jarmadi’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Invasion of the Agricons

  OK.....I get it.  If we destroy subsidies and price supports, and maximise risks for farmers we will admittedly be blowing up farming, but we will have hopes that our present farming will be supplanted by a new farming that will more meet the approval of some of us.  Changes might occur that would end global warming and most other environmental degradations and end childhood obesity and diabetes.  No more pesticides, no more chemical fertilizers, no more produce shipped in from California, Florida, or Texas.  Healthy, good tasting food for healthy, happy people.  Healthy farm towns and healthy happy farm families.  And everyone will learn to love us and will learn to love Israel and Islam will be transformed into a religion of tolerance and peace and individual liberty. Ooops, that last part belongs to another fantasy.

  Have I heard arguments like this before.....uh......yes, I think it was before the neocons invaded Iraq.   This article favors laying waste to farmers and farm families and farm towns and farm banks and schools and culture.  But who knows....."maybe what arises in it's place will be better."

  I think what really is in need of an infusion of risk is the teaching of economics.  With all of our national and global economic problems, why are there still so many lame economic spokesmen, pundits, and professors.  How come the neocons and the neoliberals still contend for the most inaccurate predictors of all time?  Why hasn't Supply Side Economics been permanently  lain to rest?  Has academic tenure in cozy university jobs led to a stagnation of economic thought and creativity?  Is there not grounds for hope that if we fire them all, that possibly much better economists might arise and supplant them.  And we would never again have to endure the economic theories of social darwinist hollywood hack script writers.  We can only hope......On Why gutting commodity subsidies should be the focus of Farm Bill reform efforts posted 2 years ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Subsidy Snapshot

  Tom has questioned whether our current farm subsidies really have the powers that have been attributed to them......to have a large significance in the decisions of farmers, and a responsibility for overproduction, obesity, world hunger, etc. etc.

  Let's examine more closely the wheat subsidy.  Our area is typical wheat growing country, and the subsidy is $14.35 per acre.  This is taxable income, and a typical farmer in the 15% tax braket would owe back that 15% plus about 16% FICA taxes plus 6% state income tax......a total of 37%.  This leaves $9.04 for the farmer to add to his loan payment or something.  The $9 is a pitiful percentage of the farmers total investment on an acre of wheat, and the idea that he would obcess about how to retain this subsidy at all costs, or would shape his farming decisions around the existence of this subsidy, or to be in need of "weaning away" from this subsidy are all preposterous ideas.  

  The subsidies for corn and soybeans are greater than for wheat, but the land and equipment cost for these crops are proportionally higher, so I think the "subsidy snapshots" would look much the same.  In some of these comments, I have gotten the impression that some believe that farmers "get rich" from collecting these subsidies, and become addicted to them, etc.  Clearly that cannot be the case.On A response to my critics posted 2 years ago 11 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Package Deal

  I still think that it will turn out to be a mistake to attempt to ban packer ownership of all varieties of livestock all at once as a package deal.  They should initially focus on packer/grain company ownership of feeder cattle.  Although feeder cattle are presently 80% coporate owned, these corporations have very little financial investment in feeding facilities.  As corporate feeder ownership is phased out, the prior individual players and ranchers that would maintain ownership of their own cattle would replace them.  The change would cost some corporate profits, but probably only chump change to them.

  Banning corporate ownership of hogs and poultry  is a whole other story.  With these animals, the corporate vertically integrated system goes from birth to dinner plate and involves extensive corporate investment.  I think that it makes sense to get your foot in the door with cattle, and then take your chances later with hogs, then poultry.On Don't let Big Meat slaughter the packer ban posted 2 years ago 9 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Three Equations

  One:

  overproduction-->low prices-->direct payment subsidy-->unchanged production-->unchanged prices

  Two:

  overproduction-->low prices-->price support subsidies hinged on production limits-->lower production-->higher prices-->no subsidies

  Three:

  lowered production-->higher prices-->increased costs to agribusiness interests-->higher cost of living indices-->increased possibility of interest rate increases -->resistence from multiple fronts(governmental, agribusiness, and financial interests) and pressures to increase production and lower prices.On Why gutting subsidies shouldn't be the focus of Farm Bill reform efforts posted 2 years ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  List

  Returning to the list of the ill effects of farm subsidies, one of the 7 items refers to the "...fact that most subsidy money passes quickly from farmers to farm suppliers, processors, and other related sectors, again negating the intended effect of supporting farmers."

  I don't understand what is objectionable about a farmer using his money to pay his bills.  If a subsidy assists in that regard, how is this not supporting farmers?  Would financing a vacation be more in line with the "intended effect"?  Is it because it "passes quickly"?  Does he think that farmers are not adequately stalling in paying their creditors?  Very peculiar......
  On Why gutting subsidies shouldn't be the focus of Farm Bill reform efforts posted 2 years ago 17 Responses