Farmed Robbery
In his newly-released federal budget President George W. Bush promises to reduce farm subsidies. Predictably, writes Tom DiLorenzo, on the day the budget was made public there were well-choreographed "protests" by all the usual suspects, mostly millionaire corporate farmers camped out at the Mayflower or Four Seasons hotels in Washington, D.C. for a few days. The "protesters" made it on to the evening news in their latest attempt to dupe the American public into believing that they were not really the millionaire owners of large corporate farms, but lowly dust bowl families just trying to make ends meet and feed their families. [Full Article]
Comments (6)
Many of the products bought by the government DO end up benefitting prospective consumers, and they benefit politicians (of course) in THAT process, too. The article mentions it: free cheese (I've eaten some of that cheese - it's surprisingly good, to my taste, despite the bitterness I feel about how it got to me).
Now, the cheese is ALWAYS given out by POLITICIANS, who reap various benefits with the bread-and-circuses crowd as they do so. But here's the beauty of the situation: the more they give out cheese (and such things), the more this depresses the price of cheese in the open market (remember the open market? - consumers NEVER see it, and it's fading from existence).
The market price of cheese declines, the government buys still MORE of the crop, there's MORE of it to give out, taxes or borrowing increase to fund these purchases . . . can you see where this is leading? It's going there faster than most people realize, too.
Published: February 15, 2005 9:25 AM
One of my favorite quotes from "Catch-22".
"Major Major's father was a sober God-fearing man whose idea of a good joke was to lie
about his age. He was a long-limbed farmer, a God-fearing, freedom-loving, law-abiding
rugged individualist who held that federal aid to anyone but farmers was creeping
socialism. He advocated thrift and hard work and disapproved of loose women who turned
him down. His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any.
The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow.
The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent
every penny he didn't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not
produce. Major Major's father worked without rest at not growing alfalfa.
On long winter evenings he remained indoors and did not mend harness, and he sprang
out of bed at the crack of noon every day just to make certain that the chores would
not be done. He invested in land wisely and soon was not growing more alfalfa than any
other man in the county. Neighbors sought him out for advice on all subjects, for he
had made much money and was therefore wise. "As ye sow, so shall ye reap," he counseled
one and all, and everyone said, "Amen. "
Published: February 15, 2005 12:52 PM
So basically the USG is writing (no-charge) put options for cotton farmers.
Published: February 15, 2005 1:38 PM
Well written article. I always enjoy hearing specific numbers as it helps illustrate an argument in a more concrete way for me.
While it was not the focus of the article, more than a passing mention is given to the, “millionaire owners of large corporate farms.� This raises, in my mind, the prospect that the argument could be shifted from the harm price supports cause to one of ascertaining merit.
If we pile the wealth or hotel accommodations of these farmers on top of what is an already considerable argument, it opens the door ever so slightly to a counter argument: that price supports are actually valid, and the millionaire farmers are simply not the “proper� recipients of these handouts. The financial status of these farmers could not be less relevant in my opinion. Manipulation of prices is economically inefficient and morally wrong because it harms a largely unseen group (consumers in general) for the short-term benefit a highly visible group—the farmers.
Intervention in the marketplace can not be justified, no matter what the financial status of those the intervention purports to benefit. I recognize that this was not the point the author is making in the article, but feel that mentioning the financial or corporate status of these farmers opens the door to a less productive argument.
Published: February 15, 2005 3:47 PM
So here it is...
Government takes money away from you and gives it to corporations that raise the price of food, these corporations kick back much of it to the politicians.
Sounds like theft.
THEN the government decided to take more of your money and put you on welfare because you are needy due to higher prices and less money in your pocket. Therefor you'll be so worried about your benefits you'll continue to elect politicians that will rob you.
Darn... why is this legal?
Paying them not to farm, generous crop 'insurance', aid to farmers, subsidizing what they do grow... one HUGE mess. Oh and then you get to peanuts and such where you need a license-whatever they call it- that limits the number of producers and keeps prices high.
Darn. Grab the pitchfork and torches and lets all go to DC!!
Published: February 15, 2005 9:11 PM
Things are not much better here in the EU: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1506042.ece
Major Major's dad (whose idea of a good joke was to lie about his age) would be proud.
Published: March 13, 2007 12:32 PM