Healthy soil and sustainable growing

[Pete Vukovich <pvukovic1@yahoo.com>]

I think eliminating subsidies will accelerate the consolidation of large distributors who are responsible for much of the stagnancy and uncertainty in farm prices.
Eliminating subsidies means existing mid and large farms (which are producing) will rely exclusively on these outlets (many of them do now), to stay afloat - and they will determine the future of future's markets. As we now know current capitalist markets are neither efficient nor brilliant, they are ruthless and short sited. Retargetting subsidies is another matter, but that would require a willing democracy, and a serious government committed to long term survival - and it remains to be seen if we have either.

 A distributors self stated goal is to sell high and buy low, which appears to translate into gut and mine farms and farmers and move to the next country to do the same. What is needed is a return to parity (as best I understand it) and a repudiation of tactics like the 'freedomn to farm' bill as threats to national security.
 
 The government does need CRP programs and water subsidies which are should also be considered critical to national security.

Getting back to Paul's original comment ,I feel its a funny hypocrisy that urban consumers talk about the miracle of diversity in their schools and neighborhoods, but think having a small less diverse body producing food is at the same time a sign of laudable capitalist efficiency. Sure buying one safeway brand from one source cuts your shopping time, but its a deep and abiding type of insanity that lets one believe that one type of crop fits all farms and all business models and is good for the population at large . This is the 'thinking' of Wendell Berry's 'self appointed center' . A center you might feel pity for if it has the capability of introspection and were not so destructive and self-absorbed.

The average person's comprehension of what food is or how its acquired is on par with a comatose childs understanding of particle physics - its either elevated to effete content free references to concepts (its 'organic') and varieties (new purple and calcium free) complete with psalms on fads, or firmly rooted in the belief that somewhere in the world there is a tree which grows vitamin supplemented freezer bags of frozen dinners that fall off as a harvester passes by. These 'votes' are completely whats within the parameters of what one would expect from a culture that knows what american eyedolt is. I'm sure somewhere there's a market for rubber biscuits reflected in this consumer intelligence. Rant complete,  back to work, hope it was entertaining.


--- On Thu, 4/23/09, Emery Mitchamore <emitch@att.net> wrote:

From: Emery Mitchamore <emitch@att.net>
Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] a reply to an uninformed argument
To: "Healthy soil and sustainable growing" <livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Thursday, April 23, 2009, 3:50 AM

In recent discussions about new national budgets, I got to wondering about agricultural (and other corporate) subsidies.  Strikes me that a lot of progress, in many areas, could be made by eliminating those subsidies, such as are paid to grow that excess corn and soy.

On Apr 22, 2009, at 3:21 PM, Tradingpost wrote:

Here's a reply I made to another list:
paul tradingpost@lobo.net
----------

But 2% or 5% producing and the rest consuming is what's wrong now. It
requires centralized distribution and that means midddlemen and mega
corporations controlling the supply and the prices as well as farmers
costs. A classic lose-lose system for us. We're trying to reduce dieoff in
terms of food security, not aggravate it.  

Actually that answer at the link (Chosen by Voters):
"A figure I saw is that about 2 percent of the population in the US are
farmers and produce about 2 percent of national income. This however, is
still enough to feed (in my case, overfeed) the other 98 percent and still
have a lot left over for export. US agriculture is the wonder of the world.
No other country can match it for productivity and efficiency. In some
developing countries, 80 percent or more of the people work in agriculture.
They can barely feed themselves much less produce a surplus to feed the
other 20 percent."

was chosen by uninformed "voters".

For one thing, the U.S. is now a net IMporter of food, not a net EXporter.
It's odd to claim we're so much more productive than the rest of the world
(the myth of American exceptionalism) when so much of third world countries
are exporting grains and beef to the U.S. and Europe for trade income to
repay IMF debt, and transnational corporations there are ripping off the
workers who can't afford the food they produce for export. Frances Moore
Lappe documented this years ago and it's only gotten worse. It's a rigged
system to our advantage. That's why some countries can't feed themselves
adequately, and the rest are impoverished by proxy wars over resources like
tantalum in the Congo, needed for our cell phones. And dieoff has been
happening in some of Africa and SE Asia for decades. As global trade
continues to break down (Baltic Dry Shipping Index) it'll be on our
doorstep.

A last note: most farmers don't grow any of their own food and don't know
how. They buy groceries like most everybody else. Grains, corn, beef, soy,
etc. is what they do, and all they can do with it is sell to the middleman
at his price.

Thoughts? Disagreements?

paul tradingpost@lobo.net



*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 4/22/2009 at 7:16 PM emy8rq wrote:

--- In the_dieoff_QA@yahoogroups.com, "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@...>

wrote:

Just a point about that 5% producing our food. We've heard it

How about 2%?

<http://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070702060921AALGoI5>

The other 3% can put it in bins and deliver it to each neighborhood.

Jay

_______________________________________________
Livingontheland mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland

E. E. "Mitch"  Mitchamore

www.hillcountrynatives.biz

_______________________________________________
Livingontheland mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland