Farming Freedom Act (Failed)

[Deus Naturae]

Thank you, Mr. PPT.

The purpose of this piece of legislation is to repeal statutes, regulations, and programs which distort agricultural markets and benefit incumbent cartels at the expense of their competitors and Atlasian consumers.

As part of the horrendous "New Deal" reforms of the 1930's, the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act established a system of Federal "marketing orders" whereby the Federal government is able to determine the supply of agricultural commodities, as well as set prices. These orders need only be approved by a 2/3 majority of the producers they are being applied to, so majoritarian cartels are able to prohibit entrepreneurial competitors from offering produce to Atlasian consumers (especially those who struggle with food security) at lower prices. Moreover, the price of a commodity can be inflated at whim, making food more expensive and protecting incumbent producers from competition. This is cartel behavior, plain and simple.

Also part of the New Deal, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 created price-support programs for a number of agricultural commodities, meaning that the Federal government pays growers of certain commodities a minimum price for their produce. This keeps prices at a minimum price level even if consumer demand would result in a lower equilibrium price. In other words, these programs make food more expensive and incentivize the production of certain commodities regardless of whether or not there is actually consumer demand for them. In addition, these payments artificially increase land values, hurting tenant farmers and making it more difficult to purchase land, which hurts small farmers and benefits large corporate operations. The DoA is still authorized to distribute these subsidies under the AAA, so even it's unclear whether the previous bill would have dealt with this.

Finally, this bill repeals Federal growing regulations to allow farmers to make their own decisions about what they produce on their own land and sell to consumers. Dairy farmers, for example, are currently prohibited from selling raw milk, which is a needless restriction on their right of free exchange. This bill still allows for labeling requirements, so consumers will still know what they're getting; it'll simply be up to them whether they consider it desirable to consume (as it should be).

[Deus Naturae]

Friendly.

[Deus Naturae]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alright, so with this version, the DoA could issue a directive preventing a specific batch of bad products, but not general restrictions on transport and sale (ie, no dairy products from outside area x may be sold in area x).

[Deus Naturae]

This is an insane bill.

Explain.

[Deus Naturae]

I don't see my role as butting in to debates, but I don't believe that Section 2 Sub. 2 is a good idea. It would shake confidence in American grown products and could lead to possible outbreaks of disease.

Exactly - regulations, guaranteeing safety and quality control are a big part of international trading.

Except that has already been removed from the bill. Please at least put in the effort to read a one-page thread.

Alright, here's a new amendment assuming the current one passes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This should address concerns expressed by Senators, clarify/streamline the terms use din the legislation, and eliminate language rendered superfluous by previous amendments.

[Deus Naturae]

I'm just curious what actual problem this Bill is designed to fix?

Thank you, Mr. PPT.

The purpose of this piece of legislation is to repeal statutes, regulations, and programs which distort agricultural markets and benefit incumbent cartels at the expense of their competitors and Atlasian consumers.

As part of the horrendous "New Deal" reforms of the 1930's, the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act established a system of Federal "marketing orders" whereby the Federal government is able to determine the supply of agricultural commodities, as well as set prices. These orders need only be approved by a 2/3 majority of the producers they are being applied to, so majoritarian cartels are able to prohibit entrepreneurial competitors from offering produce to Atlasian consumers (especially those who struggle with food security) at lower prices. Moreover, the price of a commodity can be inflated at whim, making food more expensive and protecting incumbent producers from competition. This is cartel behavior, plain and simple.

Also part of the New Deal, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 created price-support programs for a number of agricultural commodities, meaning that the Federal government pays growers of certain commodities a minimum price for their produce. This keeps prices at a minimum price level even if consumer demand would result in a lower equilibrium price. In other words, these programs make food more expensive and incentivize the production of certain commodities regardless of whether or not there is actually consumer demand for them. In addition, these payments artificially increase land values, hurting tenant farmers and making it more difficult to purchase land, which hurts small farmers and benefits large corporate operations. The DoA is still authorized to distribute these subsidies under the AAA, so even it's unclear whether the previous bill would have dealt with this.

[Deus Naturae]

I'm good with moving to a final vote.

[Deus Naturae]

Aye

Nay voters, why do you oppose the bill?

[Deus Naturae]

Because this is a solution in search of a problem.

I've already explained what the problems are, once in direct response to you. Do you disagree with my response or do you not understand it?

[Deus Naturae]

Abstain


Food inflation is very costly to fixed incomes and those whose incomes have not risen in a decade. However, I am concerned about the removal of labeling requirements.

This would not remove labeling requirements....

[Deus Naturae]

Sorry Deus but I don't believe in complete free market.
Of course, there are problems with the current situation, but basically abolishing every regulation isn't the answer and will instead create other problems.

This wouldn't abolish every regulation...

[Deus Naturae]

Because this is a solution in search of a problem.

I've already explained what the problems are, once in direct response to you. Do you disagree with my response or do you not understand it?

Charmed.

You explained a lot of what can or could happen. Of course, if you take any piece of legislation to its extreme interpretation, you can get to this point.

My issue was wondering what specific examples you have of these arrangements creating negative outcomes, or is it their mere existence you object to?

First of all, that isn't an argument. If you believe certain statutes should continue to remain in effect, you must provide a positive justification for their continued existence.

Anyway, here are some links:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/how-farm-subsidies-harm-taxpayers-consumers-and-farmers-too
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/regulations-and-trade-barriers
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/09/24/agriculture-subsidies-actually-hurt-young-farmers

Again, what positive impacts do you believe stem from allowing farmers to ban other farmers from producing crops and force them to raise prices and having the government pay farmers to raise prices and produce commodities people don't want.

And FTR, I wasn't to be offensive by asking you if you couldn't understand me. I've read plenty of incomprehensible arguments on this board.

[Deus Naturae]

I voted against this bill because I oppose free markets.

Not an argument. Simply because one opposes free markets does not justify support for any form of regulation or subsidy.