Oh, boy. Farm subsidies. You know, there's a reason they're so hard to shift.
It's nice to imagine harmlessly cutting into Monsanto profits, but it doesn't work that way. Cutting farm subsidies means higher food prices unless farm efficiency is increased or import tariffs slashed (which itself increases efficiency by proxy).
Both of which invariably mean Monsanto stomping on more small farms or Them Furr'ners stomping on more small farms (factory farms have great returns to scale, and gain efficiency through size, so invariably the losers are the small organic farms of legend). If neither is done, then food prices just rise instead. The left doesn't see any of these three as politically acceptable. The right doesn't see cutting subsidies to Monsanto as politically acceptable. Cue deadlock.
Also, it should be noted that there would be winners and losers. Our farm subsidies are far from evenly spread. So no doubt foodstuffs containing grain and such would rise in price. But vegetables get pretty shoddy subsidies currently if I remember right, so they wouldn't incur much of a price change. And really, encouraging consumption away from grains and towards vegatables is probably a net gain.
I don't really have a problem with stomping on small farms. Small farmers are pretty big dicks when it comes to getting anything accomplished that doesn't pad their own influence and money, so I don't have any more sympathy for them than I do for corporations. Maybe we need to reign in Monstanto's business practices through regulation, but that is better done through actual legislation rather than simply hoping that the current status quo is enough to give smaller farmers enough sway to counter Monsanto.
Oh, boy. Farm subsidies. You know, there's a reason they're so hard to shift.
It's nice to imagine harmlessly cutting into Monsanto profits, but it doesn't work that way. Cutting farm subsidies means higher food prices unless farm efficiency is increased or import tariffs slashed (which itself increases efficiency by proxy).
Both of which invariably mean Monsanto stomping on more small farms or Them Furr'ners stomping on more small farms (factory farms have great returns to scale, and gain efficiency through size, so invariably the losers are the small organic farms of legend). If neither is done, then food prices just rise instead. The left doesn't see any of these three as politically acceptable. The right doesn't see cutting subsidies to Monsanto as politically acceptable. Cue deadlock.
Actually, a lot of those subsidies are holdovers designed to keep priced up.
Yes. The consumer sees the lower prices. The farmer gets the higher revenue. The government provides the difference via a subsidy.
Cut the subsidy, and consumer-side and farmer-side prices converge.
Would you rather people pay via taxes and debt or via sticker? Sticker is a lot more efficient and doesn't have the problems of debt.
mrt144 on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Oh, boy. Farm subsidies. You know, there's a reason they're so hard to shift.
It's nice to imagine harmlessly cutting into Monsanto profits, but it doesn't work that way. Cutting farm subsidies means higher food prices unless farm efficiency is increased or import tariffs slashed (which itself increases efficiency by proxy).
Both of which invariably mean Monsanto stomping on more small farms or Them Furr'ners stomping on more small farms (factory farms have great returns to scale, and gain efficiency through size, so invariably the losers are the small organic farms of legend). If neither is done, then food prices just rise instead. The left doesn't see any of these three as politically acceptable. The right doesn't see cutting subsidies to Monsanto as politically acceptable. Cue deadlock.
Actually, a lot of those subsidies are holdovers designed to keep priced up.
Yes. The consumer sees the lower prices. The farmer gets the higher revenue. The government provides the difference via a subsidy.
Cut the subsidy, and consumer-side and farmer-side prices converge.
Would you rather people pay via taxes and debt or via sticker? Sticker is a lot more efficient and doesn't have the problems of debt.
Taxes are progressive, sticker is regressive. The people hurt most by rising food prices pay little or nothing in taxes.
Tiger Burning on
Ain't no particular sign I'm more compatible with
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Oh, boy. Farm subsidies. You know, there's a reason they're so hard to shift.
It's nice to imagine harmlessly cutting into Monsanto profits, but it doesn't work that way. Cutting farm subsidies means higher food prices unless farm efficiency is increased or import tariffs slashed (which itself increases efficiency by proxy).
Both of which invariably mean Monsanto stomping on more small farms or Them Furr'ners stomping on more small farms (factory farms have great returns to scale, and gain efficiency through size, so invariably the losers are the small organic farms of legend). If neither is done, then food prices just rise instead. The left doesn't see any of these three as politically acceptable. The right doesn't see cutting subsidies to Monsanto as politically acceptable. Cue deadlock.
Actually, a lot of those subsidies are holdovers designed to keep priced up.
Yes. The consumer sees the lower prices. The farmer gets the higher revenue. The government provides the difference via a subsidy.
Cut the subsidy, and consumer-side and farmer-side prices converge.
Would you rather people pay via taxes and debt or via sticker? Sticker is a lot more efficient and doesn't have the problems of debt.
Taxes are progressive, sticker is regressive. The people hurt most by rising food prices pay little or nothing in taxes.
Actually our corn subsidies have raised prices because we're paying farmers to grow corn for ethanol on land they could be making grain or wheat
Yes, YES, YESSSSSSSS!
Corn Ethanol is possibly the most stupid product on earth besides leaded paint.
There, fixed that for you. Brazil is doing just fine with sugar based ethanol. The cheap sugar for which we can't import because of high tariffs to protect high-fructose corn syrup sales.
Great, now I'm mad at corn again. It'll take me two hours to stop thinking about it and calm down.
Oh, boy. Farm subsidies. You know, there's a reason they're so hard to shift.
It's nice to imagine harmlessly cutting into Monsanto profits, but it doesn't work that way. Cutting farm subsidies means higher food prices unless farm efficiency is increased or import tariffs slashed (which itself increases efficiency by proxy).
Both of which invariably mean Monsanto stomping on more small farms or Them Furr'ners stomping on more small farms (factory farms have great returns to scale, and gain efficiency through size, so invariably the losers are the small organic farms of legend). If neither is done, then food prices just rise instead. The left doesn't see any of these three as politically acceptable. The right doesn't see cutting subsidies to Monsanto as politically acceptable. Cue deadlock.
Actually, a lot of those subsidies are holdovers designed to keep priced up.
Yes. The consumer sees the lower prices. The farmer gets the higher revenue. The government provides the difference via a subsidy.
Cut the subsidy, and consumer-side and farmer-side prices converge.
Would you rather people pay via taxes and debt or via sticker? Sticker is a lot more efficient and doesn't have the problems of debt.
Taxes are progressive, sticker is regressive. The people hurt most by rising food prices pay little or nothing in taxes.
If you care about the poor buying food, then you should just subsidize food at the consumer end: including imported foreign-grown food, organic food, processed food, whatever. Drop the subsidies on locally-grown food.
Focusing on subsidizing particular American agribusinesses is what got us into this situation with entrenched Big Corn to begin with.
ronya on
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
edited February 2010
I'm not defending subsidies. I'm pointing out why it's hard to remove them. Simultaneously pissing off the poor and the rural voters is a recipe for electoral suicide.
Tiger Burning on
Ain't no particular sign I'm more compatible with
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
I'm not defending subsidies. I'm pointing out why it's hard to remove them. Simultaneously pissing off the poor and the rural voters is a recipe for electoral suicide.
We already don't pay sales tax on our foodstuffs, so if potentially much higher food prices really is a problem (which I doubt) you can always just expand the food stamp program (which isn't helpful if it just raises food prices by increasing consumption)
Posts
Also, it should be noted that there would be winners and losers. Our farm subsidies are far from evenly spread. So no doubt foodstuffs containing grain and such would rise in price. But vegetables get pretty shoddy subsidies currently if I remember right, so they wouldn't incur much of a price change. And really, encouraging consumption away from grains and towards vegatables is probably a net gain.
I don't really have a problem with stomping on small farms. Small farmers are pretty big dicks when it comes to getting anything accomplished that doesn't pad their own influence and money, so I don't have any more sympathy for them than I do for corporations. Maybe we need to reign in Monstanto's business practices through regulation, but that is better done through actual legislation rather than simply hoping that the current status quo is enough to give smaller farmers enough sway to counter Monsanto.
Would you rather people pay via taxes and debt or via sticker? Sticker is a lot more efficient and doesn't have the problems of debt.
Ethanol is possibly the most stupid product on earth besides leaded paint.
Taxes are progressive, sticker is regressive. The people hurt most by rising food prices pay little or nothing in taxes.
So what? Maybe bad foods should cost more.
There, fixed that for you. Brazil is doing just fine with sugar based ethanol. The cheap sugar for which we can't import because of high tariffs to protect high-fructose corn syrup sales.
Great, now I'm mad at corn again. It'll take me two hours to stop thinking about it and calm down.
If you care about the poor buying food, then you should just subsidize food at the consumer end: including imported foreign-grown food, organic food, processed food, whatever. Drop the subsidies on locally-grown food.
Focusing on subsidizing particular American agribusinesses is what got us into this situation with entrenched Big Corn to begin with.
We already don't pay sales tax on our foodstuffs, so if potentially much higher food prices really is a problem (which I doubt) you can always just expand the food stamp program (which isn't helpful if it just raises food prices by increasing consumption)
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=21979