U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-16-2018, 10:31 PM
KCZ
 
2,511 posts, read 1,412,150 times
Reputation: 7071

Advertisements

No. The corn subsidies are economically inefficient and environmentally unfriendly.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-rethink-corn/
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-17-2018, 08:24 AM
 
6,407 posts, read 3,757,375 times
Reputation: 11779
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsell View Post
Corn subsidies = crony enrichment.

Anything beyond this is just commentary.

The same can be said about social security.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2018, 09:25 AM
 
12,018 posts, read 9,318,093 times
Reputation: 13420
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFL_Native View Post
The same can be said about social security.
Social Security and Medicare is not welfare or an entitlement it's a program that has been paid into by an employee's wages.

The Republicans want to privatize it because they are greedy criminals and do not care if it fails.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2018, 01:06 PM
 
1,754 posts, read 887,204 times
Reputation: 503
Default Farm price supports?

Can a group member please explain or link me to an explanation of the current method for federal price supports of agricultural commodities?

I've been browsing through the 1946 – 1952 volume of Truman's autobiographies and I read his too brief explanation of the then Secretary of Agriculture Charles Brannan's proposed price support method. I understood his reasoning for pegging all other of farm those commodities to the price of corn. I currently don't wish to discuss that reasoning.

I'm interested in his goal to provide payments sufficient for smaller sized farms rather than providing for large-scale agricultural “factories”.
How could the federal government administer those payments to prevent large landowners from sub-dividing their acreage in manners as to qualify each sub-division to its full extent of federal benefits? Isn't in comparatively simple to conceal commercial association between individual landowners or individual enterprises leasing or owning farmland?

Post within this thread
or to //www.city-data.com/forum/econo...-supports.html .
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2019, 06:49 AM
 
1,754 posts, read 887,204 times
Reputation: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Can a group member please explain or link me to an explanation of the current method for federal price supports of agricultural commodities?

I've been browsing through the 1946 – 1952 volume of Truman's autobiographies and I read his too brief explanation of the then Secretary of Agriculture Charles Brannan's proposed price support method. I understood his reasoning for pegging all other of farm those commodities to the price of corn. I currently don't wish to discuss that reasoning.

I'm interested in his goal to provide payments sufficient for smaller sized farms rather than providing for large-scale agricultural “factories”.
How could the federal government administer those payments to prevent large landowners from sub-dividing their acreage in manners as to qualify each sub-division to its full extent of federal benefits? Isn't in comparatively simple to conceal commercial association between individual landowners or individual enterprises leasing or owning farmland?

Post within this thread
or to //www.city-data.com/forum/econo...-supports.html .
Truman's and Brannan's proposal continues to rattle around and return to my mind. I don't wish now to discuss the justification for agricultural price supports, but rather how we can reduce their cost to the federal budget. It's a question that may be also applicable to federal programs other than agriculture.

There's legal and public accounting differences and restrictions upon the common form of corporations, or small corporations, (i.e. "C" or "S" Corps), and other forms of partnerships or single owner commercial entities.

It had occurred to me that at least part of my question's solution might be to simply prohibit those federal payments for crops derived from land or crops that are even partially owned or controlled by any "C corp or entity that's not a legal U.S. resident, or recognized by our IRS as a dependent of an individual income taxpayer.

Can any of this group's members suggest why this concept would not be worthy of consideration?
I'm a city guy and you'll have to walk me gently through any agricultural terms or concepts.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2019, 09:16 AM
 
9,871 posts, read 8,365,309 times
Reputation: 8536
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
Countries that can feed themselves have an immense advantage over countries that cannot. That supply has to be stable. The corn being grown that can go into ethanol also can go into a myriad of other things. Whether it's your corn flakes, corn syrup or animal feed. Cheap feed allows for cheap milk, leather, meat, jello....all of which allow cheaper inputs into other areas. Even with the subsidies pushing the price up, America remains the cheapest place in the world to buy corn, and often is the cheapest place to buy soybeans.

If the world opened its markets, then America could sell its grains overseas, but most countries limit this in an effort to protect their own farmers. The Dutch actually license by the animal how many cows you can have, and the cost for product is much higher and must be subsidized down for the consumer.

One of the reasons China became the new industrial center is they decided to heavily subsidize steel and sell it at a loss. At the time of their rise, many countries could offer cheap labor, but China could offer cheap labor and cheap steel, as they had no intention of making money from their steel, but rather moving up the supply chain to get the world's manufacturing.

Also, when you think of a supply chain, a corn growing area won't consume most of its own product at harvest. It needs to be shipped and stored in giant elevators to make an efficient supply chain. If each little farm is growing something different, this infrastructure cannot be made for each one, and costs rise.

So, there is a line item cost on the budget for farmer subsidies. It may seem wasteful, but it's done each year because not doing it would be even more expensive.
The dumping of subsidized grains in Mexico was a major cause of the collapse of subsistence farming in those regions, leading to a mass immigration wave of people from Southern Mexico who were farmers or depended on demand for goods and services from those farmers.

NAFTA and immigration

The same is true for EU and US dumping of subsidized food in Africa eventually leading to famine in the 80's.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2019, 10:13 AM
 
3,900 posts, read 2,417,397 times
Reputation: 8718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19 View Post
That’s quite a kernel of truth. I’m all ears on how to fix this.
I didn’t expect to find my way through this CD maize only for this thread to crop back up.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2019, 03:58 PM
 
Location: The South
6,151 posts, read 4,287,810 times
Reputation: 9857
Quote:
Originally Posted by unit731 View Post
"As a result, taxpayers have spent billions of dollars over the last 30 years subsidizing the production of corn ethanol, while at the same time creating unintended costs for consumers and the environment.

To start, the farm bill, a massive piece of legislation covering topics ranging from nutrition assistance to broadband internet, provides government subsidies for the now-mature ethanol industry, including corporate agribusiness giants such as Archer Daniels Midland."

Should US taxpayer money subsidize (pay) Archer Daniels Midland and others in 2018 and beyond?


And what are the unintended costs associated with these subsidies?
If it keeps the price of corn meal reasonable, so I can make cornbread, I won’t complain
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2019, 06:46 PM
 
43,400 posts, read 17,904,975 times
Reputation: 28247
Quote:
Originally Posted by lchoro View Post
The dumping of subsidized grains in Mexico was a major cause of the collapse of subsistence farming in those regions, leading to a mass immigration wave of people from Southern Mexico who were farmers or depended on demand for goods and services from those farmers.

NAFTA and immigration

The same is true for EU and US dumping of subsidized food in Africa eventually leading to famine in the 80's.
Bingo.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2019, 09:29 PM
 
Location: Dover, DE
2,043 posts, read 4,098,760 times
Reputation: 3223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey2k View Post
US Taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize any industry. If there isn't enough demand for it and it can't stand up on its own, it shouldn't be artificially propped up.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:07 PM.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top