines.

I don't believe Jaguar made that arguement. The way I read his post, Americans can be hated simply because they are so wealthy; and related symtoms such as massive, inefficient energy consumption. There is not much we can do about that in a country that works more hours than any other nation, a nation still in denial of waste, and a nation that puts its workers at greater economic risks compared to most every other wealthy nation.

We may not be able to solve the 'wealth envy', but there are other problems we could be much smarter at solving. For example, much of bin Laden's 'hate America' reasons had little in common with his supporters. Take away those other reasons (such as outright support of Sharon's unilateral attacks on innocent people), and bin Laden does not have as much support.

As for the French, well, they are a mysterious lot. They would give us the wonderful Statue of Liberty, but then hate us for other things - like English (not matter which way it is spelled).

French farms are said to be protected because of the French people's attachment to farms. Most Frenchmen are only one or two generations detached from farm life. I don't know if this is in agreement or disagreement with Jaguar's 'fear of hunger' theory. Other reasons have been properly cited for agricultural subsidies including Japanese rice and Apple tarrifs. I see no solution even after the next round of GATT. Too many talk free markets but then forget how to walk.

But then I am not the only one with such frustrations. World economic leaders complain among themselves how many ways they have attempted to address economic problems such as poverty with so little success. The latest was to address poverty as a function of corruption or as a function of excessive government intervention. Free markets alone have not been the solution and corruption is a tough nut to crack. Studies of the worst (30 something) nations did not show very much success which is why world economic leaders are so frustrated in their search for solutions.

My fear of hunger theory? clarify please...

Gah, apart from internal corruption, often the leading cause of national poverty (take Nigeria for example - Oil rich but the people are poor - the moeny is siphoned off by a few at the top) is a: Foreign debt, the sheer volume of money it takes to service thsoe debts stop any real economic expansion, and lack of access to wealthy foreign markets. Remove thsoe two constraints and i beleive many of these economies would thrive. As for bin laden, tw pretty much hit the mark.

My mistake. I misapplies a point made by Griff to you. Griff posted:

grumble grumble
 

Rockefeller subsidy.

http://www.nydailynews.com/2002-05-1...sp?last6days=1