Agricultural Subsidies - Pros? Cons? Runoff effects? Sperging?

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Penis Drager

Penis Drager

Schrödinger's retard
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 8, 2020
Basically I just want a conversation about the concept that the government pays farmers to grow certain crops and how that impacts the rest of society. Starving is bad so cheap food is good even if it ends up adding to the deficit (which nobody really cares about anyway unless someone they don't like gets in charge).

What are the right crops to subsidize?
How should subsidies be rolled out?
What are the long term effects of said subsidies?
Are subsidies a good idea at all?
How many dicks per hour does OP suck as a rolling weekly average?

These questions and many more can be discussed here!
 
Penis Drager said:
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, I know not to trust The Guardian on anything agriculture related.
Click to expand...
That'd explain why they gave Clarkson's Farm a 1-star review. Meanwhile, real lifelong farmers reckon it's great.

I don't remember which (if any) subsidies Diddly Squat Farm received, but I do remember that it made roughly $200 profit for the year, mainly because farming is so expensive. Jezza acknowledged that he's in a much better situation than many other farmers, as he has plenty of other income to fall back on... but it just shows how hard it can be to make a living as a farmer.

If we don't have farms, we don't eat. If subsidies are required to grow the right crops that make the difference between people starving and not starving, then so be it.
 
Are subsidies a good idea at all?
Click to expand...
yes 100%.
without them you become dependent on foreign imports for survival, that is a weakness that foreign states can use to gain leverage over you. we see something similar in action right now with germany and its dependence on russian gas - this is not a situation you ever want to be in, especially not when it comes to food.
 
Agricultural subsidies are important insofar as you don't ideally want to be put in a situation where you have become dependent upon foreign countries for something as necessary as food, although serious considerations do need to be made with respect to what is being subsidized, who the main beneficiaries are, and the impact this may be having on human health.

The United States has a particularly bad track record in this regard, since food producers have effectively lobbied the US government to allow (much less subsidize) all manner of food adulteration which not only lowers the quality of food, but also arguably has a negative impact on human health, such as the addition of artificial sweeteners like high-fructose corn syrup, the addition of artificial dyes, chlorine treatments, etc. This sort of thing shouldn't be subsidized, and in my opinion really ought to be actively discouraged and regulated against.
 
Pee Cola said:
That'd explain why they gave Clarkson's Farm a 1-star review. Meanwhile, real lifelong farmers reckon it's great.

I don't remember which (if any) subsidies Diddly Squat Farm received, but I do remember that it made roughly $200 profit for the year, mainly because farming is so expensive. Jezza acknowledged that he's in a much better situation than many other farmers, as he has plenty of other income to fall back on... but it just shows how hard it can be to make a living as a farmer.

If we don't have farms, we don't eat. If subsidies are required to grow the right crops that make the difference between people starving and not starving, then so be it.
Click to expand...
Clarkson's Farm is one of the funniest shows I've seen in years. Laughed so hard I was in pain at certain moments. Huge recommend to anybody who needs their spirits lightened.

 
Nope, subsidies are terrible. Look what welfare has done to people. Does the same to businesses. They get fat, lazy and entitled. Thats not to say if you fund farmers through a shitty winter or something that the economy is going to collapse, but subsidies should only be made when absolutely necessary and temporarily as possible. If you disagree, you cannot cry about big banks, big tech and big pharma. Subsidies are simply a form of monetary regulation.

It is artificial guaranteed demand (as with all economic intervention by the government), which is effectively funded by taking value from other markets. Usually via tax, the real world costs of which usually ends up funneling down to the poorest.

If you get as shit as the UK, what starts happening is endless cycle of:
..Government subsidises whiners and funds it via tax (MUH CLIMATE CHANGE, MUH KIDS DYIN),
Pricing the people out, either directly affecting wages/jobs or increasing the price of a certain market.
Those people complain they can't afford shit.
Government subsidises the whiners.. Rinse and repeat. (BUT MUH MINIMUM WAGE AND WELFARE. Fuck off retard, this post is full.)

The worst example of subsidies is foreign aid. Population is only limited by the environment and production capacity. Foreign aid is often a one-off supply drop repeated every so often, an 'artificial supply' as it isn't guaranteed to continue and didn't come from the existing economic infrastructure/supply chain that supports the population. What this does is temporarily increases the population capacity, so long as the foreign aid continues. Which would be managable if the people who recieved the foreign aid used the breathing room provided by it to expand their own economy/infrastructure and increase domestic supply. Not to keep breeding like monkeys and acting like your entitled to foreign aid, assuming its infinite (though that assumption is often also held globally by retards, who somehow believe that the government or the rich have access to a magic money tree).

TL;DR: Subsidies are economic cancer. Foreign aid is farming nigger genocide.
 
Last edited:
Psychotron said:
All popcorn shrimp all the time
Click to expand...
Shrimp is pretty hard to grow. You need the perfect soil, water from the Garden of Eden, 24 hours of Metallica's St. Anger album, and a good grasp on the Cambodian language. Way too expensive in the long run.
 
libRT said:
Nope, subsidies are terrible. Look what welfare has done to people. Does the same to businesses. They get fat, lazy and entitled. Thats not to say if you fund farmers through a shitty winter or something that the economy is going to collapse, but subsidies should only be made when absolutely necessary and temporarily as possible. If you disagree, you cannot cry about big banks, big tech and big pharma. Subsidies are simply a form of monetary regulation.

It is artificial guaranteed demand (as with all economic intervention by the government), which is effectively funded by taking value from other markets. Usually via tax, the real world costs of which usually ends up funneling down to the poorest.

If you get as shit as the UK, what starts happening is endless cycle of:
..Government subsidises whiners and funds it via tax (MUH CLIMATE CHANGE, MUH KIDS DYIN),
Pricing the people out, either directly affecting wages/jobs or increasing the price of a certain market.
Those people complain they can't afford shit.
Government subsidises the whiners.. Rinse and repeat. (BUT MUH MINIMUM WAGE AND WELFARE. Fuck off retard, this post is full.)

The worst example of subsidies is foreign aid. Population is only limited by the environment and production capacity. Foreign aid is often a one-off supply drop repeated every so often, an 'artificial supply' as it isn't guaranteed to continue and didn't come from the existing economic infrastructure/supply chain that supports the population. What this does is temporarily increases the population capacity, so long as the foreign aid continues. Which would be managable if the people who recieved the foreign aid used the breathing room provided by it to expand their own economy/infrastructure and increase domestic supply. Not to keep breeding like monkeys and acting like your entitled to foreign aid, assuming its infinite (though that assumption is often also held globally by retards, who somehow believe that the government or the rich have access to a magic money tree).

TL;DR: Subsidies are economic cancer. Foreign aid is farming nigger genocide.
Click to expand...
While I do agree with you that ideally subsidies wouldn't be needed, I feel that a degree of compromise ought be taken regarding food.

In contrast to many other things which are arguably unfairly subsidized, food is a vital and immediate necessity of basic life. I would place it (or at least basic staple foods) akin more to a public amenity such as water, sewage, or electricity than a more conventional resource such as pharmaceuticals, technology, or even money.

The inevitable bureaucracy and bloat from a subsidized industry would probably be better than the potential collapse of the production of foodstuffs and consequential civil strife the alternative may bring about.

And, of course, the strategic value in being a net food producer is another benefit. Not having to rely on potentially hostile nations to ensure your nation doesn't descend into hunger-spurned crisis is extremely valuable.
 
Dagobert said:
While I do agree with you that ideally subsidies wouldn't be needed, I feel that a degree of compromise ought be taken regarding food.

In contrast to many other things which are arguably unfairly subsidized, food is a vital and immediate necessity of basic life. I would place it (or at least basic staple foods) akin more to a public amenity such as water, sewage, or electricity than a more conventional resource such as pharmaceuticals, technology, or even money.

The inevitable bureaucracy and bloat from a subsidized industry would probably be better than the potential collapse of the production of foodstuffs and consequential civil strife the alternative may bring about.

And, of course, the strategic value in being a net food producer is another benefit. Not having to rely on potentially hostile nations to ensure your nation doesn't descend into hunger-spurned crisis is extremely valuable.
Click to expand...
Every measure you described could be handled far better by voluntary charity (not for-profit institutionalised shit). Specifically people who have surplus and are willing to give it up, this will cause the least market disruption.

It isn't just bureaucracy and bloat, The retarded keynesian economic system that has cored out the western economies was brought about by your exact argument (scaled up a bit, the idea was we could control the boom/bust cycle with government spending/cutbacks and thus stop it from starving people).

Subsidies are a complete inversion of market forces. You are forcing someone to pay for something where they may have not paid for it without force, reducing the value of their production; and giving it to someone for free, removing the incentive to produce for it. It is never harmless, even if it doesn't seem like it, the harm is subtle.

Thomas Sowell said it best, "The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."
If there aren't enough resources to go around (lets be retards for a minute and pretend that its possible to determine this via bureaucracy), you are taking capital from the productive and giving to the unproductive. Unpredictably reducing the overall production capacity; it could be some fat cat can't buy another yacht, or the straw that breaks the camels back and causes bankruptcy/capital flight and so more people lining up for bread. Effectively creating barbarians within your own walls.

Thats not even touching the minefield that is preventing corrupt representatives or an ignorant populace.

Sorry for the sperging, I don't really care anymore. I believe its no longer a matter of if but a matter of when the system crashes down upon our heads. I just like arguing on the internet like a retard.

Fun take on Keynesian interventionalism vs Austrian laissez-faire:
 
You basically want to subsidize some grain (that actually can grow in your climate) and fruits/veggies which are nutritious and also can reasonably grow in the climate. You 100% not want some luxury growth getting subsidized (pineapples) or corn, which has probably killed more Americans than every war they fought combined.

Like other people said, barring massive tariffs it's the smaller evil since corpos will happily import low quality poison for that nickel per pound extra profit. If you believe in climate change then the reason for pure local is even greater (but like I said in another thread, people ignore the ecological cost of transportation, so they think that local beef is worse for the environment than avocado imported from half a world away).
 
Kosher Dill said:
Yes. And that's a good thing when market forces and national interest are at odds.
(They are not, in fact, one and the same.)
Click to expand...
Duh they are not the same, recessions generally aren't in the 'national interest' and are often the result of market forces violently correcting perverse markets. Market forces as a whole (e.g national), will always be far more powerful than a subset of that (e.g force applied by government and fat pigs hanging off its teets).
National interest is a retarded vague term, that will always be redefined to serve politicians and their masters interests. If they conflict with yours, tough shit.
Soviet kulaks, Holodomor, Venezuelan nationalisation of oil, and American military interventionalism are good examples. Bombing sandniggers (plenty of which were post-humously recognised as terrorists. Thanks obama!) really served the national interest, imagine how many people on the breadline were lifted out of poverty for that!.. Oh.
 
Agriculture has never been a free market and the times when it has been attempted have been absolute disasters. The panic of 1873 is the best modern example. Long story short, British Banks insisted on perfectly free markets for grain. They then issued huge amounts of bonds for new grain manufacture in Western Russia (Ukraine) and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Then the full impact of the United States "homestead act" hit the global market. A tidal wave of North American grain was dumped on the global markets. The British Banks lost the modern equivalent of billions of pounds, the Austro-Hungarian empire essentially went bankrupt and within a few years, Europe became so destabilized Prussia made a power play, beat the shit out of France and formed the German Empire.

Subsequent agriculture financial panics leading up to the North American "Dust Bowl" pretty much ended the idea that food could be a perfectly free economy. Much like Water, while you can package and sell it, at the end of the day government management of the resource is required.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom