Is the USA uncivilised?

Post Reply
User avatar
Blind groper
Posts: 3997
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
About me: From New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Is the USA uncivilised?

Post by Blind groper » Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:50 pm

There is no doubt in my mind, and the 1984 experience in NZ demonstrates that, that removing subsidies is good for the economy long term. If you think it will cause too much mayhem in the short term, then spread out the reduction in subsidies over a few years.

But paying corporations subsidies is a Marxist ploy which, like all true Marxist ploys, leads eventually to economic disaster.

Removing subsidies restores the Darwinism of the economy, and weeds out the unfit, and makes the whole system overall much stronger.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74306
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is the USA uncivilised?

Post by JimC » Sat Jan 18, 2014 1:00 am

Blind groper wrote:There is no doubt in my mind, and the 1984 experience in NZ demonstrates that, that removing subsidies is good for the economy long term. If you think it will cause too much mayhem in the short term, then spread out the reduction in subsidies over a few years.

But paying corporations subsidies is a Marxist ploy which, like all true Marxist ploys, leads eventually to economic disaster.

Removing subsidies restores the Darwinism of the economy, and weeds out the unfit, and makes the whole system overall much stronger.
You have out-Sethed Seth! :shock:

:hehe:
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Blind groper
Posts: 3997
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
About me: From New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Is the USA uncivilised?

Post by Blind groper » Sat Jan 18, 2014 3:21 am

Jim

Is that a compliment, or should I be going Grrrrrr?

But there is no doubt that protectionism is not true free enterprise, which requires a soupcon of survival of the fittest.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74306
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is the USA uncivilised?

Post by JimC » Sat Jan 18, 2014 4:19 am

However, I think there could be an argument for some sort of subsidy (perhaps via tax breaks) in particular situations, if doing so assists a government policy which would benefit a society. For example, in Oz, solar panels on household and factory roofs should be a no brainer. These days, peak demand tends to come on very hot summer days, when everybody and their dog is turning on the air conditioning. This of course correlates well with high power production from PV panels, particularly if, as we do, some of the panels face west, catching the late afternoon sun. (in fact, knowledgeable commentators were saying that peak demand in South Australia during the recent hot spell was clearly reduced by this factor, and probably prevented major power blackouts)

So, IMO, there would be a good argument for a government to promote the production of PV panels in Oz, perhaps by reducing or eliminating taxes on manufacturers, and/or subsidising their installation, as it creates a social good, in terms of stabilising the power network, and potentially allowing the gradual phase out of the most inefficient of the coal-fired power stations.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Audley Strange
"I blame the victim"
Posts: 7485
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the USA uncivilised?

Post by Audley Strange » Sat Jan 18, 2014 8:42 am

Seth wrote:
Audley Strange wrote:
Seth wrote: It is the responsibility of the government to use its subsidy powers wisely and to benefit the people rather than corruptly to benefit officeholders.
I agree it is the responsibility of government to benefit the people I just see no issue with direct benefit for the people in times of need.


The issue arises when the government decides what "need" is and who is to be enslaved to labor on behalf of those the government has decided are in need. The Libertarian system allows the individuals of the community to decide who is in need and to help them according to their altruistic and charitable instincts without enslaving anyone or allowing government bureaucrats and office-holders to manipulate things to their political benefit.
Well you know in our society the individuals of the community did as a majority decide that the most practical way of helping people through altruistic means was through centralised taxation and a welfare system. No one is enslaved. Don't bother trying to refute that, I am never going to agree that your "right to work" is a mandatory obligation. As for your last part, I agree, but that should pertain to all who attain subsidies or welfare.

Now if you are saying that Government is like ineffectual middle management that actively gets in the way of helping people through needless bureaucracy, then you have an argument worth discussing. However the "issue" only arises when people give a free pass to some thieving scum while supporting the rights of other thieving scum to extort from the state. I think in this discussion both you and BG are doing that.

Seth wrote:
Audley Strange wrote:However would not business subsidies be better given to small "mom & pop" local businesses which are privately owned by citizens of the united states rather than give vast levies to corrupted transnational behemoths which seemingly almost all politicians these days have a vested interest in? Surely you can see that there is no real difference in shelling out money to being siphoned into the pockets of individuals whether they are part of a global concern or a sister fucking meth-head.
Seth wrote: Probably. Then again assisting a corporation that employs tens of thousands of employees might provide more bang for the buck. I don't dispute that there is a lot of corruption in the subsidy system, including agricultural subsidies, the majority of which go to a tiny minority of extremely large agricultural operations rather than the family farmers of the country.

But that's a process error, not a flaw in the fundamental concept.
Well then the problem is the politically motivated distribution method to both individuals and businesses, not the concept of welfare.
"What started as a legitimate effort by the townspeople of Salem to identify, capture and kill those who did Satan's bidding quickly deteriorated into a witch hunt" Army Man

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Is the USA uncivilised?

Post by Seth » Sun Jan 19, 2014 12:35 am

piscator wrote:
Seth wrote:
piscator wrote:
Seth wrote:When you pay welfare leeches to do nothing, you just pour the wealth of the nation down an endless rat-hole to no good end.

And they spend it in the private sector yo. It's not lost to the market or the tax system. It trickles back up.
Do they? No, they really don't. Even if they are circulating money, there is a net loss to society because the money they spend is not the product of their own wealth-generation, it's the product of somebody else's, somebody who was forced against their will to input labor that they will not enjoy the fruits of because it's being stolen from them by welfare leeches. That labor, turned to cash by the laborer would likewise be spent in the markets, but would benefit the one who labored to produce it rather than someone who has no just claim on that person's labor.
Welfare checks go right back into the private sector because welfare recipients spend them.
Unlike 30mm rounds punching holes in the ground in Afghanistan @ $11 ea, food stamps get spent in grocery stores, and HUD loans buy private homes. Welfare dollars go right back into the private sector, usually minus state sales taxes.
Or into the pockets of crack dealers. But yes, money goes round and round. The point is not that the money recirculates, it's that the wealth that the cash represents was not earned by those who are benefiting from it, it has previously been stolen from those who DID earn it and redistributed to the welfare leeches by the thugs of government wielding the Mace of State who will end up killing anyone who resists the extortion and theft vigorously enough.

If the same amount of welfare money circulates but has been donated to that cause voluntarily by those who are charitable, altruistic, and who act out of rational self-interest the situation changes completely.

It's not the money, and it's not the motives of the welfare recipients that's the most important thing, it's HOW they acquire the money...by appealing to their community for help which is granted voluntarily, or by threatening to kill taxpayers if they don't fork over their wealth.
And nine times out of ten, "Wealth Creation" is more like, "Wealth Extraction". Every dollar I ever made in the stock markets came out of someone else's pocket.
How? Were you a pick-pocket on the NASDAQ trading floor?
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Blind groper
Posts: 3997
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
About me: From New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Is the USA uncivilised?

Post by Blind groper » Sun Jan 19, 2014 12:42 am

Jim

The right wing side of me disagrees on subsidies for solar cells. They are still more expensive as electricity generators, compared to hydroelectricity, nuclear power, and other green methods. When they become cheap enough to compete, subsidies will not be needed. Till they do, they are a financial burden.

Audley

On welfare to "scum".
My views are purely practical. Making a decision because you think they are undeserving 'scum' is an emotional, not rational, way of deciding.

The thing is that dozens, if not hundreds, of schemes have been tried by various wealthy nations, to get unemployed into work and off the benefit. The results are varied, and some have had partial success. But none, including efforts to pay the 'scum' nothing at all, have produced 100% success. In fact, some have simply boosted the crime rate through the roof.

So from a purely pragmatic viewpoint, it is better to pay welfare to those of the 'scum' who can not and will not work.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Is the USA uncivilised?

Post by Seth » Sun Jan 19, 2014 12:55 am

Audley Strange wrote:
Seth wrote:
Audley Strange wrote:
Seth wrote: It is the responsibility of the government to use its subsidy powers wisely and to benefit the people rather than corruptly to benefit officeholders.
I agree it is the responsibility of government to benefit the people I just see no issue with direct benefit for the people in times of need.


The issue arises when the government decides what "need" is and who is to be enslaved to labor on behalf of those the government has decided are in need. The Libertarian system allows the individuals of the community to decide who is in need and to help them according to their altruistic and charitable instincts without enslaving anyone or allowing government bureaucrats and office-holders to manipulate things to their political benefit.
Well you know in our society the individuals of the community did as a majority decide that the most practical way of helping people through altruistic means was through centralised taxation and a welfare system.
I very much doubt it. I know we've never had a public vote on the welfare system here in the US. But even if that were true, it's irrelevant because no one person or group of people have the right to vote to take someone else's property for the purposes of giving it to another individual for their benefit against the will of the property owner. The magnitude of the "need" or the popularity of the plan is irrelevant because the fruits of ones labor belongs to the worker and the only legitimate claim on that property is in return for some service or amenity that the worker makes use of that is supplied by the government. Thus, the individual determines absolutely how his labor is allocated by his own decisions and actions in making use of public services and conveniences. If he chooses to eschew the use of such services, then he doesn't owe the collective a share of the costs of providing that service.

But for the collective to say to the individual "you are required to do X amount of labor so that we can transfer the value of that labor to another private individual who you don't know and don't have any economic responsibility to because we, the collective have decided that you have too much surplus labor value and he has too little, so we're going to redistribute your labor to his benefit" is to enslave the first individual to the service of the second just as certainly as if the collective slapped chains on him.
No one is enslaved.
If I refuse to give the government the value of my labor that it says I must give to a welfare recipient, eventually men with machine guns will show up at my door and will kill me if I resist being so enslaved. I don't know a much better definition of "involuntary servitude."

Don't bother trying to refute that,
No bother. It's easy to do.
I am never going to agree that your "right to work" is a mandatory obligation.
Of course you aren't, you're a Marxist. That has nothing whatever to do with the truth of my statement.
As for your last part, I agree, but that should pertain to all who attain subsidies or welfare.
Well, we agree on something anyway.
Now if you are saying that Government is like ineffectual middle management that actively gets in the way of helping people through needless bureaucracy, then you have an argument worth discussing.
I thought that went without saying. Government bureaucracy is always ineffectual, bloated, unnecessary and expensive. That's a given.
However the "issue" only arises when people give a free pass to some thieving scum while supporting the rights of other thieving scum to extort from the state.
Too true.
I think in this discussion both you and BG are doing that.
Interesting, if incomprehensible, notion.

Seth wrote:
Audley Strange wrote: But that's a process error, not a flaw in the fundamental concept.
Well then the problem is the politically motivated distribution method to both individuals and businesses, not the concept of welfare.[/quote]

Depends on what your conception of the concept of welfare is. The need to provide for the health, safety and welfare of those who for reasons beyond their own control cannot do so for themselves is obvious. It's not whether "welfare" is necessary, it's HOW that goal is achieved.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60983
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Is the USA uncivilised?

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:48 pm

Seth wrote:
We went through the big change in NZ in 1984. Before that time, farmers were subsidised. But the subsidies were removed totally, and a lot of inefficient farmers went bust. They were replaced by efficient farmers, and without subsidies, our farming sector has become so efficient that the idiot politicians in the USA use tarriffs and subsidies against us, knowing that American farmers could not compete. Much better to cooperate with NZ and share expertise (we are very willing to help, in order to share the very large American market), and remove subsidies, and become truly efficient.
I'm all for that. But that doesn't change the fact that the term "corporate welfare" is just so much bilge concocted by idiots who don't understand basic economics and are too stupid to figure it out. At least when you subsidize a corporation you get jobs, products and economic growth.
When you subsidise a corporation you get reduced efficiency and reduced productivity. Seems you need to brush up on your basic economics. :coffee:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60983
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Is the USA uncivilised?

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:50 pm

piscator wrote:
Seth wrote:When you pay welfare leeches to do nothing, you just pour the wealth of the nation down an endless rat-hole to no good end.

And they spend it in the private sector yo. It's not lost to the market or the tax system. It trickles back up.
Facts have no place against ideology! :nono:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60983
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Is the USA uncivilised?

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:57 pm

Hermit wrote:
Seth wrote:
Hermit wrote:At any rate, Ford and GM in Australia were subsidised to the tune of billions of dollars per year, yet both those companies still decided to fire all of their employees. Go figure yourself.
Just the ones down under. They still employ tens of thousands of people worldwide.
Yes, but I am speaking of corporate welfare. Both Ford and General Motors got billions of dollars of it, funded by Australian tax dollars in order to keep going. Both subsidiaries gleefully took the money and are now running away. Individuals on social welfare who do that get prosecuted, and rightly so.
Seth wrote:Perhaps Aussies are just lazy fucks who can't do a fair day's work for a fair day's wage, what with all the beer-drinking and all.
Or Ford (with its Falcon) and General Motors (with its Commodore) chose the wrong product to manufacture in Australia. Sales of those (relatively) big sedans have been dropping for years, but management never got the hint when they looked at the figures. Instead of retooling their production line to cater for the huge and still growing local market for smaller, more economical vehicles, they persisted in offering massive, big-engined monsters that any fool could see will meet the same fate as other dinosaurs before them.
This. I feel sorry for you wasting your time explaining the exceedingly simple to Seth. He will never get it. Actually, he does get it, but it just doesn't fit in with his ideology. Wilful ignorance.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60983
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Is the USA uncivilised?

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:02 pm

Seth wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Seth wrote:
Hermit wrote:At any rate, Ford and GM in Australia were subsidised to the tune of billions of dollars per year, yet both those companies still decided to fire all of their employees. Go figure yourself.
Just the ones down under. They still employ tens of thousands of people worldwide.
Yes, but I am speaking of corporate welfare. Both Ford and General Motors got billions of dollars of it, funded by Australian tax dollars in order to keep going. Both subsidiaries gleefully took the money and are now running away.
Evidently the economic conditions for them down there were so bad that even subsidies couldn't keep them profitable. Not their fault, nor their problem. Aussies didn't have to give them subsidies. Clearly they did so thinking that the economic benefits to be gained by doing so outweighed the costs of the subsidies. Seems the bureaucrats miscalculated. Oops! Blame them, not the companies.
You seem totally incapable of following an argument. Actually, I know that you follow it perfectly, but choose to continually try and misdirect to avoid the failings of your argument. YOUR ARGUMENT was that corporate handouts are good for the economy. Hermit has given you a perfect example of where they ultimately weren't. You know this. Stop trying to misdirect.
Seth wrote:Perhaps Aussies are just lazy fucks who can't do a fair day's work for a fair day's wage, what with all the beer-drinking and all.
Or Ford (with its Falcon) and General Motors (with its Commodore) chose the wrong product to manufacture in Australia. Sales of those (relatively) big sedans have been dropping for years, but management never got the hint when they looked at the figures. Instead of retooling their production line to cater for the huge and still growing local market for smaller, more economical vehicles, they persisted in offering massive, big-engined monsters that any fool could see will meet the same fate as other dinosaurs before them.
Well, that's business for you. Sometimes you make the wrong product, sometimes you don't. If Aussies were concerned about the subsides, I guess they should have either sucked it up and bought what was offered or not granted the subsidies in the first place.
Avoiding the argument again. :bored:
Last edited by pErvinalia on Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60983
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Is the USA uncivilised?

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:05 pm

Blind groper wrote:Jim

Is that a compliment, or should I be going Grrrrrr?

But there is no doubt that protectionism is not true free enterprise, which requires a soupcon of survival of the fittest.
Yeah, this is the ridiculousness of Seth's attempt to argue against so called "Marxists". He's painted himself into a corner and is espousing one of the most anti-libertarian views one could hold. He often does this. Not sure whether it's a pride thing, or whether he really is a wet anarcho-capitalist.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60983
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Is the USA uncivilised?

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:08 pm

JimC wrote:However, I think there could be an argument for some sort of subsidy (perhaps via tax breaks) in particular situations, if doing so assists a government policy which would benefit a society. For example, in Oz, solar panels on household and factory roofs should be a no brainer. These days, peak demand tends to come on very hot summer days, when everybody and their dog is turning on the air conditioning. This of course correlates well with high power production from PV panels, particularly if, as we do, some of the panels face west, catching the late afternoon sun. (in fact, knowledgeable commentators were saying that peak demand in South Australia during the recent hot spell was clearly reduced by this factor, and probably prevented major power blackouts)

So, IMO, there would be a good argument for a government to promote the production of PV panels in Oz, perhaps by reducing or eliminating taxes on manufacturers, and/or subsidising their installation, as it creates a social good, in terms of stabilising the power network, and potentially allowing the gradual phase out of the most inefficient of the coal-fired power stations.
Government's job is the management of society, not just the economy, as much as acolytes like Seth would beg to differ. There absolutely is a place for government subsidies. The problem for the free marketeers like BG and (allegedly) Seth, is that they believe that "economy" is synonymous with "society".
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Is the USA uncivilised?

Post by Seth » Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:55 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:
Seth wrote:
We went through the big change in NZ in 1984. Before that time, farmers were subsidised. But the subsidies were removed totally, and a lot of inefficient farmers went bust. They were replaced by efficient farmers, and without subsidies, our farming sector has become so efficient that the idiot politicians in the USA use tarriffs and subsidies against us, knowing that American farmers could not compete. Much better to cooperate with NZ and share expertise (we are very willing to help, in order to share the very large American market), and remove subsidies, and become truly efficient.
I'm all for that. But that doesn't change the fact that the term "corporate welfare" is just so much bilge concocted by idiots who don't understand basic economics and are too stupid to figure it out. At least when you subsidize a corporation you get jobs, products and economic growth.
When you subsidise a corporation you get reduced efficiency and reduced productivity. Seems you need to brush up on your basic economics. :coffee:
Not necessarily. It depends on what the corporation produces and the nature of the subsidy. If the choice is to subsidize a corporation (or any business really) or have it go out of business, then the government has to consider the short and long term fiscal impacts when considering providing a subsidy.

For example, the government subsidized the railroad industry in the 1800s by granting them title to huge swathes of land adjacent to their tracks as an inducement for the companies to invest the tremendous sums of money and labor in the short term that were required to create a cross-country rail network that significantly facilitated the opening of the west by giving them title to lands that would eventually, in the long term, make the initial investment worthwhile.

Subsidies for the aviation industry during and after WWII drove advances in aviation that would have taken much longer without the subsidies.

The same is true for subsidies for oil and gas exploration in the early years.

The idea is that some commercial enterprises are more important to the nation than others, and that therefore government support for those industries provides more benefits in the long term than the subsidies cost.

Agricultural subsidies and crop insurance are based on the idea that farming and crop production is not like manufacturing toys for WalMart. Food production is an essential strategic national concern, and neither croplands nor the expertise needed to make them productive can be turned off and then turned back on with the flip of a switch. Agriculturalists take years, decades and even multiple lifetimes to learn how to productively manage a particular piece of agricultural land, and it can easily take more than one or two growing seasons to turn or return uncultivated lands back into productive croplands, depending on the nature of the crop. Orchards, for example, may take five or more years to become productive.

Because of the time lag built in to agriculture, both from the cultivation and agricultural knowledge perspective, it's not necessarily prudent for a government to leave agriculture to the vicissitudes of the weather and market forces, which can destroy an agricultural endeavor in ten minutes, but which requires at least one growing season to recover under the best of conditions. The wheat farmer whose crop is destroyed by a single hail storm may not be able to weather the financial impact of the crop destruction, and if not insured or subsidized, may be forced to abandon his entire operation and declare bankruptcy because of a single weather event. This takes the cropland out of production for a minimum of one season, and likely more than that if there is no one able to put the land back into production right away.

Add long-term widespread weather events like drought to the mix and it is quite possible for the overall national food supply to be severely impacted, both in the short term and in the long term as croplands go out of production for long periods.

With today's global transportation system this is not nearly as big a problem as it once was, in for example the Ukraine in 1932, where an artificial "drought" (in the persona of Josef Stalin) denied 100 percent of the wheat crop to the citizens of Ukraine, which resulted in more than 12 million people starving to death. This deliberately-caused genocide, the Holomodor, is an excellent example of why governments need to ensure that their citizens can be adequately fed by internal agricultural resources and must not be dependent for simple survival on imports...as the people of Sudan and Somalia are. Imports, I note, which largely come from the United States.

For strategic reasons it is therefore necessary to support the agricultural industry through short-term difficulties to ensure that a long-term, stable supply of food essentials remains available to the people of the nation, should imports be cut off for some reason.

So, do subsidies create inefficiencies and lowered production? Sometimes they do, which is why they must be used carefully. But properly used, subsidies protect long-term strategic national interests and accept a certain amount of inefficiency and lowered production as a necessary evil...much like the inefficiencies and costs of government itself are tolerated as necessary evils.

This of course is not to say that all subsidies are appropriate or necessary. Indeed, many subsides are blatantly political in nature and have as their goal the manipulation of votes for political gain, like the bailout of GM, which should have been allowed to fail precisely to break the unions that drove it to economic failure in the first place. Unlike crop production, the failure of one automobile manufacturer is not necessarily an economic disaster. Had GM gone down, it would have quickly been replaced by another brand manufacturing automobiles using the existing facilities in a more economically-efficient (ie: non-unionized) manner that would have quickly become profitable because of the existing infrastructure and workforce.

Instead, Obama violated state and federal law, defrauded secured bond-holders and gave the company to the unions as a political ploy. Those sorts of subsidies are both immoral and illegal.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests