Tom,

The structural challenges of transitioning out of our current narrow and industrialized farming systems are, indeed, formidable. I wrote two SDSU Economics Commentator articles earlier this year that outline my own policy recommendations for facilitating this transition process (see "Competing Vistion of US Agriculture" and "Time for Change in US Farm Policy", listed in my section of the Food & Society Policy Fellows website). There is no question that it would be best to gradually shift (say, over a 10-year period) most or all of the 'commodity title' funds to agri-environmental, rural development, and healthy food programs. But we have seen repeatedly that the the Congressional 'farm block' refuses to do this. So, the political question is: "Do we just continue with business as usual, one farm bill after another? Or will it eventually take citizen shock and revolt at the environmental and human health consequences of the status quo to finally just flat-out terminate the commodity subsidies?" If and when the latter happens, unfortunately, the shifting of funds to worthy food and agricultural policy purposes may not happen. Your concern is well-founded. But I and many others are running out of patience with the absolute refusal of the farm block to accomodate a transition to a set of policies that really serve the national interest.

Thomas Dobbs

Thomas L. Dobbs Professor Emeritus of Economics, South Dakota State University, and W.K. Kellogg Foundation Food & Society Policy Fellow

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......

I'm not going to dignify this comment with a response. There is plenty of room for healthy debate on U.S. farm and food policy. However, when a comment such as this associates me with 'neocons' who advocated invasion of Iraq and with 'supply side' economists, there is not much room for dialogue. Anyone who knows my political and economic views knows how absurd such an association is. Have a nice day ...

Thomas L. Dobbs Professor Emeritus of Economics, South Dakota State University, and W.K. Kellogg Foundation Food & Society Policy Fellow