Sugar Farmers hope for help from Congress

asked and answered in our previous discussion. forgive me for the copy and paste, but i don't enjoy continually repeating myself as much as others around here.

 

but the difference is i favor people making their own decisions in a free market, while you favor the government taking their money because you think farmers should have it. i figure i will let people decide if farmers deserve their money. i am not telling people what is best for them, i am not taking any options from them. like you said, you can still buy american. but under your system, you are FORCED to.

either way, i am glad president bush understands free trade to the extent that he favors cafta and it passed. the president rules.

 

in a free market, farmers would produce what we needed, because that is what would sell. this is the simplest concept in the universe.

this is a childlike understanding of capitalism.

hey thats nice, you favor taking billions from taxpayers, because you know what is best for them. yunno what i think they would like? having those billions.

 

rest assured i have a very clear understanding of what capitalism is. i also understand farming and the unique factors that potentially effect supply on a yearly basis, regardless of the steady demand for certain products. i understand the difference between bulk products and high value products and what it takes to motivate farmers to produce low profit margin, high demand bulk products. i understand the length of time it takes for the agriculture industry to respond to shortfalls in supply or increases in demand. i understand the tremendous consequences of a shortfall of these bulk products. i understand the importance of preserving our country's primary means of offsetting our trade deficit we incur in practically every other category of trade. most importantly, i understand the reason a purely capitalistic approach to the ecomomics of american farming are not in the best interests of not only the farmers, but our entire population as a whole. finally, i understand a person with a nearsighted view who is often well-served by his view can be completely wrong by seeing the role of the american farmer as a black and white issue with only yes or no answers.

the answer to this question lies somewhere between yes and no. subsidy reform is definitely needed, because, as with every thing else in the world, abuses occur. and, as with every other aspect of the federal gov't., there is much waste. however, this does not justify the complete abolishment of subsidies. disaster relief and ensuring a proper balance of the types of commodities grown are extremely important, and if it takes subsidies to provide that, the so be it.

 

Let me get this straight..................SO YOU are an economist? :hihi:


that MUST have been the comic relief for this thread. :dis:

 

thats rude and completely off target. I know the guy.
Assinine? You think a factory that employed 400 workers in a community now needs 400 janitors?

 

the people have decided and you lose martin. Marc didnt decide for us.

Gov subsidies do exist and our elected officials decided this is the way it is. Don't like it? vote differently

 

It wasn't rude, it was the most logical explanation of why someone would choose to disregard logic. Based on HIS reply, it was off-target. Based on you knowing the guy, I'm guessing I was more right than not.

So perhaps the 400 people should better themselves, no? Or move. Or starve. I guess those are the options. Strange how the animal kingdom works. Oh, I forgot...or we could tell people that can offer a marketable skill to pay for the inadequacies of the 400. Funny how this is the solution most often touted by people in (primarily) small towns that lose a factory and are either too lazy or too mentally limited to better themselves. Oh well, Darwin will get it straightened out one way or another.