Posted on 09/28/2016 9:02:11 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
In 2006, Chris Hausman, a fourth-generation Midwestern farmer long accustomed to depending on government support for survival, traveled across the world to witness a revolution in agriculture.
It had been more than 20 years since a left-leaning government in New Zealand chose to eliminate government subsidies for farmers, and Hausman was surprised at what had transpired since.
“I will tell you it was a shock to their agricultural system,” says Hausman, 58, who farms corn and soybeans on a 1,500-acre plot 150 miles south of Chicago.
“You had a system dictated by government programs that was thrown out the window overnight,” Hausman adds in a recent interview with The Daily Signal. “But the farmers kind of reinvented themselves and now New Zealand is a powerhouse when it comes to agricultural production on the world stage.”
Hausman, like others in the industry, is careful not to equate New Zealand’s experience with what could happen in the U.S. He is thankful for federally subsidized crop insurance that his government provides.
But those who participated in this small island nation’s grand farming experiment hold it up as a valuable case study for policymakers worldwide.
“Every country is different—that’s an important caveat to put on the conversation,” said Mike Petersen, New Zealand’s special agricultural trade envoy, during an event last week at The Heritage Foundation. “But what I can say is that we did start an incredible process of innovation, guts, and determination from those people who really wanted to make this work.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailysignal.com ...
True enough...
So do we. The input cost push and low prices make it pretty tough. Timing is everything and you cannot predict the weather. Like Politics? smile
Take care...
I’m pointing out that your explanation sounds similar to the explanation for Marxism, namely that the idea is sounds, but you have the wrong people running it.
I don’t believe that it’s a people problem with Marxism or subsidies; it’s just the nature of the beasts.
you too
With the information technology that's at everyone's fingertips nowadays, there's absolutely no need for bloated, "old school", big government, subsidized solutions to agricultural challenges.
In general, the government needs to just stay out of the way, and if New Zealand has shown that this is possible in the 21st century with respect to ag subsidies, there's no reason that the United States couldn't take a look at new approaches as well.
Vote Trump!
Sargon, if study is done and that is true, it has my blessing.
I’m not a big government fix type of guy. I want 90% of the government gone so I’m not here to defend government for government’s sake.
I don’t like the amount of money we’re spending on it either.
This is one of the things to lop off, as long as it doesn’t cause a major negative ripple for farmers and our food supply.
We need to change our way of collecting taxes so we can lop off the IRS. The sooner the better, and these are just starting points.
The article also says New Zealand exports 90 percent of its food products. Without that, the collapse scenario that your article described might have happened to them. So far, they seem to be doing good, except in the dairy sector.
BTTT
See, this was something that occurred to me.
New Zealand isn’t a massive producer on the order of the U.S. If we overproduce we can get rid of part of it, but the rest would remain. It could turn negative.
Look, as Conservatives we all want less government, less intrusion, and less government spending on whacked out programs.
At the same time we have to be open to the idea that in some instances there might be a reason for government involvement.
We need to look at things long and hard during the Trump administration and change things up. EVERYTHING needs looking at.
If we can do away with this, all the better.
We’ll be making some uncomfortable choices over the next four to eight years. I say good.
If this can go safely, it’s just one more step.
I want that spending clock to start reversing in short order.
Average poster here has no idea how much tax cash is paid to farmers not to grow or cultivate land
A “reasoned” harvest sounds like central and planning to me. Let people decide for themselves free of government coercion and subsidy. We will not run out of food just because we the government doesn’t lavish support on so called farmers.
Free markets work and even with imperfections they much preferable to governemt command and control. Freedom can be messy and sometimes even unpleasant. But the alternative is to accept the embrace of your loving government who just wants to make sure we all get enough to eat and make sure poor family farmers can support their way of life.
Sorry, but I gotta tell you, federally subsidized crop insurance is not a program I would ever contemplate getting rid of.
There are a lot of things I would be willing to change with respect to agricultural policy, but that one ain’t one of them. The fact that a Farmer can safely invest in his crops for the following year with some insurance that if they fail due to weather that he isn’t bankrupted by it, is fine with me.
We went through the dust bowl to learn that lesson, no need to do it again.
I do not have a problem with crop insurance, nor do I have a problem with flood insurance. The question, as always, is do non-farmers need to subsidize it, just like do people who don’t live in flood plains have to subsidize flood insurance?
Lets go back to the basics. What is the proper role of government in agriculture? What were the original goals?
Do not get detracted by mission creep and details.
We are not completely anti government or anarchists are we? So what should be the proper role?
Hint. The USDA became a major player in the 30’s.
Hint. Currently, if we don’t use the last of the old crop , the day before the new crop comes in, we screwed up.
Sorry, but I gotta tell you, federally subsidized crop insurance is not a program I would ever contemplate getting rid of.
Let me ask you sir... do you grow your own personal food?
Odds are pretty good you don’t, so the idea that socializing the risk of crop failure is a bad social policy is a bit silly. Everyone eats, not everyone grows.
As I said, we went through the Dust Bowl to learn this lesson, and many others, we don’t need to repeat it because we were too stupid to learn from it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.