The Hoover Digest article make a good point that a large national debt doesn't signicantly raise interest rates. But it does not address the inflation problem properly. Alan Greenspan has stated that the budget deficits will eventually cause inflation and reduced capacity for the government to pay Social Security benefits in the future. The Hoover article also makes a good point that while the US debt is the worlds largest, it is only part of an even larger overall world debt and that we aren't the only ones robbing from the yet unborn. But the article doesn't address the wasted interest payments of over 350 billion a year that we are incurring. Finally the article makes its best point when it closes with the following: "None of this argues for undisciplined use of debt to finance expenditures or tax cuts. Even Washington must pay its bills. More debt today will mean either higher taxes or less spending in the future. There are many important fiscal policy issues to debate."
ok, lets assume that in the future the government will have to spend less to reduce the debt. so what? as long as we paid lower taxes i am ok. less spending in the future, that is fine with me. the government is wasting money. if they are forced to spend less, great. maybe they will stop stupid wastes like farm subsidies. stuff isnt free. they will be born into a world where the people before them have had to fight wars for freedom, as well as put loads of capital into infrastructure. should they get to use all of that free, merely because it was built before they were born? isnt it justified to charge stuff to our kids? they use it right? do you not agree that our kids will have a higher standard of living than we do, because of us? don't you have a higher standard of living than your parents, and they had it better than their grandparents? the more i learn about this situation, the more i think that basically one thing matters, lower taxes. i encourage the government to drive itself into crippling debt. good for them. the private sector runs the economy that matters. good, maybe we will learn that socialism sucks.
Believe it or not, farm subsidies is the only thing that keeps those people in business. Without them, food would be cheaper at first, but then farmers wound't make enough money. We would get fewer and fewer farmers until we would actually not have enough food. It's still sucks though... Also, that is one of the best replies I have ever seen to the argument that our government is stealing from the unborn. If we didn't invest "their" money for them into the things we do, such as education, roads, military - they wouldn't have the high standard of living they will be brought into.
i believe that subsidies keep the farmers in business. my question is why i want my government to prop up a business that cannot survive on its own. so what if they go out of business, i will buy food somewhere else. and if the government stops supporting them, cant i just buy from the directly instead of filtering my money through the government to support them? i want economic darwinism to select who stays in business, not artificial marketplace forces like subsidies. there is no way we will be left with no food. if we want to buy food, somebody will grow plenty of it. i want the people who can do it most cheaply or efficiently doing it. not the farmers that the government has to prop up. i want market forces to determine who stays in business. i do not pay taxes to support farmers. if i want a farmer to stay in business i will buy his food directly, and subject him to the natural competetition of the marketplace, like everyone else. if our food has to be imported, so be it. if farmers are forced to become more efficient, great. if they need to use genetics to develop better crops, even better. at no point would we not have enough food. unless the profit motive left the human brain. i want to buy food at market value. now i am paying for food, plus the cost of the taxes that go tht subsidies. plus the beaurocracy that runs the whole subsidy operation. i say abolish the entire dept of agriculture. why pay taxes to the gov't to support farmers, when i could just take my money and use my personal choice to buy food from whoever i want? why is big government creating barriers between me and free trade? bush is crazy wrong for the farm subsidies. i would vote for badnarik if bush wasnt so strong on national defense.
Where exactly would you buy this food from if there were no American farmers? Would you mail order it from Russia? Since the government should have no invlovement whatsoever, I suppose you would have to. Also, if you buy directly from the farmer, are you going to stone your own wheat, bake your own bread, gin your own cotton, make your own material, sew your own clothes, slaughter your own animals, pasteurize your own milk, churn your own butter -this list could go on and on. Buy directly from the farmer as you suggest and you will. And how many farmers are geneticists? The majority of research being done in those areas are at universities such as LSU, MSU, Auburn etc. through government funding as well as private funding. I guess farmers should all have Phd.'s so they can do their own research. If there were no USDA, who would inspect food to be sure it was safe? There are many forces that determine whether or not a farmer stays in business. One of the primary determinates is the weather. If the weather wipes out an entire cotton season, should the farmers be allowed to be bankrupted in hopes that someone else with no farming experience will purchase their land and equipment for millions of dollars as an "investment" and pick up where they left off, in hopes of making a profit before disaster strikes them? Do you have any idea how much the equipment, chemicals, irrigation system etc. cost to grow food in the most efficient and effective manner? Obviously not. Subsidies also encourage farmers to grow crops that aren't necessarliy the best money makers, but are needed. Without subsidies to encourage farmers to plant them, they would not exist in the quantities required. But you will argue the demand will fuel the supply, which it will (to an extent), but it will also drive the price for these commodities to unthinkable levels. Unfortunately, your ideas and vision for the American farmer went out about the time slavery was abolished. Whether you like it or not, your taxes, through these subsidies help keep market prices much lower than they would be if no subsidies existed. In truth, without these subsidies, the American farmer wouldn't even exist. Small farmers with fruit stands on the side of the highway are one thing, but the American farmer who is the backbone of America is totally different.
Nice post Marc. It is sometimes hard for citizens of this GREAT country to see the big picture regardless whether it is the military or farming. In my opinion "our" Government was designed to do for the citizenry as a whole what they can not do for them selves as individuals.
I understand it can be difficult to see the need for such subsidies and understand the role of the farmer if you live in an urban area. Until you experience it first-hand, you really don't know. Irrational ideas on paper are fine as long as they stay on paper. Agencies like the USDA are there to ensure that politicians who have no first-hand knowledge of what they are talking about don't come in and ruin America. They are the liaison between the policy makers and the farmer, although their role is much greater in scope than that.
so we are now assuming all american farms are too inefficient to stay in business without subsidies? and i have nothing against foreign-grown food. you dont have much faith in freedom do you? yunno people buy and sell products even when the government isnt involved. i would guess there are farmers competent enough in america to stay in business without their farmer-welfare programs. buyers and seller will do their thing, without guidance from the government. we do not need taxes dollars taken from americans and hurting the economy to prop up insolvent businesses. do you think if we abolished the post office we would have nobody to deliver mail? of course we would. UPS and fedex would love that, and they would be better, because they would have to be, they are competing. i meant at the grocery store. but i want my money to go to the food providers, and i dont want to also pay taxes which go through the govenment to the farmers. i only want to pay the farmers/distributors/stores, not the government, so they can filter the money through beaurocracy to farmers. you act like no service would ever be provided if the government doesnt do it. if a service is needed, somebody does it. why cant there be a private certification company? and we would all want to buy food that had beed certified, or grocery stores would only carry products certified by this private company, because nobody has any faith in non-certified food. why does the government have to do that? why is everyone socialist and needs big brother to protect them? farmers cant have insurance through private insurers, to provide for these times? why do i have to pay taxes to protect farmers? why am i forced to be the insurance provider? so the money i pay in taxes is magic? the same amount of money cant just be paid directly to farmers? i also am forced to pay taxes to keep food prices lower. see, the prices arent really lower, because we also pay the subsidies. do you think the money for the subsidy comes from jupiter? cant you see that? i live in the most urban area in north america, but that doesnt mean i don't understand. i oppose socialism. i favor freedom. i dont want to take money from people by force to give to farmers. arent you conservtive? i guess everybody is a fiscal conservative until it is their turn for a handout.
subsidies do indeed keep the prices lower, if they didn't orange growers in Florida would have to charge more for a half gallon of orange juice some years than you pay for a fifth of crown royal. inefficiency has nothing to do with staying in business when freezing temperatures can wipe out an orange crop or heavy rains can ruin a whole row crop season. one bad year, which comes along about once every 3 - 4 years will ruin a farmer. insurance companies would go broke or they would have charge premiums similar to what surgeons pay to insure all crops every year. as for as research, as i said most is done on college campuses with a lot of help from private inustry funding. the faculty double as scientists, so that is in fact the most efficient way of doing things. the prices are in fact kept down by subsidies, whether you believe it or not. and whether you like it or not, these prices are needed to be kept lower so lower income Americans can afford to eat and provide for themselves without being on welfare and food stamps. yes it is similar from your point of view, but it is not the same. the farmer would be paid their rate plus the subsidy rate by the middle man , the end supplier would pay the middle man his rate plus the extra amount paid to the farmer, then the end user would be required to pay the middle man even that much more for them to realize their profit. it would all come back to bite you and me in the ass in the long run.
