Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure. Find one successful and productive communist country, and go live there.
I don't have to go live there. I can just stay here and borrow money from that country, without which the temporary glitz and pizzazz of the American lifestlye would not be possible. I can worry later about America going bankrupt and being foreclosed by our "unsuccessful" landlords.
Besides, the cost of living is too high in that communist country. I can go to a successful and productive capitalist country like Haiti or Zimbabwe or Uzbekistan or Bangladesh and live in a cardboard box among the trash-dump tycoons searching for free food.
Quote:
There is a reason that American farmers are THE single most productive and efficient farmers in the entire world. It's because of competition.
I thought you said once it was because of your buddies down at Monsanto.
Then as you point out, who has the biggest guns to enforce that balance, clearly the neither consumers, workers or small firms have that ability. I think that it is rather obvious even to the most casual observer that the only player with the power to bring about balance in the market place is the government.
And every government throughout history has ended up abusing its citizenry. Too much power = abuse. Then there is a revolution.
The time will come, in the United States, when the government becomes so overwhelmingly oppressive that there will be another revolution.
I don't have to go live there. I can just stay here and borrow money from that country, without which the temporary glitz and pizzazz of the American lifestlye would not be possible. I can worry later about America going bankrupt and being foreclosed by that "unsuccessful" country.
Besides, the cost of living is too high in that communist country. I can go to a successful capitalist country like Haiti or Zimbabwe or Uzbekistan and live in a cardboard box among the trash-dump tycoons searching for free food.
As always, you missed the point. Big surprise.
There are no successful communist countries. It's an ideology that doesn't work.
And every government throughout history has ended up abusing its citizenry. Too much power = abuse. Then there is a revolution.
Government is only the extension of the dominate powers in a society. To argue that government is the enemy without castigating the hand guiding government is more than a bit silly.
Quote:
The time will come, in the United States, when the government becomes so overwhelmingly oppressive that there will be another revolution.
See above.
Of course, your above statement is a non sequitor to the question posed and as yet unanswered.
If you agree that unfettered capitalism is flawed and that the market must be balanced, absent the government, who is capable of providing that balance?
-Communism has never existed but in theory. They all became autocratic, one-party states under the guise of communism, or in China's case they became that while turning quasi-capitalist. Marx and Engels theorized that government and the concept of "states" would become obsolete. Getting to that point without getting corrupted by Stalin types is the key, and that probably will never happen. That's because the human being is one selfish animal. If we were ants or bees we might do better with it.
-It's the 21st century. The Cold War is over, so it's time to get out of that mentality. I know this is a difficult leap for people who grew up in that era, but it's gone. We can dispense with this entire capitalist vs. socialist, either-or dichotomy.
Now we're worked up in the next Red Scare because we're looking at ways to expand a basic necessity - health care - to people who have been priced out of it. I think there are some other ways to do this without going the UHC route. Tort reform and allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines might be a place to start. Then you might look at a public option that could cover anyone else left out, e.g. those who insurers refuse to cover. Maybe with an expanded risk pool that segment would be minimal. Who knows, it's all theory at this point and we have a lot of people thinking of this based on only two options - UHC or the status quo. I'm not sure the former is the right way to go, but I'm damned sure the latter isn't. Our current healthcare setup is an embarrassment to the industrialized world.
One pratfall that seems to snag a lot of people on both sides of the debate is trying to look for the perfect solution. It doesn't exist. If we lived in a world where it did, maybe communism would work. So let's look for the best solution. I'm sure we can do this. We're America, right? I thought we were the world's innovators. So innovate already. If we can't, maybe we're not as great as we thought we were.
Government is only the extension of the dominate powers in a society. To argue that government is the enemy without castigating the hand guiding government is more than a bit silly.
See above.
Of course, your above statement is a non sequitor to the question posed and as yet unanswered.
If you agree that unfettered capitalism is flawed and that the market must be balanced, absent the government, who is capable of providing that balance?
Ummm... I already answered your question, and you know it.
The answer is the government. And don't condescend to me with the "silly" comment. You've had your butt handed to you repeatedly for doing that, so let's not start it again.
EVERY government, throughout history, that has had gained too much power has abused its citizenry. Every one. If you're half as educated as you claim to be, you know that.
The government needs to be answerable to the citizens. Unfortunately, every government tries to get to a point where it is NOT answerable to the citizens. And eventually there is revolution. While said revolution might take place in voting booths, more often than not it takes place with violence.
Government is to be feared FAR more than any business or company.
I was under the impression that it was more than half. Am I way off?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks
It's interesting to note that a HUGE chunk of what people think subsidizes American farmers is actually money that goes to Food Stamps.
Now... The MAIN reason they have "target pricing" in the United States (usually wrongly assumed to be subsidies) is because the American government wants Americans to have access to cheap food.
Even so, that has nothing to do with how many bushels per acre - of various crops - American farmers produce. There is a direct financial benefit to American farmers for being extremely efficient and productive. Therefore, they are.
No doubt competition is responsible for the American farmer's efficiencies. They have to be efficient in such an industry. But it makes you wonder how different life would be if we didn't have farming subsidies. I wonder how many American farms would survive without government intervention.
I was under the impression that it was more than half. Am I way off?
No doubt competition is responsible for the American farmer's efficiencies. They have to be efficient in such an industry. But it makes you wonder how different life would be if we didn't have farming subsidies. I wonder how many American farms would survive without government intervention.
I think the answer to that is very simple. The price of groceries, in the United States, would be at least double what they now are.
Regarding these subsidies... I'm not sure how familiar you are with how they actually work. But basically, the government sets a "target price" for that year for each crop. Then, if the average price of said crop is lower than the target price, they issue farmers what are basically called "deficiency payments." In other words, if the Target Price for corn is set at $2.50 per bushel, and the average market price that year is $2.25 per bushel, the farmer receives 25 cents per bushel deficiency payment. The amount of bushel per acre he is paid for depends on the average yields of the county in which he lives.
I don't know whether or not that makes sense, but that is essentially how it works.
Now... The past several years, the actual average price of corn and soybeans has been HIGHER than the Target Prices. Therefore, no Deficiency Payments for those crops. *But notice what has happened to the price of groceries the past 2 years! Higher market prices for crops always means higher prices in the grocery store.
So here's an interesting way to look at it: Farm subsidies really are NOT helping the American farmers as much as they are helping the American consumers!
-Communism has never existed but in theory. They all became autocratic, one-party states under the guise of communism, or in China's case they became that while turning quasi-capitalist. Marx and Engels theorized that government and the concept of "states" would become obsolete. Getting to that point without getting corrupted by Stalin types is the key, and that probably will never happen. That's because the human being is one selfish animal. If we were ants or bees we might do better with it.
-It's the 21st century. The Cold War is over, so it's time to get out of that mentality. I know this is a difficult leap for people who grew up in that era, but it's gone. We can dispense with this entire capitalist vs. socialist, either-or dichotomy.
Now we're worked up in the next Red Scare because we're looking at ways to expand a basic necessity - health care - to people who have been priced out of it. I think there are some other ways to do this without going the UHC route. Tort reform and allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines might be a place to start. Then you might look at a public option that could cover anyone else left out, e.g. those who insurers refuse to cover. Maybe with an expanded risk pool that segment would be minimal. Who knows, it's all theory at this point and we have a lot of people thinking of this based on only two options - UHC or the status quo. I'm not sure the former is the right way to go, but I'm damned sure the latter isn't. Our current healthcare setup is an embarrassment to the industrialized world.
One pratfall that seems to snag a lot of people on both sides of the debate is trying to look for the perfect solution. It doesn't exist. If we lived in a world where it did, maybe communism would work. So let's look for the best solution. I'm sure we can do this. We're America, right? I thought we were the world's innovators. So innovate already. If we can't, maybe we're not as great as we thought we were.
Very well put. Too many people throw their hands up at the idea of UHC, as if the status quo is that much better. There needs to be more people getting involved in coming up with multiple solutions instead of just focusing on one or the other. Capitalism hasn't produced a great health care system. So let's see how it can be improved.
I think the answer to that is very simple. The price of groceries, in the United States, would be at least double what they now are.
Regarding these subsidies... I'm not sure how familiar you are with how they actually work. But basically, the government sets a "target price" for that year for each crop. Then, if the average price of said crop is lower than the target price, they issue farmers what are basically called "deficiency payments." In other words, if the Target Price for corn is set at $2.50 per bushel, and the average market price that year is $2.25 per bushel, the farmer receives 25 cents per bushel deficiency payment. The amount of bushel per acre he is paid for depends on the average yields of the county in which he lives.
I don't know whether or not that makes sense, but that is essentially how it works.
Now... The past several years, the actual average price of corn and soybeans has been HIGHER than the Target Prices. Therefore, no Deficiency Payments for those crops. *But notice what has happened to the price of groceries the past 2 years! Higher market prices for crops always means higher prices in the grocery store.
So here's an interesting way to look at it: Farm subsidies really are NOT helping the American farmers as much as they are helping the American consumers!
And in your opinion, are subsidies (and target pricing) helping or hurting the average American? how about the average American farmer?
Edit: you must have edited your post just as I replied... so subsidies hurt the farmer and help the consumer. Should that change in your opinion?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
