Are Farm Subsidies socialism?

a reply to: olaru12

You should have read my previous posts.

I read all of your posts.

You're trying to bait people. You're trolling.

You're right, this isn't the mudpit. Keep that in mind as you continue to troll.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: olaru12

You should have read my previous posts.

I read all of your posts.

You're trying to bait people. You're trolling.

You're right, this isn't the mudpit. Keep that in mind as you continue to troll.

This is the thread title...Are Farm Subsidies socialism?

This thread isn't about me...now you're trolling and baiting me.

The social market economy (SOME; German: soziale Marktwirtschaft), also called Rhine capitalism, is a socioeconomic model combining a free market capitalist economic system alongside social policies that establish both fair competition within the market and a welfare state.[1] It is sometimes classified as a coordinated market economy.[2] The social market economy was originally promoted and implemented in West Germany by the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) under Chancellor Konrad Adenauer in 1949.[3] Its origins can be traced to the interwar Freiburg school of economic thought.[4]

The "social" segment is often wrongly confused with socialism and democratic socialism and although aspects were inspired by the latter the social market approach rejects the socialist ideas of replacing private property and markets with social ownership and economic planning. The "social" element to the model instead refers to support for the provision of equal opportunity and protection of those unable to enter the free market labor force because of old-age, disability, or unemployment.[9] Some authors use the term "social capitalism" with roughly the same meaning as social market economy.[10][11][12] It is also called "Rhine capitalism", typically when contrasting it with the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism

Social market economy

a reply to: JAGStorm

That day a country dies is when people start calling everything communist.

Have fun.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
No.

Farm subsidies, at least in theory (if not in practice) are meant to provide stability in the food supply. Thats survival, not socialism.

Is survival not possible without subsidies? What happened to less government??

If no one wants to farm because of the nature of farming, then how will we eat?

How many years of drought should a farmer starve through before deciding to get into another field? What if non edible crops are the most profitable and nothing lures farmers into growing food crops instead of crap like switch grass to make fuel from?

You can have less government. Its what we have had throughout human history. A history rife with famine, starvation....

Sounds great.

There was a time before farm subsidies and people ate. Not only did they eat, they ate very healthy.

No, the problem is to do with mega corporations taking control of farms and their production of food. US hasn't even do their one job is to shut them down and let the farmers figure out what is good and bad. A new way other than pesticides. It is called research and development.

May I give a hint to farmers out there? Mint plantation will help get rid of some bugs around crop fields. Technically, mints regrow every season and are kind of invasive, but they are edible. They don't really destroy crops. They are a god given plant.

homeguides.sfgate.com...
vegetablegardenhub.com...


Also the fact that EPA is also corrupted by corporations is also problem.

www.globalresearch.ca...
seedfreedom.info...

yes, socialism.
But, you know, it's "good" socialism..


the money can come from US companies that import and pay the tariffs on Chinese goods.

Do I like farm subsidies? No.

Are farm subsidies socialism? No.

Socialism is the redistribution of private goods and services by central government control. With farm subsidies, the food is not being produced in the first place and nothing can be redistributed plus the farmers keep control of their land. At most the government is paying farmers to *not* produce marketable goods, with the public message that it is necessary for land conservation and market price control. It might be closer to some sort of small "c" cronyism with the intent of market manipulation.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Hmm! I missed that one and you are absolutely correct, subsidies are sometime's paid to NOT produce, or to grow what are called cash crop's such as rapeseed and the EU had that policy in place for a very long time since some years there is a particularly large over production so subsidizing the farmers keep's a glut of product from entering the market place and both enables more competition and also better price regulation, I think the EU still do.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
You are only looking at the issue from one side.
Consider a farmers.

You plant a crop.
Pray for rain, but not to much.
You hope for the best.
You harvest with a $250k machine that you use 3 weeks out of the year.
Then somebody else tells you what you are going to get paid.


Cut the subsidies if you want but dont bitch about $8 gallons of milk.
$16 pounds of cheese.
Etc...

Actually, what this should tell you is that thanks to subsidies, the prices of foodstuff is artificially suppressed by the government and not the free market that people claim should be king when it comes to doing business. Can I get the government to artificially suppress the price of American-made goods like clothes and appliances, too? Hmm, down to China-price levels should do.
If we can justify it for food, everything else is up for debate, too. If one thing is ok for the government to make cheap for the benefit of the people (hi, socialism lite!) so is the rest.

I am mostly kidding, so whoever is crapping themselves trying to formulate a response can wipe now. The point was to think about artificially low pricing versus free market pricing.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Yes why a lot of states vote Democrat,little to no resources,live off taxpayers tax subsidies,fancy farm equipment big spreads

a reply to: Nyiah

Prices are manipulated for many reasons. For example: why do we artificially drive down the value of african cotton by subsidizing its growth here? The benefit to this fantastic cash crop for Africa would be immense, while at home we could farm things that is less damaging to soil, less prone to blight, and that has actual value. Its obvious cottons value is limited if we are muscling in on african action and leaving no meat on the bone for africa (cotton is indigenous to africa, its meant to be grown there, and makes for a better product in the end).

The purpose of government is to provide for the general welfare of the people represented. Managing food cost is absolutely a government role, and that role goes back millenia.

If the government subsidizing someone for growing a food crop allows me to have cheaper food, while limiting the amount of acreage provided to industrial corn, etc....i see that as a win. The alternative is that the free market will drive agriculture away from consumables and towards industrial use due to market forces. At least, until such point that foods value supercedes that of industrial use ag.

Man...talk about a competition for resources between the elite (industrial leaders) and common folks (us people who just like to eat every day or so). Competing for dirt to grow agricultural products in. How much would you be willing to pay? Would industrial leaders be able to pay more?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

A lot of big ag is about inter-national competition. Brazil has been self-sufficient in many with with regards to motor fuel by making ethanol and fueling their economy with it. It made sense for them because their petroleum costs were quite high, and they are a more compact country in the US. the lower energy of ethanol was an acceptable price for Brazilians to pay, in order to be energy independent as a state.

But there were shortages, and Brazil occasionally had to buy American corn to make up shortfalls in their own production. And American corn processors (ADM and Cargill) wanted America to be ethanol consumers, to even out demand for corn.

Of course, sugar is a more efficient source of ethanol than corn, but ADM, Cargill and ConAgra aren't in the sugar business they way they are in corn....

Similarly with cotton. America doesn't produce very good long-staple cotton (the kind used to make clothes). But it does produce a huge amount of short-staple (the basis for non-fiberglass insulation). A big part of the whole issue 1945~1990 has been excluding Egypt and India from the US market---until the EU, the US was by far the largest consumer market on earth. Which drove Egypt and India into the old Soviet sphere....

So globalism is a slogan, with the multinationals still playing empire games, under the code of "free trade." To quote the talking heads,

"Same as it ever was."

The biggest change right now in agriculture is a new movement, call it "niche farming."

It is tiny right now, but is rattling a lot of cages in small town America, just outside the major cities.

A small "beginning farmer," almost always a young married couple, or a group of couples run their business as a co-op. They have 20-200 acres. So they cultivate it intensely, and sell directly to top-end restaurants or consumer co-ops. Bypassing the major grain and meat processors.

The small farm has a different cost structure. They generally don't use pesticides, but do a lot more irrigation. They till extremely intensely, but often without big machinery, since they are on tiny acreage. Frequently they dress the crops by hand, since they are producing high end things like salad components.

I have seen the millionaire rich farmer freaking the @#$*& out because a young couple straight out of college is growing salad on land that was once sacred to number 2 (animal feed) corn. They were feeding the root-tops to cows and goats, and selling the milk to a consumer co-op. And most sunny weekends their were 25 families out picking their own strawberries, paying $2 a pint for the privilege. The multimillionaire is jumping up and down and shouting an threatening to call the cops and the USDA because the hipsters are blocking the ditches with their SUVs, and selling raw milk and organic vegetables, and publishing a newsletter....

Theres a town north of DFW where people freaked out 20 years ago that a local farmer was raising camels, to sell the milk and meat to the local middle eastern community....

I know another guy who runs an abattoir, specializing in chickens, pigs and goats. He provides halal meat to an islamist meat market in Dallas, and cabrito for quinceaneras. I also know his turkey supplier, who raises heritage organic turkeys that bring $90 each (smoked) for thanksgiving and Christmas.

Like I say, I'm sure this is not even a 1% of even local-area agriculture, but is definitely freaking out the old heads. Production farmers are enmeshed in extremely complex relations with their seed providers; many of whom provide special fertilizer or pesticides below cost, to keep the farmer "loyal" to the big Pharma/big ag supplier. The new niche farmers have no need for that relationship.

Production agriculture tries to use zoning laws on the outskirts of metropolitan areas to outlaw farms that produce food for a chemical free, balanced diet. They try to outlaw "hobby farming" because it is introducing small farmers back into the economy of the USA.

SMDH

EDIT TO ADD.
The whole reason I started this post was to say that these small time niche farmers don't qualify, or need, socialized price supports (like the DA and American dairy association's programs). And big Ag employs so few people, that even a dozen of these niche or hobby farms can change the demographics of a previously 'settled' district. And the co-op reaches 250 voters every month with its online newsletter....