7 of 30 - Politics

[aggienaut]

   I have just minutes to go before being shipped off to my least favourite place ever - the beach. ::shudder:: So my planned expose on why nibot (pictured here) is so very evil (as he bursts in here to sing "fruzly... fruzly...") will have to be put on hold momentarily.

   Instead I think I'll take up the political controversy mongering which has been a recent theme for many of the other participants in the 30 entries in 30 days thing. Again this is probably an even more exciting thing for this journal, as statements regarding American politics are NEVER made, nor does our protagonist ever express views in person on American politics.

   If I ever finish this what with nibot randomly bursting in every thirty seconds.


...and now I have to go to the beach. Blame nibot for preventing me from finishing this on time. Tune in later for the completion of this entry.


   As tempting as it is to leave this as it was, I suppose I'll finish my thought.
Farm Subsidies
   Background
   The United States government currently pays thousands (maybe millions?) of American farmers NOT to produce as much as they could, thereby artificially creating a better farming market in the United States than otherwise would be under a laissez faire system. The amount of money involved in this I believe dwarfs all US foreign aid.
   Aside from the fact that simple logic tells us this is dumb, it is a resdistrubition of wealth in America that is fundamentally unfair. Yes its not as evil as something that favours the already-rich or something, but it is still a completely unnecessary pumping of everyone's tax-dollars into an inefficient industry. And this continues because (A) no one is more "all American" than the mid-west farmers and taking their subsidies away would look un-American, and (B) they themselves constitute millions of votes, certainly enough to swing several states.

   The Emosnail Plan
   I propose that these patriotic farmers can still get the funds they need to keep on doin what the do and being all-American, if instead of paying them NOT to produce, the gov't BUYS that extra production they want off the market. We then ship this grain and wheat and what ev to developing countries who need the stuff.
   This way, the farmers are still getting the same amount of money, but its les fundamentally unfair because at least they're helping someone for the money, demand for their products in America stays the same, and people in the developing world are better off. The end.


Related
   Year Ago Today: Oh Frabjous Day...


*the radio here is out now so I'm back to the music on my computer. Radio is probably just unplugged but I'm too lazy to check (asterix from current music).

Comments

[nibot.livejournal.com]

CONTROVERCIAL

I accept the blame!

But not your spelling!

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

Yea I figured that spelling was wrong ::shurg::

[mister-spooky.livejournal.com]

The Jabberwocky (sp?).

^allihavetosay.

--

Trogdor = Jabberwocky?

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

Last year in my intro to fictional writing (ENL5F) class we read the jabberworky aloud as an exercise in understanding words from context. I showed off by "reading" my verse without the book open. (=

Re: Trogdor = Jabberwocky?

[mister-spooky.livejournal.com]

You are either way too cool or way too dork. Either way, it's OHMIGOD A SHINY DISTRACTION!

--

Re: Trogdor = Jabberwocky?

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

Did I ever post about my The Cheat = R2D2 theory?

[nibot.livejournal.com]

Your idea of "controversial" is a pretty big let-down.

Redistribution of wealth is not fundamentally unfair, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant in this case only.

redistribution of wealth

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

"a redistrubition of wealth in America that is fundamentally unfair"

I am well aware that redistribution of wealth in general is not fundamentally unfair, but in this case I believe it is because it cannot be justified by acute need or merit. The word a in that sentence denotes that I'm not talking about all redistributions of wealth but a specific one.

Re: redistribution of wealth

[citizene.livejournal.com]

I misread it too the first time.

Wheat and Corn

[thetalesend.livejournal.com]

The US subsidizes lots of corn and wheat to make the market price better. It's actully made to make it so the depression hyperproduction doesn't happen again although we could solve world hunger by producing the food and then paying the subsidy to export the 'free' food aid.

Re: Wheat and Corn

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

Yea, thats what I'm saying.

Re: Wheat and Corn

[citizene.livejournal.com]

The market price for food is probably higher in the U.S. than in the countries that need aid, so farmers probably prefer to sell in the U.S. To send the surplus to other countries, the government might have to actually confiscate the food from the farmers, throw them some cash, and then export. And if the rules are changed so that it's more lucrative to export, they'll try to export everything if they're left to their own devices.

Re: Wheat and Corn

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

At this point it would be nice to know how the subsidies work.. do they get the money for allowed a certain amount of land to lay fallow? For just producing under what the estimated possibilities of their land is?

I think certainly the government would buy the food at above market price, I don't want to get into some soviet thing where food is being confiscated from farmers against their will. The easiest way to make this match current subsidy expenditures would be to spend the amount currently spent on expenditures on requisitioning food and shipping to 3rd world. Or if they want to carefully maintain the same demand for food in USA they could of course requisition specifically that amount.

Or here's a completely different idea that just struck me; they can spend some of that subsidy money on scholarships and other incentives for farmers to go to college and learn other occupations - because the bottem line is we're fostering more farmers than their "should" be because we're afraid to let them get unemployed.

I think your idea of "subsidy" is wrong

[nibot.livejournal.com]

I think that notion of farmers "being paid to not produce" is pure Republican FUD. I believe the subsidy is exactly a subsidy: the government pays farmers to produce agricultural products, thus artificially lowering the price to consumers. For instance, Wikipedia says: "The subsidy programs give farmers extra money for their crops, as well as guarantee a price floor. For instance in the 2002 Farm Bill, for every bushel of wheat sold farmers were paid an extra 52 cents and guaranteed a price of 3.86 from 2002–03 and 3.92 from 2004–2007.[1] That is, if the price of wheat in 2002 was 3.80 farmers would get an extra 58 cents per bushel. The effect of this is that subsidies encourage overproduction, and therefore low food prices, because they pay farmers more than what the free market would." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farm_subsidy#United_States)

I challenge you to produce a reputable reference describing this statement: "The United States government currently pays thousands (maybe millions?) of American farmers NOT to produce as much as they could"

Also defend the ethics of dumping cheap grain on markets in developing countries as "charity," given that it decimates local farmers in those countries.