??? no one is restricting his profit. if he wants a markup of 200% he is free to do so. the government does not restrict that, economics governs that. we are the only superpower because we have the most free economy and because we were the most able to provide for ourselves. look at how the economy is impacted when we are dependent on others. look at the effect of oil in the past 30 years. i was referring to the USDA, not the post office. different concepts, different roles. look at the arable land of australia and their population compared to that of the US. not comparable by any means. you cannot group farming with everything else when discussing free trade in my opinion. i am not arguing economic theory or policy. i am stating the reality the american farmer faces. say you sell computers and plan on selling 1,000 each year and are required to pay for all of these computers up front. you order 1,000 and pay for 1,000 but some years (maybe one out of 10) you receive 1,300 with no added cost to you. most years, you do get 900 - 1,100 and once or twice every 10 years you only get 600 - 800, yet you still pay for the 1,000. you say fine, the good year cancels the bad, but wrong. in the good year prices are lower because everyone else who sells them also got additional computers and there is an over-supply, so the price you get for yours is lower, but you still do well. in the bad year, the price is higher because the supply is lower, but you still don't make enough to cover your debt. fortunately, there is government assistance to bail you out and prevent you from being bankrupted. without this government assistance, and with product from other nations around the world coming freely into the market, a bad year (which you are certain to have, because it is cyclical) you and the other computer salesmen would be forced into bankruptcy. no one is going to come in and fill your void in america, because this is a cyclical process and they too are eventually sure to fail, so we would be dependent on foreign suppliers for the most part. it wouldn't make sense to farm in america, because everyone is almost certain to fail eventually under your program. they would be much better off taking their land and planting trees (which is also subsidized, by necessity) and retiring from the profits 25 years later. it would make no sense to accept the risk of farming. i don't expect you or anyone else who hasn't farmed to understand why it is important for the govt. to encourage people to farm, but i will tell you that there is a significant difference in textbook academic principles and reality when it comes to farming. it is a very delicate balance, and taking what works in a country with only 1/14 the population but roughly 1/4 the arable land mass of the US (Australia) is not a reasonable approach to this matter. the american farmer does indeed ensure the freedom of this country. without susbidies, we would be held hostage because we would be dependent on other nations to provide for us. subsidies level the playing field, because we in america require so much. just my opinion on the subject. other areas of free trade are different, survival of the fiittest is a fair concept. simply being the fittest in farming, when you are subject to many factors which are unpredictable and beyond your control is just not practical, because no matter how good and efficient you are, you are fighting what is eventually a losing battle with no protection from the govt.
i understand there will be bad years. you seem to be unable to understand that farms could buy insurance from private providers, instead of the government having to bail them out. i am stunned that you dont understand. you were showing how food was cheaper with government intervention. i was showing you how how your example just ended up screwing over the distributor, and cutting his profits so food was cheaper for the consumer. it was not the magic intervention of the government that made the food cheaper, you simply reduced the profit of the sellers. the fact is you oppose freedom and favor big government. i favor less government medddling with the economy and drasticaly smaller government. i believe that the government that governs least governs best.
many larger farmers do buy insurance, but without the government subsidizing the premiums, they wouldn't be able to afford it, or the insurance companies would be required to lower the overall cost of the insurance to levels where it wouldn't be practical to insure crops from their standpoint. farmers already can't afford to insure over 50 - 65% of their crops under the current system - most can't afford that. premiums are just to high based on the return on investments in farming. i agree with you on that, but in this instance, government involvement is for the best in my opinion. i do think improvements can be made, but i don't want to depend on russia, african nations, or anyone else to provide for america on a yearly basis,and if we leave it up to the farmer to survive on his own, that will happen. i am well aware i won't be able to change your mind, you are just as stubborn as i am. i do wish you could see the need of the american farmer and the value they have in this country. unfortunately, it's very hard to appreciate something that has always been here and you assume always will be until it's gone. very understandable, however.
