As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

It's the [Economy Thread], Stu... Silly Goose!

1235»

Posts

  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    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.

    Saammiel on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    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

    nexuscrawler on
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    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
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    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

    :mrgreen: Yes, YES, YESSSSSSSS!

    Ethanol is possibly the most stupid product on earth besides leaded paint.

    mrt144 on
  • Tiger BurningTiger Burning Dig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    edited February 2010
    mrt144 wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    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
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    mrt144 wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    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.

    So what? Maybe bad foods should cost more.

    mrt144 on
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    mrt144 wrote: »
    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

    :mrgreen: 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.

    enc0re on
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    mrt144 wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    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
    aRkpc.gif
  • Tiger BurningTiger Burning Dig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    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
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    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.

    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)

    mrt144 on
  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Speaking of farmers, Thantos started a great thread about this a while ago. So good in fact, that I bookmarked it under my educational directory:

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=21979

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.