Fair enough, but I think banks function differently than farms, a banks input is someone else's money and its output is someone else's money along with a promise of accruing more of someone else's money. In that sense subsidizing CRP programs is the equivalent of the fdic, subsidizing grain for dumping in other countries in order to route existing farms abroad is closer to what goldman sacs is getting with its current subsidies.
We probably still would have some scale of ethanol production without subsidies (there were years prior to farm subsidies that corn and even beets took precipitous drops in the market) , but probably not as long as GATT and NAFTA were in place. Don't get me wrong, as far as I understand it the current subsidy structure isn't useful, balanced, or fair in any sense, but subsidizing small scale farming and distributing
subsidies more evenly than to the big 5 (where 95% of them go now), seems essential to security.
--- On Mon, 4/27/09, mdnagel@verizon.net <mdnagel@verizon.net> wrote:
From: mdnagel@verizon.net <mdnagel@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] a reply to an uninformed argument
To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Monday, April 27, 2009, 11:33 PM
I don't agree with this assessment/view.
The very things that we know to be troubling are caused by unsustainable practices. Such practices are unsustainable because they are being infused with energies/resources that they cannot acquire through sustainable practices.
One need only look at the current economic mess to see government's involvement in propping up unsustainable practices/entities: would Goldman
Sachs exist if not for the (US) government? I contend that many small banks that acted "responsibly" will suffer as a result of the subsidies to GS.
Closer to home, the food issue, is ethanol. Would we even have ethanol plants in the US if not for the massive subsidies to the corn and refinery industries?
-Mark Nagel
Everett, WA
Apr 25, 2009 10:34:00 AM, pvukovic1@yahoo.com wrote:
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 wrote:
From: Emery Mitchamore
Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] a reply to an uninformed argument
To: "Healthy soil and sustainable growing"
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.
_______________________________________________
Livingontheland mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland
|
