If you look at the simple picture of the economic system again, what role does encouragement play?
It's just meddling. We encourage you to do X. You wouldn't do it on your own because it's not in your best interest.
...by making it more attractive to grow corn again...
...irrespective of whether anyone wants to buy corn. So more people grow corn for no particular reason, leading to a surpluss of corn, leading to lower prices. Leading to poor farmers.
...start buying Ethanol rather than Petroleum...
Ethanol is a worse fuel at a higher price. Making people buy it makes those people poorer. How is it moral to force people to buy something they don't want at a price they would never willingly pay? It's just stealing from them indirectly.
But, it was farmland, was taken out of production because the prices fell so far that farmers were going out of business. You might not care, but at some point, we need to have enough people out there still growing food for us.
What is there that might provide an incentive for people to grow food and sell it? The answer is a higher price.
What might cause someone to be willing to pay a higher price for food? The answer is: a relative shortage. (It's a relative shortage -- a shortage relative to when the price was lower.)
And what brings about a relative shortage? The answer is: farmers going out of business.
And why do farmers go out of business? The answer is: low prices.
Do you see how this system can regulate the price and availability of food so that enough farmers can make a reasonable living growing food to supply the folks who want to buy the food?
---
What purpose does the government serve in this system?
What purpose do farm subsidies serve? Farm subsides cause prices to drop by preventing farmers from going out of business. Subsidized farming isn't a business at all, it's simply chasing a welfare check. And that welfare is paid from funds stolen from an innocent worker's paycheck, by force, against his will.
Farmers in India probably get paid a lot less for growing rice than those in the USA so at some point even factoring in shipping costs it would be cheaper to buy from them.
Actually, this is probably not true in this case. The farmer in the US is probably enough more productive than the farmer in India that the US rice is cheaper to produce -- even without subsidies.
This whole line of argument is counter to reality. Farming would continue without subsidies. It would just become a business instead of a nostalgic "way of life". If foreign food supplies were interrupted (by what? Dragons attacking the shipping lanes?) farmers would change from growing cash crops back to food crops. It would be very disruptive, but we'd survive.
Sometimes things aren't easy, yet they need to be done.
This whole line of argument is counter to reality. It's not always cheaper to grow all food in foreign countries. Removal of subsidies would change what's grown and how much, but there would still be lots of farming in the US.
Non-farmers can learn to farm just like farmers can learn a non-farm trade. If there were a market, then farming would be like any other business. People would become farmers to make money. Some would succeed and become rich, some would succeed modestly and get by, and some would fail and go out of business. And there would be nothing wrong with that. Society would be stronger and there would be more opportunity for farmers and non-farmers alike. But we have subsidies instead.
Ethanol companies are hugely profitable and do not need the subsidies, farmers do.
I'm sure they could raise executive salaries so they were only a little profitable. Then they'd "need" them.
Farm subsidies help remove our dependence upon foreign food sources both in war and economically.
Rubber band subsidies help remove our dependence upon foreign rubber band sources both in war and economically. The same goes for subsidies for punk rock bands, bloggers, plumbers, and pet groomers.
I'm not saying they are a good idea, only that the issue is quite different from that of ethanol subsidies.
They both have the same objective: buy votes from farm-related industries with money stolen from taxpayers.
Seems to me that it's better to pay for our fuel locally, than to give that same money to people in countries which hate us.
When I'm paying, I'll buy from whoever has the best price.
So, hell yes, let's buy the corn or beets or sugarcane or whatever grows locally. Biodiesel is another great use of fallow land.
Go ahead and buy some land and grow whatever you want and sell it on the free market. It's none of your business otherwise. Stealing money from people so that you're happy about the "great use" of some land is approximately the same as stealing money from people to buy yourself a luxury car -- just a little less honest.
If you really want to fix things, start controlling the number of people on the planet. We're eating up resources at a prodigious rate, technology is helping, but not fixing it.
I grew up on a farm. My dad used to joke that "city people" think that food magically appears in the grocery store. I never realized how close to the truth that statement might be until I read your post and saw that it was modded up as insightful.
Gosh, I grew up on a farm too. Growing food isn't some magical process that only the elite farmers understand. I think non-farmers could figure it out if they were hungry enough or if there was enough market-based financial incentive.
...all evidence has shown that every $1 the government spends on subsidies translates into $2-3 of additional wealth across the economy.
Please link to this evidence.
Does it subtract the amount of "additional wealth" "across the economy" that was lost by taking the money from the person who earned it in the first place? Does it subtract the cost of administrative inefficiency? It costs the taxpayers a lot more than $1 for every $1 a farmer gets in subsidies.
I submit that you are incorrect. Subsidies don't create wealth. They simply buy votes and campaign contributions from the folks who receive them.
wrt Live, Home, etc: do you really think gamers are so eager to install stores under our TVs?
Yeah, because there's no way to buy items using the 360 or the Wii I guess? What's the answer for this supposed to be? "We're sorry for offering stuff for sale. We'll never do it again. Commerce is just a fad anyway. Can I borrow an axe to build a log cabin with?"
So you're saying you don't want any of the benefits that you get from an HDTV set. Why should Phil Harrison care?
Phil, answer this for me:
"I don't like playing video games, watching movies, listening to music or viewing pictures. Why should I buy a PS3? Isn't $600 a lot of money for a 300-watt room heater?"
Now that the PS3 has launched, what do you see as the state of the console/handheld industry in the next year or two? Will the PS3 overtake the XBox 360 or the Wii in this time period? A lot of the press and their followers are skeptical. What might lead that to happen?
Zonk spent a long time bashing Sony -- posting every bit of "news" where Sony looked bad, even when it wasn't news or it was completely made up. This is balance.
Basically, instead of being misled by negative hype about Sony, now you're being misled by positive hype. That's the modern definition of news.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me summarize this:
Freedom for ME, none for YOU. Especially if YOU are an ISP.
Nevermind the unintended consequences either.
If you look at the simple picture of the economic system again, what role does encouragement play?
It's just meddling. We encourage you to do X. You wouldn't do it on your own because it's not in your best interest.
...irrespective of whether anyone wants to buy corn. So more people grow corn for no particular reason, leading to a surpluss of corn, leading to lower prices. Leading to poor farmers.
Ethanol is a worse fuel at a higher price. Making people buy it makes those people poorer. How is it moral to force people to buy something they don't want at a price they would never willingly pay? It's just stealing from them indirectly.
So you're implying that NASA designed the Mayan calandar?
But, it was farmland, was taken out of production because the prices fell so far that farmers were going out of business. You might not care, but at some point, we need to have enough people out there still growing food for us.
What is there that might provide an incentive for people to grow food and sell it? The answer is a higher price.
What might cause someone to be willing to pay a higher price for food? The answer is: a relative shortage. (It's a relative shortage -- a shortage relative to when the price was lower.)
And what brings about a relative shortage? The answer is: farmers going out of business.
And why do farmers go out of business? The answer is: low prices.
Do you see how this system can regulate the price and availability of food so that enough farmers can make a reasonable living growing food to supply the folks who want to buy the food?
---
What purpose does the government serve in this system?
What purpose do farm subsidies serve? Farm subsides cause prices to drop by preventing farmers from going out of business. Subsidized farming isn't a business at all, it's simply chasing a welfare check. And that welfare is paid from funds stolen from an innocent worker's paycheck, by force, against his will.
Stealing is wrong.
Do you have an example of a famine caused by overpopulation or don't you?
Is there any evidence of a war in Darfur? Hmm... I wonder.
Farmers in India probably get paid a lot less for growing rice than those in the USA so at some point even factoring in shipping costs it would be cheaper to buy from them.
Actually, this is probably not true in this case. The farmer in the US is probably enough more productive than the farmer in India that the US rice is cheaper to produce -- even without subsidies.
This is caused by war and government oppression, not population.
Got any examples of famines that are caused by overpopulation?
See here.
This whole line of argument is counter to reality. Farming would continue without subsidies. It would just become a business instead of a nostalgic "way of life". If foreign food supplies were interrupted (by what? Dragons attacking the shipping lanes?) farmers would change from growing cash crops back to food crops. It would be very disruptive, but we'd survive.
Like it would be just that easy.
Sometimes things aren't easy, yet they need to be done.
This whole line of argument is counter to reality. It's not always cheaper to grow all food in foreign countries. Removal of subsidies would change what's grown and how much, but there would still be lots of farming in the US.
Non-farmers can learn to farm just like farmers can learn a non-farm trade. If there were a market, then farming would be like any other business. People would become farmers to make money. Some would succeed and become rich, some would succeed modestly and get by, and some would fail and go out of business. And there would be nothing wrong with that. Society would be stronger and there would be more opportunity for farmers and non-farmers alike. But we have subsidies instead.
In the time between when the food stops and the time at which we get to reap the food we have sown, what's your plan for that period of time, eh?
People are fat enough. They can go a little hungry until harvest.
Ethanol companies are hugely profitable and do not need the subsidies, farmers do.
I'm sure they could raise executive salaries so they were only a little profitable. Then they'd "need" them.
Farm subsidies help remove our dependence upon foreign food sources both in war and economically.
Rubber band subsidies help remove our dependence upon foreign rubber band sources both in war and economically. The same goes for subsidies for punk rock bands, bloggers, plumbers, and pet groomers.
I'm not saying they are a good idea, only that the issue is quite different from that of ethanol subsidies.
They both have the same objective: buy votes from farm-related industries with money stolen from taxpayers.
Seems to me that it's better to pay for our fuel locally, than to give that same money to people in countries which hate us.
When I'm paying, I'll buy from whoever has the best price.
So, hell yes, let's buy the corn or beets or sugarcane or whatever grows locally. Biodiesel is another great use of fallow land.
Go ahead and buy some land and grow whatever you want and sell it on the free market. It's none of your business otherwise. Stealing money from people so that you're happy about the "great use" of some land is approximately the same as stealing money from people to buy yourself a luxury car -- just a little less honest.
If you really want to fix things, start controlling the number of people on the planet. We're eating up resources at a prodigious rate, technology is helping, but not fixing it.
Really? When was the last famine?
I grew up on a farm. My dad used to joke that "city people" think that food magically appears in the grocery store. I never realized how close to the truth that statement might be until I read your post and saw that it was modded up as insightful.
Gosh, I grew up on a farm too. Growing food isn't some magical process that only the elite farmers understand. I think non-farmers could figure it out if they were hungry enough or if there was enough market-based financial incentive.
...all evidence has shown that every $1 the government spends on subsidies translates into $2-3 of additional wealth across the economy.
Please link to this evidence.
Does it subtract the amount of "additional wealth" "across the economy" that was lost by taking the money from the person who earned it in the first place? Does it subtract the cost of administrative inefficiency? It costs the taxpayers a lot more than $1 for every $1 a farmer gets in subsidies.
I submit that you are incorrect. Subsidies don't create wealth. They simply buy votes and campaign contributions from the folks who receive them.
Yeah, because "Ethanol subsidies" are so much different than "farm subsidies".
How about if farmers just get off the welfare?
wrt Live, Home, etc: do you really think gamers are so eager to install stores under our TVs?
Yeah, because there's no way to buy items using the 360 or the Wii I guess? What's the answer for this supposed to be? "We're sorry for offering stuff for sale. We'll never do it again. Commerce is just a fad anyway. Can I borrow an axe to build a log cabin with?"
So you're saying you don't want any of the benefits that you get from an HDTV set. Why should Phil Harrison care?
Phil, answer this for me:
"I don't like playing video games, watching movies, listening to music or viewing pictures. Why should I buy a PS3? Isn't $600 a lot of money for a 300-watt room heater?"
Now that the PS3 has launched, what do you see as the state of the console/handheld industry in the next year or two? Will the PS3 overtake the XBox 360 or the Wii in this time period? A lot of the press and their followers are skeptical. What might lead that to happen?
And what do PSP owners have to look forward to?
If they're looking for a big payoff, maybe they should.
Someone engages in work for a charity and then doesn't get a big payoff. What's the problem again?
Do I need more jogging?
Try doing it on a wheel.
Lots of stereotypes there. All negative toward America. Hmm.
I don't think a company has the same instincts that lead to obesity though.
Zonk spent a long time bashing Sony -- posting every bit of "news" where Sony looked bad, even when it wasn't news or it was completely made up. This is balance.
Basically, instead of being misled by negative hype about Sony, now you're being misled by positive hype. That's the modern definition of news.
Because SWG was a failure? SWG was a huge flop from day one.
It was a long time ago. Consider getting over it eventually.