Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

farm subsidies and zpaceman's article

Reply to Thread
  1. WillieDM3 WillieDM3 is offline

    Florence, AL
    United States

    Posts: 976
    Joined: Jun 06

    Oct 6th, 2007 (10/6/2007 3:24am)

    Isn't he a little bold to declare that the "only" winners of farm subsidies are the home country farmers and the politicians??? Doesn't that assume that other countries actually have an economy in place where agriculture would be able to thrive in a competitive market(reality being that not all countries do, obv). Some would argue that if subsidies were taken away in the U.S. that would lead to a decline in food production in the U.S. which would lead to us being unable to send food to different places in the world like Africa. Believe me, I'm all about free market capitalism, and I generally don't like taxes or subsidies, but I think that the farm subsidies might be an exception to the rule. I'm willing to acknowledge that I could be wrong though. Any expert opinions out there?

    P.S. Good article otherwise. :)
     
  2. warden warden is online now

    Tucson, AZ
    United States

    Posts: 15,529
    Joined: Apr 06

    Oct 6th, 2007 (10/6/2007 3:40am) in reply to WillieDM3

    opposing farm subsidies is like free market capitalism 101, idk what to tell you

    one could also argue that cheap food prices undercut local farmers and prevent a real economy from ever being built
     2
  3. WillieDM3 WillieDM3 is offline

    Florence, AL
    United States

    Posts: 976
    Joined: Jun 06

    Oct 6th, 2007 (10/6/2007 3:47am) in reply to warden

    That's a valid point, but in many parts of the world an economy can't be built because there is no real protection of property rights. Why grow crops if the local mob is just going to come and steal the crops or the money you make from them? I guess I'm saying that your argument could be true for some parts of the world, but not others. I have a degree in Economics, but I'm no Economist. I'm hoping somebody that knows more than me will come in here and teach me something...lol.
     
    Thread Starter
  4. vetiver vetiver is offline

    Los Angeles, CA
    United States

    Posts: 580
    Joined: Jun 07

    Oct 6th, 2007 (10/6/2007 3:55am) in reply to WillieDM3

    If cost of U.S. export crops < cost of producing local crops w/ property rights issues, then imports make sense and will occur. Subsidies take taxpayer money to artificially drop U.S. crop export prices. I suppose this could benefit third world starving people, but it's at our expense and it's evil farmers and politicians who reap the unearned benefits. If benefiting third world countries is your goal, just divert the billions of dollars in farm subsidies and to the people of those countries. But on second thought, don't do that, because that requires my tax dollars too and I'm not interested in paying for it.
     
  5. WillieDM3 WillieDM3 is offline

    Florence, AL
    United States

    Posts: 976
    Joined: Jun 06

    Oct 6th, 2007 (10/6/2007 4:04am) in reply to vetiver

    I guess that another aspect of this could be our national interest of keeping certain things produced at home. Taking away farm subsidies would mean that the U.S. would import more food than we currently do, I would think anyway due to the increased prices. If we were to get involved in another worldwide type of war, our enemies could create a massive economic crisis by just attacking our food suppliers who would undoubtedly be much weaker countries. I guess that the same could be said for any good in which we rely on imports, but it would probably be more severe if it were something basic like food.
     
    Thread Starter
  6. vetiver vetiver is offline

    Los Angeles, CA
    United States

    Posts: 580
    Joined: Jun 07

    Oct 6th, 2007 (10/6/2007 4:22am) in reply to WillieDM3

    That would make sense, except we're just subsidizing certain crops... a lot of which aren't staple foods or even edible (cotton). Not sure how feasible another world war is. And even if what you say is true, it has nothing to do with why subsidies currently exist.
     
  7. warden warden is online now

    Tucson, AZ
    United States

    Posts: 15,529
    Joined: Apr 06

    Oct 6th, 2007 (10/6/2007 4:34am) in reply to vetiver

    you can eat cotton. in fact, milo minderbinder chocolate-coated cotton is one of my favorite foods
     2
  8. vetiver vetiver is offline

    Los Angeles, CA
    United States

    Posts: 580
    Joined: Jun 07

    Oct 6th, 2007 (10/6/2007 5:01am) in reply to warden

    My bad. This moots all my arguments.
     
  9. xPeru xPeru is offline

    Posts: 104
    Joined: Aug 06

    Oct 6th, 2007 (10/6/2007 7:58am) in reply to WillieDM3

    This argument is completely false: farm subsidies are not part of the defense budget. It is an argument used by self-serving politicians to try to justify an economic idiocy, but it does not hold true. The USA is dependent on many imports, but for the purposes of national defence retains the strategic capability to replace these imports in the run up to war. In short, food production will not be a problem.

    One of the main problems with subsidies is that they provide a disincentive to innovation. They are in place because US farmers cannot compete with farmers in other countries. Usually this situation spurs farmers to increase their efficiency by inventing new technology, or using existing technology, eg using GPS and software to plant the optimum density of seeds in each location on the farm. Subsidies remove the incentive to innovate and creates a stagnant industry.
  10. vetiver vetiver is offline

    Los Angeles, CA
    United States

    Posts: 580
    Joined: Jun 07

    Oct 6th, 2007 (10/6/2007 8:06am) in reply to xPeru

    Most of the farm subsidies go to gigantic farms owned by gigantic corporations. Even with subsidies they have an incentive to maximize efficiency (always looking to maximize profit)... they just get a sweet bonus from all of us on top of that which allows them to stay competitive int'lly.

    <3 corruption.
     
  11. jtown1010 jtown1010 is offline

    United States

    Posts: 23,112
    Joined: Jan 06

    Oct 6th, 2007 (10/6/2007 10:08am) in reply to vetiver

    Excellant poker discussion gentleman, continue.

    and WTF choco-cotton? That would seem awkward to eat.
  12. EyeKnows EyeKnows is offline

    Posts: 6,639
    Joined: Sep 06

    Oct 6th, 2007 (10/6/2007 10:21am) in reply to WillieDM3

    You cannot call here. Your opponent has basically played the hand like it was face-up and calling here is spew unless you have a soul-read. If you fold pre-flop this kinda crap never happens btw.
  13. MikeCaroJr MikeCaroJr is offline

    Posts: 1,377
    Joined: Mar 07

    Oct 6th, 2007 (10/6/2007 12:17pm) in reply to WillieDM3

    Farm subsidies = biggest welfare program
  14. Fife19 Fife19 is offline

    Halifax
    Canada

    Posts: 10,711
    Joined: Jun 06

    Oct 6th, 2007 (10/6/2007 1:12pm) in reply to MikeCaroJr

    Was Zpacemans article really about farm subsidies?
Reply to Thread

Similar Threads