Canada with global food shortages

[Tonington]

Subsistence farmers were never in the market, they are just that subsistence farmers growing barely enough for their families.

Yes...that's what I said.

But ethics will not feed the world, we have to keep producing and supplying the world with subsidized farm goods in order to put off the inevitable as long as we can.

That is plain retarded. If you remove subsidies, making it possible for people once again to be able to afford to grow food for themselves, then you, we, do not have to feed the world. There will always be some who need food, like areas hit hard by droughts, but leaving subsidies in place ensures that farmers elsewhere cannot afford the basic inputs, farmer who would otherwise be able to farm.

Just like global warming we cannot stop it, but maybe slow it down.

You're in denial.

 

[captain morgan]

That is plain retarded. If you remove subsidies, making it possible for people once again to be able to afford to grow food for themselves, then you, we, do not have to feed the world. There will always be some who need food, like areas hit hard by droughts, but leaving subsidies in place ensures that farmers elsewhere cannot afford the basic inputs, farmer who would otherwise be able to farm.

Subsidies artificially lower the prices.... Your logic makes no sense.

 

[Tonington]

Subsidies artificially lower the prices.

Yeah...that`s kind of the point. There are entire rounds of trade negotiations that stumble largely due to agricultural policy. Look up "Doha Round" and read.

Developed nations can afford to subsidize agriculture, and that gives us a comparative advantage. Not because we produce goods better...The artificially lowered price encourages developing nations to buy the cheaper product, but in turn they lose agricultural production and productivity. It ensures that the poorest nations will always be buyers, and can never be sellers. So if they happen to have good years, where they produce more food than they need, they couldn't sell it. That is, if they are still farming at all. If it costs you more money to buy the inputs to farm then you can get from selling your crop, there's no incentive to be a farmer.

 

[captain morgan]

Developed nations can afford to subsidize agriculture, and that gives us a comparative advantage. Not because we produce goods better... The artificially lowered price encourages developing nations to buy the cheaper product, but in turn they lose agricultural production and productivity. It ensures that the poorest nations will always be buyers, and can never be sellers. So if they happen to have good years, where they produce more food than they need, they couldn't sell it. That is, if they are still farming at all. If it costs you more money to buy the inputs to farm then you can get from selling your crop, there's no incentive to be a farmer.

None of what you posted relates to the capacity for people to be able to grow their own food on an affordable basis....

Fact is, the relative cost of food would rise for those people that you claim can not afford to grow their own crops under the current system. Cutting subsidies will result in there being a greater pressure being applied on producing their own crops, but that will result in it having a higher cost associated with it.

 

[Tonington]

Fact is, the relative cost of food would rise for those people that you claim can not afford to grow their own crops under the current system. Cutting subsidies will result in there being a greater pressure being applied on producing their own crops, but that will result in it having a higher cost associated with it.

Wrong. If the price is artificially lowered by subsidies on producer A's goods, then consumers will preferentially purchase goods from producer A over producer B. If the subsidies are removed from producer A, it doesn't mean that suddenly producer B will have higher costs of production. The relative costs are only higher for producer B while producer A is subsidized.

That's idiotic, and a 0/10 on a first year micro-economics question.

 

[polaris]

I think the major component behind farm subsidies is because any responsible national government wants their nation to be food self-sufficient. To be otherwise would leave the nation vulnerable to conditions beyond your control...open to market manipulation or even food blackmail and extortion. It is unfortunate that a side effect of that policy is that we don't purchase goods from poorer nations and that makes it very difficult for them to work their way out of poverty.
Once again the capitalists determine a market void of ethics.

 

[captain morgan]

Wrong. If the price is artificially lowered by subsidies on producer A's goods, then consumers will preferentially purchase goods from producer A over producer B. If the subsidies are removed from producer A, it doesn't mean that suddenly producer B will have higher costs of production. The relative costs are only higher for producer B while producer A is subsidized.

That's idiotic, and a 0/10 on a first year micro-economics question.

In light of the specific issue at hand, Ttat's the most ridiculous logic I've ever seen. There is a reason why people aren't rushing out to become a producer, especially those nations that have food production issues to begin with.

Answer that question genius and you'll quickly determine why companies and individuals haven't rushed forward to develop that sector.

 

[Tonington]

In light of the specific issue at hand, Ttat's the most ridiculous logic I've ever seen.

It's pretty standard economics. You had it right in the beginning, subsidies articficially lower price, and relative costs for unsubsidized producers are therefore higher. You went off the rails when you tried to turn that into increased costs on unsubsidized producers once the subsidy on subsidized producers is removed. That, is plain old bunk.

 

[captain morgan]

We're talking about affordability here and not competitive forces.

Go answer the last question I asked and you'll realize that you are confusing 2 separate issues.

 

[Tonington]

I think the major component behind farm subsidies is because any responsible national government wants their nation to be food self-sufficient. To be otherwise would leave the nation vulnerable to conditions beyond your control...open to market manipulation

:roll:

Subsidies are market manipulation. And this form of market manipulation hurts the poorest nations. The subsidized EU, US, Canadian farmers aren't that efficient at producing their goods. The governments artificially makes them more efficient than competitors. Who would rush to compete with someone who has stacked the deck against you? That's the answer to Captain's question. If the trade barriers are removed, then producers in devleoping nations aren't competing against production prices kept artificially low by government spending. Some analysts have estimated that this lop-sided trade arrangement ensures developing nations in need of about $50 billion worth of food from other countries, food they could be producing in their own nations, and selling like everyone else does. They can't afford the same level of subsidies that a US Farm Bill produces.

In 2010, net cash farm income in the US is close to $90 Billion.

One wonders if the new Congress, intent on cutting spending, will remove these market interfering subsidies.

Yeah right, the GOP just took back many of the farm districts!

What's more perverse? Corn is the lions share winner of the agricultural subsidies, and nations like Canada and the US are mandating higher blends of ethanol in the gasoline at the pumps. The majority of which comes from ethanol distilled from corn, by huge companies like ADM, Cargill, etc. Even more perverse, these huge companies could glut the market with more corn than small co-op distilleries could, and then force out the smaller US farmers as well, and consolidate the industry.

Food for gasoline.

 

[petros]

You have absolutely no clue about ag do you?

 

[Tonington]

You have absolutely no clue about ag do you?

Oh, I have plenty. Agricultural subsidies was required reading in micro-economics.

 

[petros]

So you've only read about ag? I was right then. You don't know f*ck all about ag.

 

[captain morgan]

Subsidies are market manipulation. And this form of market manipulation hurts the poorest nations. The subsidized EU, US, Canadian farmers aren't that efficient at producing their goods.

The poorest nations rely on North American and European subsidized foodstuffs that are, coincidentally, less expensive for those nations to acquire due to the subsidy.

Fact is, if it was cheaper and more efficient for those nations to produce their own, they would.

The governments artificially makes them more efficient than competitors. Who would rush to compete with someone who has stacked the deck against you? That's the answer to Captain's question.

Incorrect. Gvt subsidy does not make them "more efficient", gvt subsidies make them artificially more competitive. You are confusing these 2 issues. Regardless, even if the subsidies were removed, that would not eliminate the base reason why the poorer nations are purchasing subsidized foods.. It's less expensive.

If the trade barriers are removed, then producers in devleoping nations aren't competing against production prices kept artificially low by government spending. Some analysts have estimated that this lop-sided trade arrangement ensures developing nations in need of about $50 billion worth of food from other countries, food they could be producing in their own nations, and selling like everyone else does. They can't afford the same level of subsidies that a US Farm Bill produces.

Remove the $50 billion in donated/subsidized foods to those nations and replace it with $100's of billions in equipment and a perpetual reliance on subsidized fuel.

Tell me again how it'd be cheaper for them to produce their own foodstuffs on a large scale.

 

[Tonington]

So you've only read about ag? I was right then. You don't know f*ck all about ag.

Yup. My entire degree was reading microeconomics on agricultural subsidies. You're retarded. I'm always impressed by your ability to throw out wild accusations. :roll:

 

[petros]

Right. So tell why you can't grow barley in the rainforest using an economic model.

 

[Tonington]

Right. So tell why you can't grow barley in the rainforest using an economic model.

Right after you tell me what was wrong with my post about subsidies, that was after all what prompted your claim.

 

[petros]

Because it's not the the food market, producer, or consumer that benefit from the subsidies.

 

[Tonington]

Because it's not the the food market, producer, or consumer that benefit from the subsidies.

I said that producers in the competing countries are priced out. Where did I say anything about consumer benefits, or food market benefits? Straw man.

Subsidized producers do have an advantage over non-subsidized producers. The land owners get the majority of the benefit, but producers still get some.

 

[petros]

I said that producers in the competing countries are priced out. Where did I say anything about consumer benefits, or food market benefits? Straw man.

Subsidized producers do have an advantage over non-subsidized producers. The land owners get the majority of the benefit, but producers still get some.

In Canada, US, AU, UK EU the land owner is the producer. Countries that buy our crops can't afford the technology we use and we can't afford the labour they use.

How much labour and imported material for 4 new tires does a Tier 4 NH require? Would my tires cost more or less if we didn't trade cheaply and efficiently produced, subsidized barley for latex?

By the way Canadian farmers aren't subsidized. We get tax credits.