Say Anything Blog

I tried to wade through a book by Jeffrey Saks, the title I think was, “The End of Poverty”.  Not an easy read with it’s liberal bias; however,he says the first step out of poverty for most non-developed countries is in agriculture since it depends the least on educated labor and developed infrastructure.  The countries of the West should allow the importation of agricultural products from these countries as the first step in their climbing out of the hole they are in. That means a cut in our subsidies to our ag sector; the subsidies act to keep the price of our stuff lower on the world market.  When world prices rise the poor countries can enter with their products.  Know any midwest congressmen that are willing to do that?  Most likely action would be we will pay our farmers to raise less--or nothing at all.  Maybe I should be looking for some farm to buy--I could run it from Ariz.

I don’t know if I buy that.  The idea that we’re keeping those people poor is probably false.

Poor countries need more freedom in order to get out of poverty.

For one thing it seems that if we cut subsidies the prices will rise.  That may help some farmers overseas but it will equally destroy some lives for people that are unable to afford to pay for the higher prices.

Still I think US farmers (and my neighbors) would do well in a truly free market.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

...the subsidies act to keep the price of our stuff lower on the world market.

This is simply untrue; our subsidies raise the price of foreign products in our own domestic market, thus shielding our own people from competition from foreign goods.  It subsidizes our own inefficiency, but has nothing to do with prices in the world market.
Of course, his premise is flawed; the way out of poverty for any country is to industrialize with a free enterprise economic system. World prices are only responsive to supply and demand; the whole world is like a free market, unless only a few countries own all of a commodity, like oil, or diamonds.  Then, the prices tend to be high, to the detriment of the agrarian countries, with the rich countries buying up their food, so that the inhabitants of the agrarian countries tend to starve. All the commie revolutions have been in agrarian countries, with the commensurate separation of the farmers from the owners of the land.  Saks just wants more communist revolutions, that’s all.
Lefties have to lie; it’s all they have.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Still I think US farmers (and my neighbors) would do well in a truly free market.

What the eff makes you think that? They would be out of work or working for almost nothing.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

They would be out of work or working for almost nothing.

Tell that to Archer/Daniels/Midland.  You just don’t understand economics.  The inefficient producers would have to seek work elsewhere, which would reward the efficient producers.  Duh.  We all end up better off.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Sparkie, I think something like 60% of crops do not get a subsidy. 

OK two factories, one is very modernized and the other one is working with techniques and equipment from the 30’s. 

Which one is going to produce stuff cheaper.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

I agree that nobody subsidises farmers like the Europeans but OTOH, Canada’s softwood lumber experience with America demonstrates how much influence producers’ lobbying enjoys in Washington.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

MikeA: You sound like a conservative here; I for one, would like to see the end of all govt subsidies and tariffs in private industry.  Interestingly enough, the rationalization for the subsidies you speak of is that we aren’t dealing with private companies in Canada; as a socialist country, the main means of production are owned by the govt.  Personally, I don’t accept that excuse; our guys can stand toe to toe with anybody, and win, or at least get a good deal.  It’s that old “counterveiling powers” reasoning.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

That should be: “countervailing”.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

You guys still haven’t said shit here. I’m not saying that the AgriGiants wont be making a killing… Whistler contends that the farmers themselves will be and its a big fat BS line. Granted some farmers don’t receive subsidies, but that’s a lot different than free trade. Still waiting Whistler…

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

I’m not saying that the AgriGiants
wont be making a killing…

Another lie from you, Sparkie.  The way to be competitive in the ag business is to either go big, or to be very specialized.  It’s simply being competitive, not “making a killing”.  Duh.  You can’t seem to just state the simple truth.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

r108
So you agree it would screw the farmers? That was my original contention. You seem to agree.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

I don’t think that requiring a business to be competitive to stay in the market is “screwing” them.  I think subsidizing any business to remain in business when they would not be able to otherwise is screwing the rest of us, but then, I’m not a Marxist.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Ok. Maybe ‘screwing’ is a bad word to use. I guess you agree that Whistler is naive, too wishful, or just wrong when he suggests that

Still I think US farmers (and my neighbors) would do well in a truly free market.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

I can’t say, because I don’t know Whistler’s neighbors.  Besides, I’m certainly not going to help you in your personal attack on anyone.
I support free markets because they work the best for everyone.  If someone isn’t competitive at farming, for any reason, they would be better employed elsewhere, not only for their own good, but for the good of us all.  Underemployment doesn’t help anyone. It’s only people who want to use the economic system to try to accomplish social goals who think like you do.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Its no personal attack. I don’t care who says it ain’t true… they are wrong. Free trade will put innumerable farmers OOB. Free trade is good for the richest transnationals in the world, but it is not something that is inherently patriotic at all. If we fight around the world to protect our country and its citizens, why not have economic policies that do that also? Limited trade can be used by states like the US, who are in a position of power, for advantage. Why not seek the same advantages economically that we seek militarily? You’ll say, “We can be most efficient too.” Great. We can ask the least. We can be legally plundered by others states. You’ll say, “We can manage and provide admin to the new global economy”. Great. Farmers? And the tons of English and psychology majors that graduate in this country everyday? More like other aliens will populate our country, if that’s where the action is, and take those jobs Americans-who-didn’t-just-fly/swim/run-in-from-elsewhere would have because the elsewhere’s have more science, math, et cetera and can better think/manage whatever. Free trade, in theory, should give us access to some things we want at incredibly cheap prices. Unfortunately those who have things we want the most like Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or former Russain states actively reject free trade and even capitalism, preferring to finance anti-capitalist activities. Capitalism fuels its own resistance at the top of the econo-material food chain, where the oil is. I personally doubt free trade will ever get over that hurdle.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

If we fight around the world to protect our
country and its citizens, why not have economic policies that do that also?

I know you just don’t get this, Free, but I’ll try again, for perhaps the hundredth time with you: The economic system is for creating wealth; when you try to make it serve other purposes, like social engineering or foreign policy, you eventually take away the primary function of the economic system, which is to generate wealth.  Get it?  This is why socialism, fascism and communism always fail to provide for their own citizens; they try to make the economic system do what it was not designed to do, and with the result that their economic system doesn’t do its job.  The result is imperialism, since the only way they can get more is to take it from someone else.  Duh.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

r108
You cannot separate out the economic system all tidy like that. Your whole post is crap. Economics is part and parcel with politics, diplomacy, war, and everything else. If you think otherwise then, well, you’re wrong. If you want to object to my post, don’t generalize with fallacies… acting like there is a little enclosed sphere economics exists within. Classic r108 right here. As long as you feel good about it buddy.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Economics is part and parcel with politics, diplomacy, war, and everything else.

That is the Marxist view; see how well it has worked?

Of course, you misstate what I said.  I said that when you try to make the economic system do too many other things, you lose the ability to generate wealth.  Didn’t think you would understand that, but no matter.
The primary reason the US is so much better at creating wealth, and the reason we can have both guns and butter(that’s econ terminology, fyi) is because we don’t try to load up the economic system with social and other goals.  The areas where we ignore that are the ones in the most trouble, like the public education system.  There is a definite inverse relationship between the amount of govt meddling and the ability of any market to create prosperity.  The present public education system can’t survive without massive confiscation of money from the private sector, and is constantly begging for more, like a heroin addict needing more and more of his drug just to “get well”.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.