Posted on 05/19/2002 1:12:48 PM PDT by farmfriend
Edited on 04/12/2004 5:36:28 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The chief source of agrarian anxiety in California involves the question of whether irrigation water supplies will run dry before the last green acre of farmland is consumed by suburbia's sprawl.
It's an understandable concern. After all, without land and water, farmers anywhere would be in trouble. It's also an issue that fully merits the attention of the state's political leaders. If production agriculture -- currently a $27 billion industry in the Golden State -- falters, scores of communities throughout rural California may learn they do not enjoy an inalienable right to life.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
BTW, if someone like you were to show up on my step asking for food I would be very inclined to run you off with a shotgun accelerator.
I've been driving almost full time for many years thinking that these markets would reset. I guess the latte crowd will pay their own 15 times market value for a drink but balk at a profit for their bread growers.
Guess What? It's all wealth redistribution. Taking the same size pie and dividing the resources differently without increasing productivity.
Duh; that's the whole job senerio world wide. . . when the source of new wealth is not properly addressed.
It is not a matter of competing in free markets. Did you even read the article? Do you think the cost of growing food in California is the same as South America or China? Would you prefer we get our oil from the Sauds because they can drill it cheaper? If we had subsidized our drilling companies to maintain American oil, would you still complain? You talk about how we subsidize the farmer but no mention of how the farmer subsidizes you. And yes they do subsidize you, just ask Carry_Okie.
Farmers are getting more efficient everyday, growing more food on fewer farms. Where do you think they are building all those houses?
I'm getting to the subsidies right now. Give me a minute.
Rice is unique among agricultural crops in its ability to provide wildlife habitat. California ricelands are home to over 141 species of birds, 28 species of mammals and 24 species of amphibians and reptiles. Thirty of these species are listed as endangered, threatened or species of special concern by the California or federal government. Rice fields host three to five million ducks and geese on their annual migration along the Pacific Flyway. No other crop comes close to providing this level of benefit to such a vast array of wildlife.
Rice cultivation in California provides nearly 500,000 acres of wetland-like habitat annually. This contribution is even more significant when one considers that only five percent of California's native wetlands remain. Rice is the one crop that can help fill the gap in this habitat loss.
On the following pages are several studies of the environmental impact of California rice cultivation. They provide an independent review of the habitat and environmental benefits of rice production in California.
A recent post by Carry_Okie:
Millenium presentation on the agricultural balance of trade to the WTO by the Center for North American Studies at Texax A&M and related graphs as PowerPoint slides.
The data are from 1998, and the situation has deteriorated rapidly since then. I have not found a similar compilation of more current data. The principle causes of the trade imbalance are a combination of currency manipulation and the disparity in regulatory costs. FReepers who don't take it seriously haven't a clue what will happen when the currencies adjust (and should take a harder look at current dollar stability). The farmers won't be able to increase production to meet demand; they'll be gone. We'll pay a bundle more for food. We'll be dependent on foriegn food production (that'll make OPEC look like a laugher... think about depending upon Mexico to eat). The bankers who set this up will then have us all by the balls.
The imbalance is not a matter of farming efficiency. Urban whiners have no idea how much farmers "subsidize" them, primarily with paperwork for compliance to environmental regulations. Unfortunately, the issue is complex and takes not a little deprogramming to understand.
Carry_Okie's original post.
Carry_Okie's book.
Farmers will have been regulated into oblivion. Suburban transplants as truck farmers will be lucky to feed themselves. Where will they get the water, seed, parts, and fuel?
Guess you missed this part,"The imbalance is not a matter of farming efficiency.
"BTW, I'm not a farmer. My back yard is about the size of a postage stamp. You sneeze wrong and you hit your head on the back fence. I'm just tired of people saying farmers should get out of the business if they can't make money. It's over simplification and shows an ignorance of the facts. I am for free markets as well. This is the main reason I support Carry_Okie's book. government is the main reason farmers can't make money and government will have to make up the difference until we can change that. It amazes me that people are so rigid in their ideology that fail to see the bigger picture. Maybe you should move to the Demo side.
You've fallen into the enviro's trap. You assume that if the farmers weren't there it would be pristine habitat. Not so. With the rapid spread of non native species, it takes someone on the land maintaining the land to preserve habitat. This is the main point in Carry_Okie's book which you really must read. This is also the main problem with the current movement to set aside land as habitat. There is no one there maintaining the land. It just sits and gets taken over by introduced pest species.
The real fallacy here is to assume that Blackyce or his agents ever had a claim on the former use as pristine habitat. So he subconsciously blames the farmer for his perception of harm on what he perceives as a net loss against his preferred use. Blackyce is unlikely to see that the farm provides uncompensated services in his interest or to understand the history of political interests (almost entirely Eastern and urban) who forced upon us the mess we have. Either way the opinion is one of subjective valuation without basis for productive debate. To make an extensive case individually is one heck of a lot of work with a thoughtful person, but with a poster who provides such flippant truisms as arguments, it is usually unproductive to try. Just give him a link and let him think.
Let me start by saying that there are MANY levels to this discussion, ranging from "Should we have a Farm Program" to "What should the Farm Program Look Like"; (e.g. I believe smoking is bad at the smoking discussion's most basic level, but I don't believe in smoking bans at the discussion's more specific level)
Why are Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements to physicians and pharmacies not considered welfare/subsidies to the medical industry but to the consumer?
Remember, elected officials/government types are obsessed with history and its tendency to repeat itself. Right or wrong, a longtime, unofficial “cheap food” partnership was enacted in the middle of the last century with a goal of eradicating famine that has been the grief and downfall of many a mighty nation. This unofficial, unspoken domestic policy disrupts the mechanisms of the marketplace and requires a relationship between consumers, producers and government because production agriculture can no longer receive the full value of its products from the marketplace.
As a result, farmers are kept from drawing realistic profit from the marketplace by passing on to the consumer the increased costs of production and over-regulation. The ruling body of the great Republic of France decreed that it was illegal to profit from the production of food amidst the “Let them eat cake” days. One year later, that country was ripped apart by revolution. The inability to feed its population contributed to the downfall of the Soviet Union. Right or wrong, this country has decided to utilize agriculture and cheap food as a political stabilizing device, but the farmer must still make a profit.
In recent days, I’ve heard many of the same folks who constantly call for a domestic oil supply and an end to dependence on Mideastern oil make comments about this farm bill that would have the U.S. dependent on an over-subsidized (yes, more than the U.S.), unregulated, and questionably safe foreign food supply (I’ve seen what they use for irrigation in foreign countries—wash your fruit WELL). Didn’t the king of Saudi just spend a few days in Texas holding oil over President Bush’s head? You don’t think the same thing would happen with food?
I've also been amused to hear certain people using the "X percent goes to the biggest/richest X percent" argument....these are the same people that fight that same argument when the libs throw it in our face about tax cuts...remember? Some people would have you believe that unless every farm, no matter how large or small, receives exactly the same dollar amount benefits, then commodity programs are unfair. But, all sizes of farms are adversely affected by events beyond their control, such as hail and insects (and EPA regs). The strong U.S. dollar reduces exports for all sizes. Rising input costs affect all sizes. Prices fall for all sizes. Large family farmers have more money invested in their crops, have more money at risk, and are more dependent on farm income than small farmers, who usually have other, "outside" farm income and farm either as a second occupation, a hobby, or a "lifestyle" decision. With high production costs, a large farm as defined by gross sales may not generate a large net farm income. So, it is only fair that large farms receive more program benefits than small farms. To do otherwise would be unfair (reeks of "redistributing" wealth). The correct way to look at the fairness of program benefits is to compare, by size of farm, the share of govt. benefits received relative to the share of program crop value produced. Based on USDA data (that the media fails to expand on), farms with gross sales of more than $100,000 produced 81.8 percent of the value of program crop production in 1998 and received 73.4 percent of govt. payments. In other words, the share of payments is only 90 percent of the share of program crop value for farms with gross sales of more than $100,000. For farms with gross sales less than $100,000, the share of payments received is 146 percent of program crop value. What's more, few farms are operated by non-family farm corporations. And, most farming corporations are family farm corporations--often incorporated because more than one family is involved in the farming oepration. According to USDA, only 2 percent of farms are "non-family" farms, and this category includes cooperatives owned by farmers and farms operated by hired managers--not just corporate farms. USDA data indicate that the share of farms and agricultural sales accounted for by non-family farms has been stable for decades. These "non-family" farms received 4.1 percent of govt. payments in 1998 and produced 4.3 percent of program crop value.
The CommStock Report - 01/30/02
Copyright 2001 © CommStock Investments, Inc.
David Kruse
Competition or Monopoly
If the New York Yankees won every game of every World Series 10-0, if the St. Louis Rams won every Superbowl by six touchdowns or the LA Lakers every NBA championship game by 50 points, fans wouldn’t like it. They want competition. If one team so outclassed all the others, having the money to buy every superstar so that games were anticlimactic, I don’t think professional sports would be very popular.
That’s why they give the team with the worst record the first draft pick and require league media income to be shared with poorer teams. Even then people don’t like the idea of the Minnesota Twins losing their baseball franchise. Americans want to see fair competition and a playing field that is not so tilted in any one team’s favor that they totally dominate their sport.
That need to enjoy competition in sports is not present in the business world today. When Microsoft was sued for antitrust behavior most Americans were rooting for Microsoft. Microsoft’s operating software was giving that company monopoly power and they were using it to begin challenging industries outside of software systems. The mindset was ‘go Microsoft’, destroy the competition and rack up the billions, dominating the World Series, Superbowl and NBA championships all in one.
How about Walmart? Aren’t they a great monopoly? A retail company with the power to dictate prices to its suppliers also has the power to dictate prices to its customers when the time comes there is no one left to challenge them as retailers. Walmart is a predatory company. They fully intend to put the competition down. In our town, when Walmart came in, Shopko closed. They took out Kmart on a national scale and tens of thousands of small businesses on a neighborhood level.
When our community embraced a new $4 million convention center project financed by community pledges from businesses and individual contributions, the biggest project ever undertaken here, not one cent of Walmart money was donated. Local businesses financed the project, some of who compete with Walmart. Yet the public perception is “let’s go to Walmart.” They dominate the playing field using their overwhelming market leverage, but they pass their market power onto us consumers.
So what if it’s the end of competition. Right now, the consumer is the gingerbread man, talked into riding across the river on the back of the Walmart fox. They’re lunch and they don’t know it. Economists like those eight land grant livestock experts who oppose the ban on packer ownership of livestock are willing to trade away competition for a ride across the river on the fox’s back. They volunteer to one day be the fox’s lunch, if the fox will promise to eat someone else today.
While some still root for the Arizona Diamondbacks or the Minnesota Twins or the Chicago Bulls, Theodore Roosevelt is dead. Microsoft prevailed over justice antitrust, Walmart’s monopoly is growing global, Monsanto’s taken away any real choice of farmers for seed and chemicals, and eight land grant economists still believe the fairy tale that packers and retailers will share with livestock producers. Monopoly used to be considered a threat. Today market leverage is seen as the most efficient way to do business. Get rid of those Minnesota Twins. They are just not efficient.
All of these costs are relentlessly heaped on the backs of rural folk.
Crop "subsidies" do not go to alfalfa, pasture. beef, potatoes. A little bit goes to grains. What the envirals call "subsidies" include CRP (Conservation Reserve Plan) lands. This program, and others like it, pays long term rental fees for setting aside lands from productive agricultural use for specialized habitat or riparian reserves. This is NOT a subsidy. The farmer has every right to be paid for the public renting his land for a specific preferred public use.
Farmers and ranchers provide the habitat for the public's wildlife. Last summer in the drought, they counted 400 DEER in a local farmer's alfalfa field. Last week a lady who kept lambs for wool to make hats in a small cottage business had 4 lambs killed by a cougar. Just a few weeks back, the state Watermaster has indicated that he will not operate ditches under the court decree of adjudicated water use rights because of "take" liability - that in doing so he might hurt a coho. No where is the public reimbursing the property owner for his losses and in most cases, the farmer is prohibited from eliminating the source of property take. The farmer/rancher is subsidizing the public's interest.
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.