Farm Subsidies Abolition Bill

[Emsworth]

As I explained before, much of the "over-production" goes into the Third World, under those reduced prices.  Without that over production, millions of people will starve to death, before we can get farms going in other parts of the world.  If people are starving, they will try to get to places where food is more abundent.  This will cause a refugee crisis elsewhere.

Agricultural products from Atlasia and other Western countries, by being dumped in less-developed countries, cause considerable difficulties for the local farmers in those countries. Atlasian farmers are able to undercut them. By subsidizing their own farmers, and encouraging overproduction and dumping, the West perpetuates poverty in the "Third World."

The World Bank estimates that the abolition of farm subsidies in Western countries would lift over a hundred and fifty million people out of poverty (source). The real human benefits of abolishing distortive subsidies cannot be ignored, even if those who benefit include foreigners.

Also, you attempt to allude to the Depression is a bit of a scare tactic, since the subsidies did not lead to depression...

I never asserted otherwise. But overproduction surely exacerbated the suffering of farmers during the Depression.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, I see. Well, I would have no problem giving that assurance.

[12th Doctor]

Agricultural products from Atlasi and other Western countries, by being dumped in less-developed countries, cause considerable difficulties for the local farmers in those countries. American farmers are able to undercut them. By subsidizing their own farmers, and encouraging overproduction and dumping, the West perpetuates poverty in the "Third World."

The World Bank estimates that the abolition of farm subsidies in Western countries would lift over a hundred and fifty million people out of poverty (source). The real human benefits of abolishing distortive subsidies cannot be ignored, even if those who benefit include foreigners.

You are correct, but this bill does not provide for the amount of time it would take (probably a few years at best) to get agricultural production running at full capacity in other parts of the world where "dumping" currently takes place.  I had acctually intended to mention this, but see that I neglected to do so.  Anyway, the transition would not be automatic, and many parts of the world still suffer from draughts and the like.  Some over production is always desireable, but if we are going to ween these countries into being self sufficient, we had better be prepared to teach them to do so, as farming has ground to a halt in many parts of the Third World, today.  I would propose that we devote some money into foriegn aid to teach people in other countries better farming techniques (which would not cost a lot) and give it some time before we stop the flow all together.

For the other easons that I mentioned, some semblence of farm aid does need to be maintianed.

[12th Doctor]

I never asserted otherwise. But overproduction surely exacerbated the suffering of farmers during the Depression.

P.S.  I was unaware that we were in a depression at the moment, but we sure as Hell will be if you guys keep slashing federal aid and minimum wage laws.

[Emsworth]

P.S.  I was unaware that we were in a depression at the moment, but we sure as Hell will be if you guys keep slashing federal aid and minimum wage laws.

Well, to be accurate, we didn't slash minimum wage laws; the responsibility has merely been transferred to the regions from the federal government. And, as far as I recall, the only federal aid that has been cut is the NEA/NEH grant.

You are correct, but this bill does not provide for the amount of time it would take (probably a few years at best) to get agricultural production running at full capacity in other parts of the world where "dumping" currently takes place.  I had acctually intended to mention this, but see that I neglected to do so.  Anyway, the transition would not be automatic, and many parts of the world still suffer from draughts and the like.  Some over production is always desireable, but if we are going to ween these countries into being self sufficient, we had better be prepared to teach them to do so, as farming has ground to a halt in many parts of the Third World, today.  I would propose that we devote some money into foriegn aid to teach people in other countries better farming techniques (which would not cost a lot) and give it some time before we stop the flow all together.

That is a very reasonable compromise, Mr. Secretary. I have no objection to introducing a transitional period in this bill. But eventually, I would hope that all farm subsidies, which distort the global and the local market, would be abolished.

"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish, feed him for life." Members of the Senate, let us not toss fish to the Third World in the form of dumped agricultural products. Let us abolish farm subsidies, so that they may learn how to fish on their own.

I endorse the compromise the Secretary of the Treasury has proposed.

[Defarge]

I am generally in favor of this bill, albeit I shall leave the debate to those more knowledgeable than myself. 

[Bono]

New Zealand relies on agricultural resources much more than Atlasia, and it abolished farm subsidies in 1984 without suffering any sort of agricultural downfall while saving federal money.

Agriculture is far more prolific in, say, New Zealand than it is in Atlasia.  Because of that, you get a lot of variety in the market.  New Zealand does not have the same kind of massive conglomerates that we have here in Atlasia.  If the Agroloplies are all that is left, then there really is not much preventing an epidemic from wiping out certain agricultural populations, due to lack of variation in the species and in their locations.  Supporting smaller farms gives us, at least, some defense agains this possibility.

Ever heard of insurance?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many parts of the world would be having their own suceseful farming if it weren't for ours and EU's subsisides. Fram subsisides kill people in the third world everyday!

[MaC]

I strongly support this and urge my senators to vote for the abolition of farm subsidies.

[12th Doctor]

New Zealand relies on agricultural resources much more than Atlasia, and it abolished farm subsidies in 1984 without suffering any sort of agricultural downfall while saving federal money.

Agriculture is far more prolific in, say, New Zealand than it is in Atlasia.  Because of that, you get a lot of variety in the market.  New Zealand does not have the same kind of massive conglomerates that we have here in Atlasia.  If the Agroloplies are all that is left, then there really is not much preventing an epidemic from wiping out certain agricultural populations, due to lack of variation in the species and in their locations.  Supporting smaller farms gives us, at least, some defense agains this possibility.

Ever heard of insurance?

Ever heard of famine?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many parts of the world would be having their own suceseful farming if it weren't for ours and EU's subsisides. Fram subsisides kill people in the third world everyday!
[/quote]

This was already discussed, in detail.  Pull the subsidies away now would cause millions of deaths, because the people in those regions are not prepared to farm for themselves.  We talked this out.

[Ebowed]

Pulling away farm subsidies would cause millions of deaths?  We're talking about Atlasia, not some third world country.  I don't see the point in wasting billions of dollars on what is nothing more than paying farmers to be idle.  We don't have problems with famine in Atlasia, so bringing that up is basically irrelevant.  Looking at developed nations, however, is a good model; as I said about New Zealand earlier, it relied on Agriculture much more than we do and the abolition of farm subsidies there was nothing but positive.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The issue of farm subsidies is a complex one but, unlike most other complex issues, tends only to be seen in black and white terms for reasons that I've never been able to understand.
There's also a lot of misinformation, misunderstanding and general confusion as to what farm subsidies are, what they are for and who gets them.
First off, not all farms actually get government subsidies. According the most recent set of statistics I've been able to find, just 33% of all farms in Atlasia get government subsidies. There's also a huge amont of regional diversity; about 78% of farms in North Dakota get subsidies, only 2% of farms in Hawaii do. Unsuprisingly it's wheat or cornbelt states that have the highest %'s, and states with agricultural sector based around fruit and so on, tend to have much lower numbers.

The scandal of the current subsidies setup is this; the bottom 80% of subsidy recipients get, on average, $768 a year. The top 10% of recipients (and these are invariably large, profitable farms) get on average $34,424 a year. Now, this is wrong, I hope you all understand that, and something has to be done about it.
Is simply abolishing all farm subsidies the best way to do this? No. Of course not.
Even more smaller farms will be unable to pull off the increasingly difficult balancing act of survivial in a climate of falling product prices and rising farm prices (that is; the raw materials, equipment, manpower etc. needed to operate a farm) go to the wall than do at the moment. They just won't be able to survive without state aid.
Why is that a problem? For several reasons, everything from consumer choice (products from smaller farms do generally taste nicer than those produced by agribusiness. I think this is important because I think that consumers are important), to biodiversity (as an example of how important that can be, the Irish potato blight was as devastating as it was due to a lack of genetic diversity in the Irish potato crop; the whole lot had come from one or two potatoes) but most importantly of all, the sheer human cost. Take away state aid for small farms and you will plunge a lot of communities into poverty. And set against all that, there is no real benifit in abolishing state aid to smaller farms, as I have pointed out the amont of money they get is relatively small... even in North Dakota, a wheat state, the average for the bottom 80% is only a few thousand dollars each. These dollars make all the differences for thousands of farms, but taking them away won't do much towards the deficit and it certainly won't help third world farmers.

To sum this up, the best thing to do would be to abolish state aid to agribusiness but keep it, even increase it, for small farms. We should probably give subsidies based on need rather than what crop is grown.
In doing so we can save a hell of a lot of money and give a helping hand to struggling farmers in the third world as well as Atlasia... and give some more choice for consumers as well.

[Ebowed]

I fail to see how it is the government's responsibility to ensure choice for consumers.

I don't buy the argument that taking away aid to farmers won't save us much money is a compelling reason to keep farm subsidies.  Just as with the NEA/NEH bill, money is not the only issue.  Nobody seems to be giving a reason why exactly the government should spend taxpayer dollars on farms.  Farm subsidies do nothing to help struggling farmers in Atlasia except a temporary monetary aid that can easily be taken away in times of financial emergency.  If that is what struggling farms are relying on, they will need to re-prioritize their way of doing things-- certainly New Zealand was able to adapt well following the farm subsidies abolition.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I fail to see how it is the government's responsibility to ensure choice for consumers.

Because somebody has to and no one else will

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't say that. I said that abolishing aid to small farms will not save much money. Abolishing aid to agribusiness will save a lot though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I gave several reasons. Personally my main reason is the fact that I don't want to see the actions of the government plunge people into poverty. We should be taking people out of it, not the other way round.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, they do a lot. For most farms, making ends meet has always been very hard; it's even harder now than it used to be. A few thousand dollars mightn't sound like much, but when margins are tight it really does matter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

New Zealand's agricultural sector is very different to Atlasias; it's largely based around livestock and dominates the country's exports. It's one thing to adapt to a lack of state aid if you're a stock-rearer; quite another to do so if you're a wheat farmer.

[Ebowed]

I fail to see how it is the government's responsibility to ensure choice for consumers.

Because somebody has to and no one else will

Theoretically, choice would be necessary in the markets in order for competition to thrive.  Certainly this does not always happen as there are monopolies in various areas but I don't see how it is the government's responsibility to ensure choice.  If the consumers want something, they'll usually get it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know; I am stating that we should abolish both regardless of how much money it will save.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do not believe it is the government's responsibility to ensure that every farm is able to make ends meet; if a farm cannot survive and gets special aid from the government, why not other things?  Why not support federal funding of theaters or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis?  I realize there is a large difference between farm aid and museums, but the money wasted on farm subsidies could be better used elsewhere.  A business shouldn't need aid to survive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In many respects, it would probably be harder for a stock-rearer to cope without aid than a wheat farmer.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Theoretically, choice would be necessary in the markets in order for competition to thrive.

It's such a shame that things don't work out like that in the real world, isn't it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because someone has to, and no one else will

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not usually, no. If someone wants C but can only get A or B they will generally choose B and not complain about the lack of C even though they can't get it. It's usually the retailers that determine consumer habits, rather than consumers

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I support government funding of museums. But that isn't the issue here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A small farm is more than just a business

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not at all; stock-rearing is much more stable than wheat farming. If we get rid of aid guess what happens the first year we have a sudden unexpected frost? Or too much rain? Or a drought?

[12th Doctor]

Pulling away farm subsidies would cause millions of deaths?  We're talking about Atlasia, not some third world country.  I don't see the point in wasting billions of dollars on what is nothing more than paying farmers to be idle.  We don't have problems with famine in Atlasia, so bringing that up is basically irrelevant.  Looking at developed nations, however, is a good model; as I said about New Zealand earlier, it relied on Agriculture much more than we do and the abolition of farm subsidies there was nothing but positive.

Did you listen to anything I said?

First off, my comments about the possibility of crop failure were valid, because lack of genetic diversity.

Second, I was talking about the Third World when I made the comments about ending farm subsidies causing millions of deaths, because the Third World relies on the excess output that our farms produce.

[CheeseWhiz]

Pulling away farm subsidies would cause millions of deaths?  We're talking about Atlasia, not some third world country.  I don't see the point in wasting billions of dollars on what is nothing more than paying farmers to be idle.  We don't have problems with famine in Atlasia, so bringing that up is basically irrelevant.  Looking at developed nations, however, is a good model; as I said about New Zealand earlier, it relied on Agriculture much more than we do and the abolition of farm subsidies there was nothing but positive.

Did you listen to anything I said?

First off, my comments about the possibility of crop failure were valid, because lack of genetic diversity.

Second, I was talking about the Third World when I made the comments about ending farm subsidies causing millions of deaths, because the Third World relies on the excess output that our farms produce.

Um, excuse me for sounding ignorant, this debate has quickly escalated into mass confusion for me   But, um, why should we pay Farmers not to grow things when the world relies in our excess output?  Again, please forgive me if this is a stupid question, I not the most knowledgable guy on this stuff.

[Bono]

New Zealand relies on agricultural resources much more than Atlasia, and it abolished farm subsidies in 1984 without suffering any sort of agricultural downfall while saving federal money.

Agriculture is far more prolific in, say, New Zealand than it is in Atlasia.  Because of that, you get a lot of variety in the market.  New Zealand does not have the same kind of massive conglomerates that we have here in Atlasia.  If the Agroloplies are all that is left, then there really is not much preventing an epidemic from wiping out certain agricultural populations, due to lack of variation in the species and in their locations.  Supporting smaller farms gives us, at least, some defense agains this possibility.

Ever heard of insurance?

Ever heard of famine?

Scaremongering. If we end subsidies, domestic outputnwill increase, not decrease, and this is a red herring, because it was not what we were talking about. If there are bad weather conditions in a given year we can just buy food from someone else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many parts of the world would be having their own suceseful farming if it weren't for ours and EU's subsisides. Fram subsisides kill people in the third world everyday!
[/quote]

This was already discussed, in detail.  Pull the subsidies away now would cause millions of deaths, because the people in those regions are not prepared to farm for themselves.  We talked this out.
[/quote]

I guess you mean Africa, becuase that's the only World Region I can think off that does not bitch about having no market for their excess output due to EU and US farm subsidies. As for Africa, most of Africa's trade relationships are with the EU, not us, and even if they were, the reason they can't buy food is becuase they are burneded by their own protectionism. Nothing we could do could change that.

[Ebowed]

Pulling away farm subsidies would cause millions of deaths?  We're talking about Atlasia, not some third world country.  I don't see the point in wasting billions of dollars on what is nothing more than paying farmers to be idle.  We don't have problems with famine in Atlasia, so bringing that up is basically irrelevant.  Looking at developed nations, however, is a good model; as I said about New Zealand earlier, it relied on Agriculture much more than we do and the abolition of farm subsidies there was nothing but positive.

Did you listen to anything I said?

First off, my comments about the possibility of crop failure were valid, because lack of genetic diversity.

Second, I was talking about the Third World when I made the comments about ending farm subsidies causing millions of deaths, because the Third World relies on the excess output that our farms produce.

If we abolished farm subsidies, we would not lose crops (the large agricultural businesses would continue to thrive anyway); the small farms would just continue to struggle like they're doing now.  Hardly anything would change except that we'd have more money.

[Ebowed]

Theoretically, choice would be necessary in the markets in order for competition to thrive.

It's such a shame that things don't work out like that in the real world, isn't it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because someone has to, and no one else will

[/quote]

Silliness.  No responsibility on the government's part to provide "choice."  Things do work like that in the real world- anything that relies on the government too much is doomed for failure because anything coming from the government is never stable.  The government providing money for everything and subsidizing 'small struggling farms' is just one small step towards socialism etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hold on.. you want to make the government determine consumer habits now?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If we get enough produce from large businesses and the only reason we're giving money to small farms is because they're small farms.. what can I say.. something's not right there

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those same problems can hurt a stock-rearer.  Either way we've had nature problems before; not sure why we'd spend money fighting the inevitable on the issue of farm subsidies.

[12th Doctor]

Pulling away farm subsidies would cause millions of deaths?  We're talking about Atlasia, not some third world country.  I don't see the point in wasting billions of dollars on what is nothing more than paying farmers to be idle.  We don't have problems with famine in Atlasia, so bringing that up is basically irrelevant.  Looking at developed nations, however, is a good model; as I said about New Zealand earlier, it relied on Agriculture much more than we do and the abolition of farm subsidies there was nothing but positive.

Did you listen to anything I said?

First off, my comments about the possibility of crop failure were valid, because lack of genetic diversity.

Second, I was talking about the Third World when I made the comments about ending farm subsidies causing millions of deaths, because the Third World relies on the excess output that our farms produce.

Um, excuse me for sounding ignorant, this debate has quickly escalated into mass confusion for me   But, um, why should we pay Farmers not to grow things when the world relies in our excess output?  Again, please forgive me if this is a stupid question, I not the most knowledgable guy on this stuff.

The idea that the farmers "we are paying farmers not to farm" is not the case.  It is just one of those things that is used by some on the Right to discredit the whole idea of Farm Aid, to make it look like some sort of Welfare for Farmers.  It is not.  They do produce.

[12th Doctor]

Pulling away farm subsidies would cause millions of deaths?  We're talking about Atlasia, not some third world country.  I don't see the point in wasting billions of dollars on what is nothing more than paying farmers to be idle.  We don't have problems with famine in Atlasia, so bringing that up is basically irrelevant.  Looking at developed nations, however, is a good model; as I said about New Zealand earlier, it relied on Agriculture much more than we do and the abolition of farm subsidies there was nothing but positive.

Did you listen to anything I said?

First off, my comments about the possibility of crop failure were valid, because lack of genetic diversity.

Second, I was talking about the Third World when I made the comments about ending farm subsidies causing millions of deaths, because the Third World relies on the excess output that our farms produce.

If we abolished farm subsidies, we would not lose crops (the large agricultural businesses would continue to thrive anyway); the small farms would just continue to struggle like they're doing now.  Hardly anything would change except that we'd have more money.

If we abolish farm aid, the market will readjust to meet the area where need and profit are closest, right?  Well, since farms in the US way over produce, and a majority of the over production goes as aid to Third World countries, that over production will cease to exist once there is no one paying for it.  Is this not so?

[Ebowed]

Are you going to tell me that we subsidize farms so that they can over produce?  In other words, they only need the federal money to overproduce, not make ends meet?  The pro-farm subsidies coalition here needs to get their story straight and fast.

It is not the job of our government to overproduce food and send it to third world countries.  Call me skeptical but I wonder how much of that ends up in the hands of corrupt dictatorships who don't actually distribute the food to the right places.

[12th Doctor]

Scaremongering. If we end subsidies, domestic outputnwill increase, not decrease, and this is a red herring, because it was not what we were talking about. If there are bad weather conditions in a given year we can just buy food from someone else.

They said Churchill was a scaremongerer too... in 1938.  How is it a redherring to bring up a point on an issue that you guys did not consider?  Is our focus really so narrow that we can't see the broader picture?

You say that we can always buy it from elsewhere.  What I said was that cooperate farming is a two edged sword, because while the "assembly line" mentality of it helps in overall output, it also creates conditions that are ripe for some sort of blight to form in the plant population.  This blight could spread all over the world in a relativly short time, if, say there was an issue with different seeds, or if gentic engineering accidentally produces an undesirable effect.  To say that that is not possible is unreasonable and short sighted.  It benefits us to have at least some variation in the market and thus, in the plant stock.

Even something as simple as bad weather can have a very negative effect if we are not over producing crops.  We spend billions subsidising other industries that are strategically important to our nation, why is this any less important than having a new bomber?  A bad year could kill literally millions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hardly see how that is relavant to my points about the need to keep a surplus in the market.

[12th Doctor]

Are you going to tell me that we subsidize farms so that they can over produce?  In other words, they only need the federal money to overproduce, not make ends meet?  The pro-farm subsidies coalition here needs to get their story straight and fast.

It is not the job of our government to overproduce food and send it to third world countries.  Call me skeptical but I wonder how much of that ends up in the hands of corrupt dictatorships who don't actually distribute the food to the right places.

You aren't listening.  They are given the money to get buy, because the corperate farms can handle almost all national need, if not all of it.  Over production is a by product of this.

[Ebowed]

Are you going to tell me that we subsidize farms so that they can over produce?  In other words, they only need the federal money to overproduce, not make ends meet?  The pro-farm subsidies coalition here needs to get their story straight and fast.

It is not the job of our government to overproduce food and send it to third world countries.  Call me skeptical but I wonder how much of that ends up in the hands of corrupt dictatorships who don't actually distribute the food to the right places.

You aren't listening.  They are given the money to get buy, because the corperate farms can handle almost all national need, if not all of it.  Over production is a by product of this.

But if they are given money only to get by, they wouldn't be overproducing.  Hence, we are giving them too much money.