Socialist US Farm Subsidies - Contributing to 3rd World Poverty

[Jason]

A lot of so called "illegal immigration" (stemming from poverty) is actually caused by socialists NOT capitalists. :ohmy: Feel free to debate.




Moscow on the Mississippi

The American Way

My favorite chapter in Parliament of Whores is that about US Agricultural Policy. As PJ writes elsewhere, politics wouldn't exist without special interest groups, and the farm lobby is among the most successful of those. The logical question to ask is: in a country where food is so plentiful and cheap why does the government still subsidize farmers?

U.S. farm policy is, along with North Korea and the Stanford liberal arts faculty, is one of the world's last outposts of anti-free-market dogmatism. "...most Americans believe the unique nature of agriculture - the lengthy production cycle, dependency on the weather, susceptibility to price swings, etc - justifies a certain level of government involvement." But you can say that about the unique nature of selling Mazda [MX-5s]. Why isn't the government giving $50 billion to car dealerships?*

We allow bureaucrats to fiddle with things rural because we have a dreamy view of how our food is made. The pastoral idyll fills our brain: dew-drops, lowing cattle, corn-huskers and all. The truth is that farming is as large-scale and industrialized as it can be. Most subsidies go to giant corporations who fill the food chain with almost horrific efficiency. They face the same market forces as other industries, but minimize these ON THEIR OWN in the quest for greater profit. That is how capitalism works, Produce something, sell it, and improve your efficiency. With that plan, America became the richest country in the world.

One of the most successful programs for bilking money out of the taxpayer is in Florida. For decades, sugar companies have taken subsidies, cheap land and trade protection, and grown fat on the proceeds, all the while keeping the cost to consumers much higher than if prevailing world prices ruled. (Not to mention ruining the Everglades.) So consumers pay with their taxes, and they pay again at the supermarket. Countries with a natural advantage in sugar production then remain poorer than they would otherwise, and look for aid from...guess who?

Oh, sure. Government's great. Pass the sugar, will you?

[#FF0000]

Keynesian economic policies aren't socialist sorry.

[Rafiq]

I will become immortal.

[Kotze]

Neither the writings of Marx nor the acts of the Soviet Union's leaders were particularly kind towards farmers, rather the opposite.

I'm not aware of any statement by Keynes in favour of farm subsidies, and I know that Abba Lerner was against that, so I wouldn't call farm subsidies a Keynesian policy either.

[danyboy27]

A lot of so called "illegal immigration" (stemming from poverty) is actually caused by socialists NOT capitalists. :ohmy: Feel free to debate.

Farm subsidies where initially created to help out farmer beccause without farmer, everyone dies and until industrialisation mechanised the whole thing, growing crop where not the most profitable buisness in the world.

It had nothing to do with wealth equality, capitalism or socialism, it was done to avoid food shortage.

Now, just like in every capitalist economy, some big monopoly started to use this to increase profits.
Capitalist are verry good at using the state for their own end, there is nothing new here, that why reformism is so futile, beccause has long has you keep the exploitation process going, the big predator are gonna control the game and profit from it.

[#FF0000]

U.S. farm policy is, along with North Korea and the Stanford liberal arts faculty, is one of the world's last outposts of anti-free-market dogmatism. "...most Americans believe the unique nature of agriculture - the lengthy production cycle, dependency on the weather, susceptibility to price swings, etc - justifies a certain level of government involvement." But you can say that about the unique nature of selling Mazda [MX-5s]. Why isn't the government giving $50 billion to car dealerships?*This is literally the stupidest thing I think I've ever read that was presented as a serious statement.


I'm not aware of any statement by Keynes in favour of farm subsidies, and I know that Abba Lerner was against that, so I wouldn't call farm subsidies a Keynesian policy either.

It's public sector intervention to correct inefficient outcomes on the part of the private sector, isn't it?

[Prometeo liberado]

Maybe it's me, but I don't "get" the "illegal immigration" line. I hope you do understand that no one is illegal, not even to make a point unless the point is the absurdity and dehumanizing effect that the term has.

[RedZezz]

Will new reactionaries please research what most socialist here believe before posting their stupid shit? Or what socialism even is?

[Jason]

Farm subsidies where initially created to help out farmer beccause without farmer, everyone dies and until industrialisation mechanised the whole thing, growing crop where not the most profitable buisness in the world.

It had nothing to do with wealth equality, capitalism or socialism, it was done to avoid food shortage.

Now, just like in every capitalist economy, some big monopoly started to use this to increase profits.
Capitalist are verry good at using the state for their own end, there is nothing new here, that why reformism is so futile, beccause has long has you keep the exploitation process going, the big predator are gonna control the game and profit from it.

Right, the US is much bigger. So the real struggle isn't capitalism vs socialism, but big vs small. Capitalism was giving working class people a decent standard of living in Latin America (for example) until the intervention of free trade.


Will new reactionaries please research what most socialist here believe before posting their stupid shit? Or what socialism even is?

Ok, farm subsidies are government intervention in a capitalist economy, differing from a state in which all means of production are collectively owned.


This is literally the stupidest thing I think I've ever read that was presented as a serious statement.The author was arguing against state subsidized capitalism (for good reason). However, a direct comparison between US and Soviet agriculture was foolish.

I guess he was trying in some indirect way to demonstrate the superiority of a totally capitalist model free from government interference (unless perhaps to protect wages or health benefits).

[runequester]

Farm subsidies also exist to ensure price stability. The prices for food would plummet if farmers produced at full capacity, so to ensure that prices don't drop, farmers are paid subsidies to ensure their survival.

The inability of the free market to survive under its own is well documented every single day.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I agree with Runequester.

[#FF0000]

Farm subsidies also exist to ensure price stability. The prices for food would plummet if farmers produced at full capacity, so to ensure that prices don't drop, farmers are paid subsidies to ensure their survival.

The inability of the free market to survive under its own is well documented every single day.

yup. it's basically to ensure price stability in general. Don't know how effective it is, going by what I spent grocery shopping the other day, but regardless even reforms like this that centrists and liberals can really get behind still benefit the few and the powerful. Most beef nowadays is produced by about 4 companies, and farmers go out of business left and right. Meanwhile, there's "farms" in New Jersey that get subsidies, and those checks end up going straight to some of the richest addresses in Manhattan.

Some fun facts I like to drop on my liberal friends every so often.

[runequester]

yup. it's basically to ensure price stability in general. Don't know how effective it is, going by what I spent grocery shopping the other day, but regardless even reforms like this that centrists and liberals can really get behind still benefit the few and the powerful. Most beef nowadays is produced by about 4 companies, and farmers go out of business left and right. Meanwhile, there's "farms" in New Jersey that get subsidies, and those checks end up going straight to some of the richest addresses in Manhattan.

Some fun facts I like to drop on my liberal friends every so often.

My brother in law is a farmer in Vermont, and he has some not so nice things to say about the "corporate" farms that basically run the industry.

[RGacky3]

How the hell are farm subsidies socialist ......????

[danyboy27]

How the hell are farm subsidies socialist ......????

For a narrow-minded person who believe governement intervention=socialism, yes it is.

[danyboy27]

Right, the US is much bigger. So the real struggle isn't capitalism vs socialism, but big vs small.

capitalism cannot stay small beccause capitalism require neverending growth.
the dilema is about capitalism vs socialism.


Capitalism was giving working class people a decent standard of living in Latin America (for example) until the intervention of free trade.

Latin america was a bad place to live before free trade; colonisation by the spanish empire, then the american empire under the monroe doctrine of imperialism, fallowed by kissinger war on south american countries like chile.

Back in the day when protectionism was the norm those poor folks had to endure horrible working conditions imposed by those who where running the show, they had quota to meet to supply the imperial forces and if they protested in any way they where shot, tortured or killed.

The only thing that changed since the implementation of free trade is the rate at wich worker are exploited and oppressed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Did you know that capitalists are all socialists?

Abraham Lincoln was a socialist because he increased the size of the federal government; George Washington used big government (militias) to put down tax revolts so he was actually a socialist; Ronald Regan passed gun control laws as Governor and used 'big government' to intervene in the economy by firing striking workers, so he's a socialist (and he's from Hollywood so it should go without saying that he's right up there with 'Hanoi Jane'). Adam Smith believed that labor, not smart investing and job creation, created all wealth so he's a big stinking red. Milton Friedman supported and advised Communist China... pinko!

Only slave-owners were real capitalists. They had a whip-yourself with your bootstraps philosophy; were against the forced redistribution of their forced labor - err, property; opposed big government interventions; and hired private slave-catchers.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Troll harder. 0/10