Farm Subsidies Abolition Bill

[12th Doctor]

Woah, Woah

Wait a second here...

I'm all for slashing farm subsities, but completely getting rid of them, no.  The problem is that most of the money that we put into farm subsities just goes to the cooperate farmers, anyway.  If we take the full amount of money that goes into this, and then subtract 90% of all that which goes to corperate farms, and then rewrite the law to make it so that only family farms can get the aid, then I would be all for this proposal, and it would still save us a Hell of a lot of money.

Someone, please amend this.

[12th Doctor]

Woah, Woah

Wait a second here...

I'm all for slashing farm subsities, but completely getting rid of them, no.  The problem is that most of the money that we put into farm subsities just goes to the cooperate farmers, anyway.  If we take the full amount of money that goes into this, and then subtract 90% of all that which goes to corperate farms, and then rewrite the law to make it so that only family farms can get the aid, then I would be all for this proposal, and it would still save us a Hell of a lot of money.

Someone, please amend this.

It will not happen, they are destroying every type of federal aid. Shame

If they continue this assult on federal aid, I might be forced to take some drastic measures, and I am drawing the line with this bill.

[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.

Also, many parts of this world depend on the agricultural products that Atlasia produces.  Unfortunatly, the subsidies have helped to create this dependence, because it does encourage farmers to grow more than what is readily sellable on the market.  However, it is something that needs to be continued, because the loss of crops that would result from the total loss of farm subsidies would cause a famine.  People, lots of people, would die.  Bottom line.  It would also increase the illegal immigration problem all over the world, as more people would move to places where food is more plentiful.

On top of that, these Walmart style farms that have result, inspite of the fact that they have been beneficial to society overall, do tend to find the cheapest possible labor, which in turn would wreck the economy of some areas of the country.

[12th Doctor]

then rewrite the law to make it so that only family farms can get the aid

How would you suggest that such an idea be worded?  What is the requirement or the definition for being a "family" farm(er)?

I might be willing to work with you here.

Good question.  I don't readily know.  But I am glad that I have at least got people talking about these things, because that is what we are supposed to be doing; reasoning our way around problems and taking the time to think about things rather than rushing stuff through.  Anyway, I'll think on this a bit more and see what option we have.

[12th Doctor]

This is something I do know a fair bit about and all that. Too tired right now though.
Will post some stuff tomorrow

I request that a Senator asks to suspend action on this bill until Al can post tomorrow.  We will consider it a Senate Hearing, of sorts.

[12th Doctor]

It is often argued that farm subsidies help farmers. On the whole, however, I believe that they actually hurt. When the government subsidizes farmers, it encourages them to produce more than they actually should. The excess products flood the market, driving prices down. In many cases, farmers are forced to practice dumping--selling at a price that is lower than the cost of production. When prices go down, a few farmers demand even more subsidies, so that they can remain afloat. This leads to more overproduction, more dumping, a further reduction in prices, and a further demand for even more subsidies.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I realize this.  I am asking that no effort to alter the bill be made until Al testifies.

[12th Doctor]

I think that I hardly need to remind the Senate of the grave difficulties caused by overproduction during the Great Depression.

Deferent world, different economy.  Food could not be effectivly exported very far, back then.  Also, you attempt to allude to the Depression is a bit of a scare tactic, since the subsidies did not lead to depression and the current economy is quite different, as I said before.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

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

They are given the money that they need to keep farming.  The reason why they would not be farming without the money is because there is not enough demand for their product to keep them in business.  That is the whole reason for farm aid, to keep small farms in the game, where as they would be crushed by the larger cooperate farms.

Something is wrong with the system, though.  Corperate Farms are getting the money, regardless of the original intent of the aid.  We can eiliminate that problem by defining what constitutes the type of farm we are trying to help, and then only giving aid to them.  This would save us a lot of money.  Allow for the "over-production" that is needed and keep the family farm in business, thus perserving the diversity of the market.

Food should not be treated like cars.  Over production of automobiles helps no one.  The over production of foods helps in case of an emergency problem, or it can be sent to places of famine.

[12th Doctor]

Well here's a novel idea:  if there isn't enough demand for their products, why force them on the consumers anyway through federal aid?

Because food is not like a Cheve.  No one is going to die because of lax year of Cheve prosuction.  Millions could die from a bad harvest and millions are dying because of famine throughout the world.  Of "surplus" goes, for free, to feed those peopel that this Senate obviously regards as the "surplus population".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But it shoudl be concerned with maintaining diversity in the food supply, because one blight could wipeout millions.  One draught could drive food prices up and cause a food scare.  This is not a banking scare.  People die during a food scare.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We do, but they need the fuding to keep the farms going.  If we pay them 50 cents less than what they would get under ideal circustances, it won't be long before they go under.

[12th Doctor]

I regard nobody as "surplus population" and the idea of encouraging famine as a method of population control is just disgusting; keep your implications and strawmans out of this debate.

Some in this chamber have disregarded my points about Third World famine.  I didn't mention you, in particular, but no one seems to have thought very hard about the implications of this bill before they were willing to rush it into being.  I find that sad.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure if you understand me.  I am all for doing away with a majority of Farm Aid... that being the money that is gobbled up by the largest 10% of farms.  Thus, we can save money and still achieve the goal of keeping small farms active.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Large farms often times grow seed in a controled facility and then diseminate it to their farms, all over.  If a blight were to be picked up on some of that seed, it coudl be kill all the crops that those farms are growing.  If that were to happen, then maybe, we could keep other coorperate farms, and smaller farms from getting the blight.  However, if these places do not exist, if small farms are stamped out, the chances of stoping it decrease because of lack of diversity in the population.  Also, the over-production can serve us in the case of a draught, because any localized occurance will not effect other regions.  If farms exist in other regions, then we will still have supply.  However, if there are only a few farmers, who are not as spread out, then the chances of famine increase.

These two factors are what I mean by "diversity".

[12th Doctor]

Just adding my support to this bill, though it might best be phased in over time - maybe cut it by 20% of it's current amount every year for 5 years, then we're down to zero. Since some have come to rely on the subsidies, weaning might minimize any ill effects.

They won't agree to that because cutting only a few dollars from some farms would 'cause them to go under.'

You aren't listening, are you?  Go back to the begining of the thread, where I advocated a cut, and start from there.  You just wasted an hour of my life, because of a false premise.

[12th Doctor]

Just adding my support to this bill, though it might best be phased in over time - maybe cut it by 20% of it's current amount every year for 5 years, then we're down to zero. Since some have come to rely on the subsidies, weaning might minimize any ill effects.

They won't agree to that because cutting only a few dollars from some farms would 'cause them to go under.'

You aren't listening, are you?  Go back to the begining of the thread, where I advocated a cut, and start from there.  You just wasted an hour of my life, because of a false premise.

I was, of course, referring to the small farms which you refuse to allow cuts on.  I know you support a cut on the large businesses.

With all due respect, Senator.

That's not what I gathered from your statement.  Dibble advocated a 20% cut, overall.  Far less than what I advocated.  You retorted with:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indicating that we desired no cuts.  Which is a false portrayal of everyone's possition who is opposed to this bill as written.

[12th Doctor]

Well those are your goals anyway... my goal is to just save money and quit babysitting farmers, not to keep small farms active.

So, you want to stop babysitting farms...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

... but here you advocate more regulation?

[12th Doctor]

Fifty cents?  Certainly they'd lose more than that under a 20% cut.  Remember, I was referring to small farms.

I meant that as a throw out number in standard measurment of crops/price, not as a general figure.

Well those are your goals anyway... my goal is to just save money and quit babysitting farmers, not to keep small farms active.

So, you want to stop babysitting farms...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

... but here you advocate more regulation?

Obviously not, I'm just pointing out that your goals are misplaced.
[/quote]

That is not the way I see it.  Due to the sheer number of farms out there, subsidies allow for a wider geographic range.

What you seemed to have advocated was forcing large farmers to farm in certain areas.  Therefore, more regulation.

[12th Doctor]

Your arguments also show a fundamental lack of understanding for how the disemination of this money works.  It is not proportioned out, somoe to large farms, some to small farms, in such a way that allows for a cut to all at once.  The money is given out by "reasonable request".  Coorperate farms, for whatever reason, tend to beat smaller farms to the punch, and thus get tons of money, while smaller farms don't get as much as they should.  That is why I want a definition for "small farm".

[12th Doctor]

The problem then is not encouraging small farms to stay active but to make sure that there are different farms in various areas of the country.. which is not achieved by farm subsidies.

How do we go about doing that, then, if not through regulation?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I could tell... so in that case, why are you hiding what you think then?  You first come out saying that we need more competition in the market, and that it would be more beneficial for small farms....  Why not just say that you don't care whether families and towns lose their livelyhoods.

This is one of those times that I really wish Atlasia were more reflective of the true US, because, coming from where you come from, your ass would be run out of town on a rail, advocating a possition like that.

[12th Doctor]

Your arguments also show a fundamental lack of understanding for how the disemination of this money works.  It is not proportioned out, somoe to large farms, some to small farms, in such a way that allows for a cut to all at once.  The money is given out by "reasonable request".  Coorperate farms, for whatever reason, tend to beat smaller farms to the punch, and thus get tons of money, while smaller farms don't get as much as they should.  That is why I want a definition for "small farm".

Translation:  Oh, you didn't advocate regulation.  Oops.

Your universal traslator must be broken, Senator, because I certainly did not say that, or even imply it.