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.
This new line of Libertarianism in the United States is starting to become rather cancerous and here is why. It is plausible to argue that less government regulation can aim to boost economic production. However the majority of you (yes many of you are on these forums) try not to understand anything about economics, but would rather just complain. That is all you do is complain about moot points about things you take out of context or refuse to understand.
I think my example can explain it best:
The United States government heavily subsidies agriculture, especially corn as one of the largest recipients. According to the Libertarian ideology, such subsidies should be removed because it is effectively allowing the federal government to artificially lower the prices of food domestically and effect the food trade market globally. Now say we do reduce or get rid of the subsidies and corn becomes more expensive to produce as a result. Now the production of high fructose corn syrup becomes considerably more expensive and thus the businesses that make products that involve sugar or sweet products may aim to import more sugar cane. This in turn increases the price of that part of the industry. Corn is also heavily used in animal feed which would increase the price of feed and increase the cost of raising life stock for things such as dairy or meat. In short we will see a large increase in food prices because the government is no longer keeping them artificially low.
You know what would happen under this situation? The libertarians would complain about the increase in food prices and somehow aim to blame the government for this. To me it seems this phase of libertarianism is nothing more the closet Republicans who are experts in the art of complaining and scape goating about things they know little or none about.
This new line of Libertarianism in the United States is starting to become rather cancerous and here is why. It is plausible to argue that less government regulation can aim to boost economic production. However the majority of you (yes many of you are on these forums) try not to understand anything about economics, but would rather just complain. That is all you do is complain about moot points about things you take out of context or refuse to understand.
I think my example can explain it best:
The United States government heavily subsidies agriculture, especially corn as one of the largest recipients. According to the Libertarian ideology, such subsidies should be removed because it is effectively allowing the federal government to artificially lower the prices of food domestically and effect the food trade market globally. Now say we do reduce or get rid of the subsidies and corn becomes more expensive to produce as a result. Now the production of high fructose corn syrup becomes considerably more expensive and thus the businesses that make products that involve sugar or sweet products may aim to import more sugar cane. This in turn increases the price of that part of the industry. Corn is also heavily used in animal feed which would increase the price of feed and increase the cost of raising life stock for things such as dairy or meat. In short we will see a large increase in food prices because the government is no longer keeping them artificially low.
You know what would happen under this situation? The libertarians would complain about the increase in food prices and somehow aim to blame the government for this. To me it seems this phase of libertarianism is nothing more the closet Republicans who are experts in the art of complaining and scape goating about things they know little or none about.
Not really. Sugar production will also increase here at home (yes, the US has the climate to produce sugar), assuming we keep the present sugar tariffs in place. Higher food prices also mean that family farmers who are losing their farms to developers and BigAg finally have some skin in the game and won't go bankrupt and force to sell their land because they can't afford the outrageous property taxes. higher food prices means more small farms can be commercially viable, and seeing an increase in those, instead of seeing the sad state of many farms being converted into McMansion subdivisions in many metro areas
This new line of Libertarianism in the United States is starting to become rather cancerous and here is why. It is plausible to argue that less government regulation can aim to boost economic production. However the majority of you (yes many of you are on these forums) try not to understand anything about economics, but would rather just complain. That is all you do is complain about moot points about things you take out of context or refuse to understand.
I think my example can explain it best:
The United States government heavily subsidies agriculture, especially corn as one of the largest recipients. According to the Libertarian ideology, such subsidies should be removed because it is effectively allowing the federal government to artificially lower the prices of food domestically and effect the food trade market globally. Now say we do reduce or get rid of the subsidies and corn becomes more expensive to produce as a result. Now the production of high fructose corn syrup becomes considerably more expensive and thus the businesses that make products that involve sugar or sweet products may aim to import more sugar cane. This in turn increases the price of that part of the industry. Corn is also heavily used in animal feed which would increase the price of feed and increase the cost of raising life stock for things such as dairy or meat. In short we will see a large increase in food prices because the government is no longer keeping them artificially low.
You know what would happen under this situation? The libertarians would complain about the increase in food prices and somehow aim to blame the government for this. To me it seems this phase of libertarianism is nothing more the closet Republicans who are experts in the art of complaining and scape goating about things they know little or none about.
No, what would happen is if corn goes up in price, more plant it the next year and the price comes down. One shouldn't accuse others of what you are as equally guilty of.
No, what would happen is if corn goes up in price, more plant it the next year and the price comes down. One shouldn't accuse others of what you are as equally guilty of.
More would plant it? Please we waste so much food, who in their right mind running an agricultural business would plant more when people are not even consuming 1/4 of the final product. You only perpetuate my original point...
More would plant it? Please we waste so much food, who in their right mind running an agricultural business would plant more when people are not even consuming 1/4 of the final product. You only perpetuate my original point...
So if we are planting far more than we need the price is not going up. You also have no clue what the argument for subsidies are and why they are even around.
They are not made available to artifically keep prices low. They are used to buy votes.
So if we are planting far more than we need the price is not going up. You also have no clue what the argument for subsidies are and why they are even around.
They are not made available to artifically keep prices low. They are used to buy votes.
Sure they are...
Why don't you go put your tinfoil hat back on and let the grown ups discuss big boy topics.
Why don't you go put your tinfoil hat back on and let the grown ups discuss big boy topics.
I find it funny how often someone posts a poorly thought out idea and then rather than provide something that supports their position when countered they simply resort to insults.
Farmers have been paid to NOT grow things. You don't pay people to NOT grow things to bring the price down. You do it to keep the prices up.
Actually as a radical libertarian I just point and laugh at you fools who think choosing a new master every 4 years is going to make anything better...I don't complain I just listen to the fools who march to the polls intent on voting for the less of 2 evils who think he will change their lives and bring back Amerika from the verge of destruction then I listen to them whine and moan because it didn't happen like they wanted it to and I laugh and say I told ya so.
The United States government heavily subsidies agriculture, especially corn as one of the largest recipients. According to the Libertarian ideology, such subsidies should be removed because it is effectively allowing the federal government to artificially lower the prices of food domestically and effect the food trade market globally. Now say we do reduce or get rid of the subsidies and corn becomes more expensive to produce as a result. Now the production of high fructose corn syrup becomes considerably more expensive and thus the businesses that make products that involve sugar or sweet products may aim to import more sugar cane. This in turn increases the price of that part of the industry. Corn is also heavily used in animal feed which would increase the price of feed and increase the cost of raising life stock for things such as dairy or meat. In short we will see a large increase in food prices because the government is no longer keeping them artificially low.
You know what would happen under this situation? The libertarians would complain about the increase in food prices and somehow aim to blame the government for this. To me it seems this phase of libertarianism is nothing more the closet Republicans who are experts in the art of complaining and scape goating about things they know little or none about.
The reason why even have an abomination like HFCS in our foods is because of the US government subsidizing corn and imposing tariffs on sugar. Take away the subsidies and the tariffs and the corn prices will rise and the sugar prices will fall. HFCS will be replaced by sugar, which is a good thing by itself. If the government continue to stop messing with the market, based on consumer demand, corn or sugar supply will contract or expand as a result of free market forces. We may actually see our obesity epidemic go down just by replacing HFCS with sugar, saving resident food-nazi Michelle Obama some effort. And because we make all this crazy boatloads of corn, we decided to put that in our fuel and decided to make ethanol out of it, a highly inefficient method, which causes for the food prices to rise.
If you are a bleeding heart liberal, you would probably be thinking that all the corn subsidies are going to starving corn farmers in Iowa, but the truth is that most of the money is going to big corporations like Archer Daniels Midland who vigorously lobby to keep the subsidies in place (ADM's last year's profit - $1,930 million). Indirectly you are helping the very corporations whom you purport to hate.
If the above economic arguments doesn't suffice, here's the simple moral argument against the subsidies and tariffs - NO ONE should subsidize ANYTHING for ANYONE. A should grow what B desires and what B is willing to pay. A shouldn't be given a guarantee that his crop will sell any more than B is forced by someone to buy what A plants.
Well I am glad an anonymous person on the internet thinks so....truly I am...
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.
