Could Texas Have More People than CA? (subsidized, price)

[user_id]

Originally Posted by slo1318

Importation. The Ag business in California is the strongest in the state and controls much of the water, more than urban uses. California has the number one most productive ag regions in the world.....Water is extremely important, and does have to be dealt with, but food production along with water is of national and world importance.

Yes, I realize that importation is unlikely anytime soon, agriculture business will have everyone showering once a week before they give up their water subsidies. But none of that changes the fact that agriculture production in California isn't particularly important, the state's GDP is around 2 trillion and agriculture make sup only around 40 million of that. Close the farms, open some new factories, offices, etc and trade with central and south America. Heck..it may even result in less people running across the border....

[slo1318]

Originally Posted by user_id

Yes, I realize that importation is unlikely anytime soon, agriculture business will have everyone showering once a week before they give up their water subsidies. But none of that changes the fact that agriculture production in California isn't particularly important, the state's GDP is around 2 trillion and agriculture make sup only around 40 million of that. Close the farms, open some new factories, offices, etc and trade with central and south America. Heck..it may even result in less people running across the border....

Thats the most absurd thing Ive ever heard.

And you can change that 40 million to 40 billion chief....



California remained the No. 1 state in cash farm receipts in 2010, with $37.5 billion in revenue. California's agricultural abundance includes more than 400 commodities. The state produces nearly half of U.S.-grown fruits, nuts and vegetables. Across the nation, U.S. consumers regularly purchase several crops produced solely in California.
California is home to some of the most productive counties in the nation. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture’s ranking of market value of agricultural products sold, nine of the nation's top 10 producing counties are in California.


http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/


According to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, "California agriculture is nearly a $36.6 billion dollar industry that generates $100 billion in related economic activity."[25] The state’s agricultural sales first exceeded $30 billion in 2004,[26] making it more than twice the size of any other state's agriculture industry.
California is the leading dairy state.[27] Milk is California's number one farm commodity.[26] California's dairy industry generated $47 billion "in economic activity" in 2004 and employed over 400,000 people."[27]

[user_id]

Originally Posted by slo1318

Thats the most absurd thing Ive ever heard.

And you can change that 40 million to 40 billion chief....

Yes, that was a typo and the point remains. California has a ~2 trillion dollar economy and agriculture only makes up $40 billion of that.

Anyhow you can kill 5~10 billion of the most wasteful, in terms of water, farming in California and the state's economy would hardly notice. Of course if you traded for these goods instead there would be no economic loss, just less illegals.

[.highnlite]

Originally Posted by user_id

Yes, I realize that importation is unlikely anytime soon, agriculture business will have everyone showering once a week before they give up their water subsidies. But none of that changes the fact that agriculture production in California isn't particularly important, the state's GDP is around 2 trillion and agriculture make sup only around 40 million of that. Close the farms, open some new factories, offices, etc and trade with central and south America. Heck..it may even result in less people running across the border....

You are out of your league here Chief. CA ag is indeed about $40 billion, in direct production economic benefit. But, the indirect benefit to the economy that comes from spending that $40 billion in CA, the trucks, tractors, equipment purchases, the money spent by the wage and salary earners is ten times that, or, equal to nearly 1/4 of the states GDP.

I know you like to argue simply for the pleasure of arguing, but, having knowledge of a subject is helpful to a successful argument.

[slo1318]

Originally Posted by user_id

Yes, that was a typo and the point remains. California has a ~2 trillion dollar economy and agriculture only makes up $40 billion of that.

Anyhow you can kill 5~10 billion of the most wasteful, in terms of water, farming in California and the state's economy would hardly notice. Of course if you traded for these goods instead there would be no economic loss, just less illegals.

That $40 billion is only the direct sales. The total economic impact is many times that. And again, this is the most fertile and productive land in the world. And you are calling for outsourcing why? Just water issues? Water increasingly needs to be looked at on a larger scale, not state by state.

[iron_woman]

there are more cows in texas than there are people in california

[user_id]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

You are out of your league here Chief. CA ag is indeed about $40 billion, in direct production economic benefit. But, the indirect benefit to the economy that comes from spending that $40 billion in CA, the trucks, tractors, equipment purchases, the money spent by the wage and salary earners is ten times that, or, equal to nearly 1/4 of the states GDP.

This is funny, you suggest I'm out of my league and then proceed to utter complete nonsense. The multiplier from agriculture production is no where near 10x as you are suggestion, indeed, no industry has a multiplier even close to that high! The multiplier for agricultural production is around 2~3x, hence the aggregate direct and indirect contribution to GDP is around 90~100 billion. That is still a small fraction of total output. But the size of the contribution is actually irrelevant, California and shift production into non-agriculture sectors and trade for agricultural products. There would be no loss of production.

I know you may be allergic but books won't hurt you....

[user_id]

Originally Posted by slo1318

That $40 billion is only the direct sales. The total economic impact is many times that. And again, this is the most fertile and productive land in the world. And you are calling for outsourcing why? Just water issues?

Umm...yes "just" water issues. Apparently water is important when you are growing things...

Continuously asserting that California has the "most productive land in the world" while ignoring the water issues makes no sense. Remove the water infrastructure and the land isn't productive at all, hence one has to consider all the various subsidies when you talk about productivity.

If California was really as you say, Farmers wouldn't go to such great lengths to lobby for subsidies, lobby for tariffs, etc. California has been so successful in farming due to strong investments in infrastructure, that is, large public subsidies....

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by user_id

Umm...yes "just" water issues. Apparently water is important when you are growing things...

Continuously asserting that California has the "most productive land in the world" while ignoring the water issues makes no sense. Remove the water infrastructure and the land isn't productive at all, hence one has to consider all the various subsidies when you talk about productivity.

If California was really as you say, Farmers wouldn't go to such great lengths to lobby for subsidies, lobby for tariffs, etc. California has been so successful in farming due to strong investments in infrastructure, that is, large public subsidies....

Oh? Because no one, no industries, no interests ever lobby except when in desperate need? I did not know that. Here I always thought lobbying for as much as you can get all the time was just simply a way of life in America. Well, f' me, here I've been thinking harshly against so many for so long.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Oh? Because no one, no industries, no interests ever lobby except when in desperate need? I did not know that. Here I always thought lobbying for as much as you can get all the time was just simply a way of life in America.

Dude...when did I suggest any of this? The point of my comment is that you can't compute the "productivity" of California agriculture independently of the various subsidies the industry gets from tax payers. And yes, agriculture does get a lot of subsidies in comparison to other industries and this has been, I believe, a mistake. California has seen its semi-conductor industry slowly decline and transfer production to Asian where they are focused on its growth all while farmers get massive subsidies here... The amount of production lost here is greater than the entire agricultural industry in California....