So God Made A Farmer

[Strike For The South]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMpZ0TGjbWE

This video fills me with incomprehensible rage.

As people in suburbia pat themselves on the back and nod approvingly at 'Murica, real family farms are being bought up, chewed up, and spit out.

Where is the school with no teachers?

Where are the weekend white collar warriors who leave fences unmended?

Where are the big packing companies low balling their offer for livestock?

[Husar]

What's your problem?
Do you hate capitalism?
Or are you worried about the historic, never-changing place of farmers in society?

[Strike For The South]

What's your problem?
Do you hate capitalism?
Or are you worried about the historic, never-changing place of farmers in society?

I don't have a problem per se. I just like complaining loudly for attention
Meh, does it matter?
Life sucks, then you die.

[HopAlongBunny]

And god created the indentured servant,
so that corporations could benefit in time of plenty

And god created insurance
so that corporations could feed on misery

Overall god was fonder of corporations than farmers.

[Tuuvi]

I miss Paul Harvey.

[HoreTore]

The "family farm" is a relic of our feudal past, and should be bought up and repackaged in a more effective way.

It's an absurdly ineffective way of doing business. No wonder they're crying for subsidies.

[Kralizec]

Farming is heavily subsidized in virtually all industrialized countries. And yet, when they still fail to make ends meet, they urge society to cough up even more money, or insist on government mandated pricing. Entiry industries have been uprooted because they're outmoded, mines have been closed, millions of people have lost their jobs throughout the centuries because their livelyhood is no longer viable. But that shouldn't happen to farmers, god forbid.

Stalin had the right idea when he sent them all to starve in Siberia.

[gaelic cowboy]

@ Strike your video link also annoys me greatly too.

there is no at mention of the massive pressure by supermarket multiples to drive prices down year on year.

No mention of the fact if your vegetables are on some kind of special two for one deal it was the farmer who paid for the free one.

I could go on but I think I will stop now


@ Horetore and Kralizec actually whats wrong is thinking that food should be cheap.

You all the lot of you want cheap/safe/nutricious/tasty and visually appealling food well go an grow it yourselves.

The word cheap at the front of there means the sentence should read cheap/safe/nutricious/tasty and visually appealling food.

As we have all seen it wasn't the family farm that stuck horse in EU foodstuffs but it will be the family farm that suffers the consequences later on.

[Lemur]

A discrediting lack of crystal meth in that video.

[The Lurker Below]

A discrediting lack of crystal meth in that video.

you should remake the video, using the same voice, but throw in lots of scenes from the movie Winter's Bone.

Strike, aren't beeves at an all time high right now?

[Sarmatian]

Farming is heavily subsidized in virtually all industrialized countries. And yet, when they still fail to make ends meet, they urge society to cough up even more money, or insist on government mandated pricing. Entiry industries have been uprooted because they're outmoded, mines have been closed, millions of people have lost their jobs throughout the centuries because their livelyhood is no longer viable. But that shouldn't happen to farmers, god forbid.

Stalin had the right idea when he sent them all to starve in Siberia.

Food is immensely important strategically. That's why all industrialized countries subsidize food production - imagine if US depended on food produced in USSR.

Subsidizing is required because otherwise food production would shift to third world or developing countries, where labour price is much lower. In food production there's a lot of work that needs to be done manually, regardless of mechanization degree.
At the moment, Netherlands probably produces two times more wheat per ha than Vojvodina (northern province of Serbia, almost the size of Netherlands). Vojvodina probably has the most fertile soil in Europe, more fertile than Netherlands. If the technological advances from Netherlands were applied to Vojvodina, much better output of wheat per ha would be achieved, and would much lower labour cost to boot. What would stop a company from Netherlands to simply move their production to Serbia? Only subsidizing. Ok, wheat production is mostly mechanized, with very little manual labour required, but vegetables, on the other hand, require much more.

Additionally, subsidizing agriculture also provide incentive for families to remain in the country, instead of abandoning it and moving to the cities.

So, there's absolutely zero chances farming subsidizing will stop in the foreseeable future.

[TinCow]

So, there's absolutely zero chances farming subsidizing will stop in the foreseeable future.

It might if a EU-US free trade agreement is reached (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21439945), though for that reason the agreement itself still seems unlikely.

This post brought to you by Monsanto. All quotations of this post, and references to this post, remain the property of Monsanto.

[Beskar]

It might if a EU-US free trade agreement is reached (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21439945), though for that reason the agreement itself still seems unlikely.

That will bring around the UWT, 'United Western Territories'. Bringing about the Deuro single-currency, single space-agency, NATO becomes the new singular armed forces, .... !

[HoreTore]

@ Horetore and Kralizec actually whats wrong is thinking that food should be cheap.

You all the lot of you want cheap/safe/nutricious/tasty and visually appealling food well go an grow it yourselves.

The word cheap at the front of there means the sentence should read cheap/safe/nutricious/tasty and visually appealling food.

As we have all seen it wasn't the family farm that stuck horse in EU foodstuffs but it will be the family farm that suffers the consequences later on.

Barking up the wrong tree there, GC... Haven't we discussed farming enough here for you to know that I am fully aware that farming subsidies is mostly a subsidy of the consumer, not the farmer?

Still, the idea that a farm is something that should belong in one family, tradition and all that, is poison to effective and proper handling of a business. That should still be gone.

Beyond that, rest assured I am still a socialist, and thus very much fond of import tolls, subsidies and so on. I just object to three things: that a farm should belong to a family over the generations, that an independent farmer is a goal and that agriculture deserves a special place above other businesses. Scrap those three things, and I'll happily shower the lot of you with tax money I've taken from someone else!

[HoreTore]

If you're gonna go Socialist, why allow Agriculture in the hands of business at all? One might say its the most important state resource.

Because this isn't 1896?

[Beskar]

Industrial Agriculture is obviously the way to go about it. I build a lot of Bio-Farms in Tropico 4, they are clearly the best option.

[HoreTore]

Industrial Agriculture is obviously the way to go about it. I build a lot of Bio-Farms in Tropico 4, they are clearly the best option.

Agriculture is already industrialized everywhere except Africa...

Every other business here has had to team up with others to create bigger businesses, I see no reason whatsoever why farmers shouldn't do the same. Further, they have already done so with food processing. If it works for making cheese, it works for milking the cow for that cheese.

[Kralizec]

Food is immensely important strategically. That's why all industrialized countries subsidize food production - imagine if US depended on food produced in USSR.

Subsidizing is required because otherwise food production would shift to third world or developing countries, where labour price is much lower. In food production there's a lot of work that needs to be done manually, regardless of mechanization degree.
At the moment, Netherlands probably produces two times more wheat per ha than Vojvodina (northern province of Serbia, almost the size of Netherlands). Vojvodina probably has the most fertile soil in Europe, more fertile than Netherlands. If the technological advances from Netherlands were applied to Vojvodina, much better output of wheat per ha would be achieved, and would much lower labour cost to boot. What would stop a company from Netherlands to simply move their production to Serbia? Only subsidizing. Ok, wheat production is mostly mechanized, with very little manual labour required, but vegetables, on the other hand, require much more.

Additionally, subsidizing agriculture also provide incentive for families to remain in the country, instead of abandoning it and moving to the cities.

So, there's absolutely zero chances farming subsidizing will stop in the foreseeable future.

That's true, and in fact this is the main rationale that was used to justify the CAP since the beginning.

However, and I don't have any figures at hand, it's well known that Europe produces far more food than it consumes. The continent has consistently been a net exporter. Of course there needs to be a buffer; i.e. enough capacity even in cases of severe draught. But even so the current CAP goes far beyond this goal.

By the way, I know you are speaking hypothetically about the US vs. USSR, but it was in fact the other way around. Russia had traditionally been a grain exporter, but the crop yields became increasingly insufficient because collectivisation was far less successful than anticipated and because of scientific misconceptions, courtousy of Lysenko. The USA, among others, exported vast quantities of wheat to the USSR.

I recognise that there needs to be some form of agricultural policy, probably including subsidies, to maintain a minimum capacity to feed our (European) population. But the CAP needs to be reformed to be just that not more; and it would be fairer if the member states themselves footed most of the bill. At the moment countries like France benefit disproportionally from the CAP and as a result have a far lower net contribution to the EU budget than countries like the UK or the Netherlands.

What really grinds my gears is this. Agricultural subsidies might be a necessity, to a degree. But farmers talk and act as though they, personally, deserve them. They feel they should be excempt from the normal rules of supply and demand and that they're entitled to the financial wellbeing they have, and that subsidies should be increased if the situation changes. Quite frankly, they can all go to hell Siberia the northern, barren regions of Finland.

[gaelic cowboy]

Agriculture is already industrialized everywhere except Africa...

Every other business here has had to team up with others to create bigger businesses, I see no reason whatsoever why farmers shouldn't do the same. Further, they have already done so with food processing. If it works for making cheese, it works for milking the cow for that cheese.

we can outsource food preparation but we cannot outsource the actual land.

[seireikhaan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMpZ0TGjbWE

This video fills me with incomprehensible rage.

As people in suburbia pat themselves on the back and nod approvingly at 'Murica, real family farms are being bought up, chewed up, and spit out.

Where is the school with no teachers?

Where are the weekend white collar warriors who leave fences unmended?

Where are the big packing companies low balling their offer for livestock?
This. All of this. The family farm's damn near mythical, at this point.

Oh, and Kralizec- go grow your own damn food then, if you don't want anyone else getting some help to feed you. Or better yet, try running a productive farm as a livelyhood and make enough to keep up with all the big boys that have eaten up your neighbor's land.

[HoreTore]

we can outsource food preparation but we cannot outsource the actual land.

....And yet we haven't outsourced food processing either. Well, we haven't anyway, agricultural collectives(Tine, Nortura, Prior and "that last one") exist for all our agricultural products. Except frozen fish, of course, but fishing is weirdly enough always left out whenever farmers talk about agriculture and food... Perhaps because our fish runs a huge surplus, instead of needing subsidies? ~;)

Like I've said; I have absolutely zero objections to government assistance to businesses and industries. What I object to is the special status farmers want to have. They believe they are more important and more deserving of state attention than, say, a shoe producer. They are not, and as soon as they dump that superior attitude I'll happily stuff 'em full of other peoples gold.

[Papewaio]

Fishing is not farming. Fishing is hunting and at the moment a lot of fisheries are being over fished.

Really easy to make a massive profit if you use fishing factories, don't mind by catch and you don't actually care about future yields.

Fishing is the very example of why farming shouldn't become part of corporations that seek maximum profit, are essentially immune to prosecution, are too big to fail and who will look at food safety as a cost to business and crank out a formula to figure out if it is more cost effective to pay for damages rather then fix an issue.

I prefer a world where we had more shopkeepers, more small businesses and more transparency on our food supply chain.

[gaelic cowboy]

....And yet we haven't outsourced food processing either. Well, we haven't anyway, agricultural collectives(Tine, Nortura, Prior and "that last one") exist for all our agricultural products. Except frozen fish, of course, but fishing is weirdly enough always left out whenever farmers talk about agriculture and food... Perhaps because our fish runs a huge surplus, instead of needing subsidies? ~;)

Fishing is effectively the same as mining a free resource.

an example of an outsourced food processor/ (http://www.abpfoodgroup.com/)


Like I've said; I have absolutely zero objections to government assistance to businesses and industries. What I object to is the special status farmers want to have. They believe they are more important and more deserving of state attention than, say, a shoe producer. They are not, and as soon as they dump that superior attitude I'll happily stuff 'em full of other peoples gold.

Shoe production is a secondary industry while farming is a primary industry, the raw material leather is not very valuable unless given to the shoe maker.

[HoreTore]

Fishing is effectively the same as mining a free resource.

You're talking to a Norwegian here, remember ~;) fish farming is the basis of our fishing industry now, since you bastards fished our waters clean.


Shoe production is a secondary industry while farming is a primary industry, the raw material leather is not very valuable unless given to the shoe maker.

Indeed it is. And we know that a country who focuses on primary industries will be poor, while a country who focuses on secondary industries will be rich. No country has ever been rich on raw materials. No, not even my country with our oil - we got our level of wealth because we also produce the riggs we need to extract the oil. The oil is mostly a bonus, although a very profitable bonus. As for all other materials, including agricultural products, they will send you into poverty. Turning those materials into actual products is what makes you rich. England was poor until they stopped exporting their wool to Burgundy, and instead started producing their own wool-products(dates escape me, 14th century or so?), for example.

It is important for a country to have industry, as it provides technological progress, high wages and a bunch of other services. It's also important for a country to diversify its industry(to some extent, at least), to avoid plummeting should one industry fail. Agriculture is part of that. So is shoe-making. Thus, both the farmer and the shoemaker is an integral part of making our economy strong. Without them, we will be weaker. To that end, the state may see benefit in supporting some industries.

But a special status for farming? No way. Not in this world. While important to a country's survival, the farmer is no more important than the other trades in the country. A subsidy is fine, but on the same basis as every other trade, no special treatment.

We won't starve anyway.

[gaelic cowboy]

You're talking to a Norwegian here, remember ~;) fish farming is the basis of our fishing industry now, since you bastards fished our waters clean.

hmmm arent fish farms are effectively feeding a free resource to there fish.

[HoreTore]

hmmm arent fish farms are effectively feeding a free resource to there fish.

About as free as feeding cattle.

[gaelic cowboy]

About as free as feeding cattle.

A farmer generally would be incentivised to renew his animals and grass

A fisherman is really only incentivised to catch fish

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well there's a funny thing with farmers, at least in the Netherlands. On the one hand they are by the world's standards very, very efficient and their production capacity is essentially far larger than what the domestic market needs. Therefore if they were left to compete in an open market they ought to do relatively well because on a global scale there is more demand for cheap food with decent quality than production capacity. (Think China and their on-off food scandals.) On the other hand they always have financial difficulties, in part because they can't sell excess production, have to deal with artificial limits and it all ends up being very much a buyer's market.

...

Anyway the video is perhaps cute, but also quite delusional. Like the toddler who says she wants to be a policeman later when she grows up.

[a completely inoffensive name]

@ Horetore and Kralizec actually whats wrong is thinking that food should be cheap.

You all the lot of you want cheap/safe/nutricious/tasty and visually appealling food well go an grow it yourselves.

To be honest, not to be disrespectful, but that is such a bull****statement. It takes a lot of balls for a 1st world citizen living in the land pf plenty to suggest that we need to stop making so much food/stop subsidizing it.

It is because of subsidies and large scale corporate agro-business that much of food science, including genetic modification, has come about, providing vast improvements in the lives of non 1st world citizens. Cases like golden rice make me extremely hopeful for the future of food. Sooner or later, subsidies which led to our current problem of HFCS and cheap garbage food will provide a path for more nutritional foodstuffs becoming harvested on a more economic scale, likely due to clever genetic modifications.

I find it funny that we have this idealized version of the family farmer that would never serve horse meat. As if economic incentives only caused perverse results in large scale companies and not for Joe farmer who is trying to make his own payments for the next month.

[Sarmatian]

It is important for a country to have industry, as it provides technological progress, high wages and a bunch of other services. It's also important for a country to diversify its industry(to some extent, at least), to avoid plummeting should one industry fail. Agriculture is part of that. So is shoe-making. Thus, both the farmer and the shoemaker is an integral part of making our economy strong. Without them, we will be weaker. To that end, the state may see benefit in supporting some industries.

But a special status for farming? No way. Not in this world. While important to a country's survival, the farmer is no more important than the other trades in the country. A subsidy is fine, but on the same basis as every other trade, no special treatment.

We won't starve anyway.

Hardly. If you can't buy new shoes for a month you'll wear your old ones one month longer. In the case of food, you're dead.

Also, farming is tied to a location. While 50 shoemakers can build a shoe factory, 50 farmers can't move their land. Food is also relatively cheap, so transport costs can be huge additional expense. I can buy a watermellon in Serbia in late july or august for 0.1 euro a kg. If I want to buy a watermellon in June, I have to buy one produced in Macedonia, Greece or Turkey for 0.5 euro. It doesn't cost more there - if I'm in Turkey, I'd pay about 0.1, but to transport it 500-1000km raises the price several times.

Farming is also dependent on weather, so without state intervention, you could potentially have people going out of business when there's a bad harvest. Shoe making isn't dependent on the weather and shoemakers can make shoes at the same pace. They don't really care if it's raining outside, if it's -10 or +20 degrees.

So, you need to explain why would anyone grow food, which needs a huge investment, you need to wait for a very long time for the return of that investment (if ever), you're working a relatively dirty job outside (as opposed to shoemaking, which is done in nice, cozy, airconditioned factory), and you're never sure if the weather is gonna screw you over and instead of 3% profit you're gonna have a 20% loss.

[Sigurd]

A farmer generally would be incentivised to renew his animals and grass

A fisherman is really only incentivised to catch fish
Use your googlefu and search "fish farming" or "fiskeoppdrett" which is our name for it.

I visited a fish farm belonging to my extended family when I was a small boy... it's more than 30 years ago. It is very much alike raising cows/bulls.
You have a facility on land where you milk fish for eggs, fertilize them and hatch them in large tanks. then you move them around to other tanks as they grow. When they are large enough you place them in fenced areas (pods) in the fjord itself.. much like cows on land. You feed them ... and harvest the fish pods when the fish are large enough.

There are university degrees here for this industry and we train many foreigners which take this knowledge home to start their own fish farms.

[Sarmatian]

Use your googlefu and search "fish farming" or "fiskeoppdrett" which is our name for it.

I visited a fish farm belonging to my extended family when I was a small boy... it's more than 30 years ago. It is very much alike raising cows/bulls.
You have a facility on land where you milk fish for eggs, fertilize them and hatch them in large tanks. then you move them around to other tanks as they grow. When they are large enough you place them in fenced areas (pods) in the fjord itself.. much like cows on land. You feed them ... and harvest the fish pods when the fish are large enough.

There are university degrees here for this industry and we train many foreigners which take this knowledge home to start their own fish farms.

Yes, but I'm inclined to believe that fish farms are also subsidized.

[HoreTore]

Yes, but I'm inclined to believe that fish farms are also subsidized.

It's the other way around - they pay 1 million euro per license.

[Sarmatian]

It's the other way around - they pay 1 million euro per license.

Now you got me intrigued. I have to explore this further.

EDIT:

Couldn't find the data for Norway, but it seems fish farms in all other countries do receive subsidies. British Columbia gave more than 110 million in subsidies to fish farms. In India, government covers 40% of the cost for new fish farms. they're subsidized also in other Asian countries, so I find it hard to believe that they aren't subsidized in Norway.

Also, wild fishing's also subsidized in EU.

[HoreTore]

Here, have a SSB-report (http://www.ssb.no/emner/10/05/nos_fiskeoppdrett/arkiv/nos_d378/nos_d378.pdf) on the subject, conveniently written in both viking and english.

I must warn you though, SSB is apparently part of the multicultural alliance who seeks to massimport muslims and cause a genocide on the native population. Not sure if that effects salmon or not.

[Kralizec]

Oh, and Kralizec- go grow your own damn food then, if you don't want anyone else getting some help to feed you. Or better yet, try running a productive farm as a livelyhood and make enough to keep up with all the big boys that have eaten up your neighbor's land.



Not a chance. I reserve the right to complain about any trade or industry, even if I use its products. I will complain about unethical practices in the pharmaceutical industry and still take any medication I may require. I’ll still criticize oil companies like Shell for poisoning the soil of civilians in Nigeria or BP for polluting the oceans, despite the fact that I use gasoline. I’ll whine and bitch about the financial sector even though I have a bank account.

Farming subsidies should only exist to prevent shortages, not in order to protect these buttholes from economic realities that apply to every industry and profession in the world.

[Fisherking]

It depends on what the subsidies are. Some artificially lower food costs. The alternative would be for farmers to band together and not offer produce at low prices. Of course this usually results in the food being thrown out and causing shortages.

Farmers make less on their crops than the brokers who sell them on.

Still, for the most part, subsidies are a bad idea. Just as bad as governments telling farm owners what and how much they can plant.

[Sarmatian]

Here, have a SSB-report (http://www.ssb.no/emner/10/05/nos_fiskeoppdrett/arkiv/nos_d378/nos_d378.pdf) on the subject, conveniently written in both viking and english.

I must warn you though, SSB is apparently part of the multicultural alliance who seeks to massimport muslims and cause a genocide on the native population. Not sure if that effects salmon or not.

Well, my horn-helmeted friend, I concede - it does say that aquaculture in Norway is subsidy-free. Now, it doesn't say whether it was subsidized in the past. On the whole, like in most other cases, Norway should be treated as an exception, rather than the norm.

[HoreTore]

Well, my horn-helmeted friend, I concede - it does say that aquaculture in Norway is subsidy-free. Now, it doesn't say whether it was subsidized in the past. On the whole, like in most other cases, Norway should be treated as an exception, rather than the norm.

Exception? Yeah, we have a wage level way above yours, and the fish from fishfarms are made for export. So actually, you guys have an easier life in this area, we have no advantages other than knowledge and experience(since we've been doing it for almost half a century).

Was it subsidized in the past? No idea. New technology usually is subsidized in some way or another though, so I'd be surprised if the first company to start fishfarms didn't get some manner of state support.

[Beskar]

Farmers make less on their crops than the brokers who sell them on.

There's the issue! It is why things like "Fair-Trade" exists.

[Sarmatian]

Exception? Yeah, we have a wage level way above yours, and the fish from fishfarms are made for export. So actually, you guys have an easier life in this area, we have no advantages other than knowledge and experience(since we've been doing it for almost half a century).

Was it subsidized in the past? No idea. New technology usually is subsidized in some way or another though, so I'd be surprised if the first company to start fishfarms didn't get some manner of state support.

50 years head start + billions of dollars available to invest in research and subsidizes until the industry can finally stand on its own two feet. Aquaculture is still new and it will be interesting to see what's gonna happen in the next 50 years or so when more countries develop their own. So far, you're competing with traditional fishing for the most part, we'll see what's gonna happen when you compete with other fish farms.

[HoreTore]

There's the issue! It is why things like "Fair-Trade" exists.

That's not an issue, that's a fundamental aspect of how markets can and do operate. It goes something like this:

Farmer Joe wants to grow and sell some wheat. In order to get to the stage wherehehas wheat to sell, he will have paid for three things:

1. Landrate, what the farmer pays for using land. This may or may not be something the individual farmer actually pays for, but it's always factored into the price.
2. Capital, things like machinery, seeds, etc.
3. His own wage. Obviously.

When all that's paid for, Farmer Joe will also factor in the standard return rate on capital investments for his area. If he didn't, he would put his capital into other businesses, wouldn't he?

Now let's move on to John the Miller. He will buy Farmer Joe's wheat, with the intention of selling the flour. He too pays for the same three things:

1. Landrate, meaning his mill.
2. The capital needed to buy the wheat from Farmer Joe.
3. His own wage.

And he too will add the standard return on capital investments to the total price before selling the flour. Now, while this rate will be the same percentage, its value in dollars will be higher, since he must have investmented more capital into his business. That's because his invested capital covers all of Farmer Joe's investments and earnings.

Thus, the closer you are to to customer, the more you will earn from your business. This explains why material-rich africa is so much poorer than production-rich Europe, China and the US.


Finally, I'd like to call my bluff on Sarmatian: we do have an advantage over others when it comes to fishfarming. Wages are an irrelevant cost in that business, the biggest expenditure is food. And we happen to have a fertilizer giant in Yara...

[HoreTore]

50 years head start + billions of dollars available to invest in research and subsidizes until the industry can finally stand on its own two feet. Aquaculture is still new and it will be interesting to see what's gonna happen in the next 50 years or so when more countries develop their own. So far, you're competing with traditional fishing for the most part, we'll see what's gonna happen when you compete with other fish farms.

Ah, no worries, we already own most of the farms in other countries anyway ~;)

[gaelic cowboy]

Use your googlefu and search "fish farming" or "fiskeoppdrett" which is our name for it.

I visited a fish farm belonging to my extended family when I was a small boy... it's more than 30 years ago. It is very much alike raising cows/bulls.
You have a facility on land where you milk fish for eggs, fertilize them and hatch them in large tanks. then you move them around to other tanks as they grow. When they are large enough you place them in fenced areas (pods) in the fjord itself.. much like cows on land. You feed them ... and harvest the fish pods when the fish are large enough.

There are university degrees here for this industry and we train many foreigners which take this knowledge home to start their own fish farms.

Where does the fish food for the salmon or trout come from in the fish farms

[HoreTore]

Where does the fish food for the salmon or trout come from in the fish farms

The last trout farm went bankrupt a month or so ago. It was shortlived, as was all the other attempts. Trout is way too cheap due to excellent fishing in Lofoten. Fish farming is for salmon.

The food is the same as the pellets for cattle, basically, found and made in the same way. It's an unholy mix of other fish, animals, veggies and drugs.

[gaelic cowboy]

To be honest, not to be disrespectful, but that is such a bull****statement. It takes a lot of balls for a 1st world citizen living in the land pf plenty to suggest that we need to stop making so much food/stop subsidizing it.

It is because of subsidies and large scale corporate agro-business that much of food science, including genetic modification, has come about, providing vast improvements in the lives of non 1st world citizens. Cases like golden rice make me extremely hopeful for the future of food. Sooner or later, subsidies which led to our current problem of HFCS and cheap garbage food will provide a path for more nutritional foodstuffs becoming harvested on a more economic scale, likely due to clever genetic modifications.

I find it funny that we have this idealized version of the family farmer that would never serve horse meat. As if economic incentives only caused perverse results in large scale companies and not for Joe farmer who is trying to make his own payments for the next month.

Rubbish I didn't say we should reduce food production or discard science.

You can have cheap if you want but you have to discard other notions as a result.

Genetic modification will merely reduce a products input cost, but with populations rising in size and income it wont reduce the cost in your supermarket trolley. Also it would be naive to think agribusiness wont force unfavourable contracts on the growers of these wonder foods in the future.




My gripe is about unrealistic goals of extremely cheap food regardless of the consequences.

[gaelic cowboy]

The last trout farm went bankrupt a month or so ago. It was shortlived, as was all the other attempts. Trout is way too cheap due to excellent fishing in Lofoten. Fish farming is for salmon.

The food is the same as the pellets for cattle, basically, found and made in the same way. It's an unholy mix of other fish, animals, veggies and drugs.

But does the fish for the pellets not come from the sea and they overfish that too

[HoreTore]

But does the fish for the pellets not come from the sea and they overfish that too

Most of it is soya now(probably gmo) as far as I know.

Overfishing is caused by ineffective or corrupt regulation of fish, not consumption.

[gaelic cowboy]

Most of it is soya now(probably gmo) as far as I know.

Overfishing is caused by ineffective or corrupt regulation of fish, not consumption.

And the perverse incentives in farming are also being removed to but were only now waking to the consequences of squeezing at both ends.

At one end we squeeze producer but we cannot afford to let a massive beef processor go bust now can we, so we give a subsidy to the producer.

The subsidy distorts the market naturally which means the beef processor has security of supply BUT the producer is now dependent on the subsidy.

At the other end is the consumer who is hard pressed to put food on the table, there need is being hijacked by the multiples as a public good but obesity rates tell a differ story.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1Gbwz3f-7s

demading only cheap food causes perverse incentives as does demanding some kind of mass organic food too.

We havent figured out yet how to feed at a happy medium so were probably going to need to go all in for mass automation.

[Husar]

Fewer humans would also have positive effects, yanno....
Since we're ape(x) predators or summin', how about we start to kill ourselves again?
We didn't even have to discuss such silly problems before we stopped bashing our neighbors' heads in every other year.
A UN-wide 1-child-policy would be nice.

[gaelic cowboy]

Fewer humans would also have positive effects, yanno....
Since we're ape(x) predators or summin', how about we start to kill ourselves again?
We didn't even have to discuss such silly problems before we stopped bashing our neighbors' heads in every other year.
A UN-wide 1-child-policy would be nice.

some economists are starting to ask if the era of cheap food or maybe that should be relatively cheap food is over

We know people spend less as a proportion of income on food and likely thats be a factor in the growth of an economy.

simply put if a waitress has to double her weekly shop there is less capital available for other products she might like.

[Sarmatian]

Fewer humans would also have positive effects, yanno....
Since we're ape(x) predators or summin', how about we start to kill ourselves again?
We didn't even have to discuss such silly problems before we stopped bashing our neighbors' heads in every other year.
A UN-wide 1-child-policy would be nice.

Number of humans isn't really an issue. There's a lot of fertile land that isn't used efficiently. If the land in Ukraine is used to produce food with Dutch efficiency, Ukraine alone could probably feed half the world's population.

It will be a very long time before we need to worry about the world's population becoming too big to feed.

[Husar]

Number of humans isn't really an issue. There's a lot of fertile land that isn't used efficiently. If the land in Ukraine is used to produce food with Dutch efficiency, Ukraine alone could probably feed half the world's population.

It will be a very long time before we need to worry about the world's population becoming too big to feed.

With bread, potatoes and salad perhaps, but what about overfishing or the destruction of rainforest to put herds of cows on the land?
Either we're being too dumb, too demanding or too many. Turning the whole planet into nothing but concrete, desert and wheat fields isn't a great recipe for survival.

And gaelic cowboy, I struggle to see how your post relates to mine, I never even mentioned money.

[gaelic cowboy]

With bread, potatoes and salad perhaps, but what about overfishing or the destruction of rainforest to put herds of cows on the land?
Either we're being too dumb, too demanding or too many. Turning the whole planet into nothing but concrete, desert and wheat fields isn't a great recipe for survival.

And gaelic cowboy, I struggle to see how your post relates to mine, I never even mentioned money.

Pretty much all foodstuffs are going up in price the causes are many but more mouths is at the bottom of it all

[Husar]

My point wasn't to save our pockets, but to save gaia, homo sapiens and countless other species from suffocation.
Once all forests are gone and the oxygen in the atmosphere is slowly being used up, money will be our smallest problem!
:soapbox:

Besides if we weren't 7 billion, we'd have more oil, more gas and more fresh air for everyone!

[Montmorency]

Kill all the unemployed?

Kill all the unemployed males between ages 15 and 35?

Kill all the unemployed males between ages 15 and 35 who have been unemployed for over a year?

Kill all the poor unemployed males between ages 15 and 35 who have been unemployed for over a year?

Kill all the poor unemployed males between ages 15 and 35 who have been unemployed for over a year and are on any form of state-provided aid?

Kill all the young unemployed African males?

Nuke them from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.

We as a civilization must have the moral fortitude to excise undesirable social elements as an ongoing policy. :brood:

[Husar]

Those are some scary ideas Montmorency, didn't expect that from you.
Personally, I'd prefer the UN-wide 1-child-policy I proposed in post #51, but whatever floats your boat.

[gaelic cowboy]

My point wasn't to save our pockets, but to save gaia, homo sapiens and countless other species from suffocation.
Once all forests are gone and the oxygen in the atmosphere is slowly being used up, money will be our smallest problem!
:soapbox:

Besides if we weren't 7 billion, we'd have more oil, more gas and more fresh air for everyone!

my point was that economists have been noting there is an economic/food security consequence to larger populations.









Our present style of agriculture has only a few more efficiencies left to find to allow growth of food supply. Afterwards we might have to look at say growing meat in vats like in those old CIV games an I imagine there will be similiar efforts for vegetables and cereals. (of course we still might have problems with scale even then )

You could see a future where food comes from non-farm sources and actual farmed food is for people who want to splash out or grow there own supply.

[Fisherking]

Those are some scary ideas Montmorency, didn't expect that from you.
Personally, I'd prefer the UN-wide 1-child-policy I proposed in post #51, but whatever floats your boat.

Government mandated birth control?

Perhaps medical screening and government genetics testing before they give you a license to have a child.

Government controls and policies on birth and bureaucrats to oversee them. How very democratic and open-minded you are.

If not the UN perhaps the EU would enact your policies.

[Beskar]

Government mandated birth control?

Perhaps medical screening and government genetics testing before they give you a license to have a child.

Government controls and policies on birth and bureaucrats to oversee them. How very democratic and open-minded you are.

If not the UN perhaps the EU would enact your policies.

It is more a welfare state thing. The government only supports two children, any more comes from your back-pocket. Not having any income or benefits to supplement extra children will make it an incentive not to have more unless you really want them (and the economics to support them).

[Fisherking]

It is more a welfare state thing. The government only supports two children, any more comes from your back-pocket. Not having any income or benefits to supplement extra children will make it an incentive not to have more unless you really want them (and the economics to support them).Ah, but in a democracy at least many politicians would shun that because it is less voters dependent on them for handouts, therefore less voters beholden to their party.

They would have to have those evil rightwingers enact it while they pretended to fight it tooth and nail.

[The Lurker Below]

Kill all the unemployed?

Kill all the unemployed males between ages 15 and 35?

Kill all the unemployed males between ages 15 and 35 who have been unemployed for over a year?

Kill all the poor unemployed males between ages 15 and 35 who have been unemployed for over a year?

Kill all the poor unemployed males between ages 15 and 35 who have been unemployed for over a year and are on any form of state-provided aid?

Kill all the young unemployed African males?

Nuke them from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.

We as a civilization must have the moral fortitude to excise undesirable social elements as an ongoing policy. :brood:

oh come on! these ideas are antiquated and nothing like this has been heard in over 18 years.
besides, things like this are not motivated by foods, the good atrocities are saved for religious purposes.

[Husar]

Government mandated birth control?

Perhaps medical screening and government genetics testing before they give you a license to have a child.

Government controls and policies on birth and bureaucrats to oversee them. How very democratic and open-minded you are.

If not the UN perhaps the EU would enact your policies.

As Tiaexz said the chinese version works mostly economical.
It's funny though how mentioning a "policy" makes me either a mass murderer or socialist satan...

In a few billion years or so the sun will heat up the earth and kill all life on it anyway, unless a meteorite or similar puts an end to our misery faster. So every child we set into this world that contributes to an increase of the human population on this planet is one more death we have on our hands...
The whole universe is a cold, dark place without love or will turn into that in the long run (trillions of years?), why place even more innocent lives into this misery? How cold can you be to keep your freedoms?

[Fisherking]

As Tiaexz said the chinese version works mostly economical.
It's funny though how mentioning a "policy" makes me either a mass murderer or socialist satan...

In a few billion years or so the sun will heat up the earth and kill all life on it anyway, unless a meteorite or similar puts an end to our misery faster. So every child we set into this world that contributes to an increase of the human population on this planet is one more death we have on our hands...
The whole universe is a cold, dark place without love or will turn into that in the long run (trillions of years?), why place even more innocent lives into this misery? How cold can you be to keep your freedoms?


But in a free society you can not do that.

It is a personal choice between two consenting adults.

What sort of government does China have?

The last I knew they had dictatorial powers over their people.

That is why you have not seen such a policy in the west.

You can educate and recommend, you can even do as Tiaexz recommended if you can get the votes to pass it but you can not require it of a free people.

It may be something you strongly believe in but none the less, it is not something a free elected government would do.

That is until Obama issues an executive order on the subject.

[a completely inoffensive name]

As Tiaexz said the chinese version works mostly economical.
It's funny though how mentioning a "policy" makes me either a mass murderer or socialist satan...

In a few billion years or so the sun will heat up the earth and kill all life on it anyway, unless a meteorite or similar puts an end to our misery faster. So every child we set into this world that contributes to an increase of the human population on this planet is one more death we have on our hands...
The whole universe is a cold, dark place without love or will turn into that in the long run (trillions of years?), why place even more innocent lives into this misery? How cold can you be to keep your freedoms?

This might be the most disgusting thing I have read this thread.

Seriously, when did these absurd notions become popular? How did we get to point where we are looking towards China as a model on how to make a sustainable civilization? The most frustrating thing is the constant scare over population as if welfare queens are pumping out children like crazy while on the dole and this is the source of our problems.

China's population is completely out of wack due to the 1 child policy and in the coming decades, the country will dip below India in population size and continue to decline as the male:female ratio gets more and more out of wack. All industrialized countries have birth rates below the replenish rate when you remove immigration from the equation. In the meantime, we can expect this trend to affect the largest population centers in the world, Brazil, India and China. Large population growth is by a vast majority dominated by extremely poor countries and the semi industrialized. As wealth and education increase, birth rates go drastically down, this has been proven time and time again.

The sky is falling everyone, milk might be $8 a gallon. Better put birth control in the drinking water, it is the only humane and rational thing to do. Better yet, following Husar's logic, let us just reopen those concentration camps I am sure he is a 15 min drive from and start throwing in those from lower socio-economic backgrounds so that we may prevent the suffering of those children that would have to live in a world where they can't afford two smartphones while at uni because the bread is now only as cheap as it was back in the 1890s.

[gaelic cowboy]

Well it seems this horsemeat thingy just wont go away as it seems it's in jars of bolognese sauce now.

I said it earlier on in this thread these sauces and burgers and readymeals and other conveinence foods have been driven too low in price. The only possible way they were profitable as we now know for a fact is through fraudualent labeling by manufacturers.

Put simply our supply chains for highly processed foods are too long.

[Montmorency]

Those are some scary ideas Montmorency, didn't expect that from you.

:laugh4:

A global One-Child policy is not strictly necessary at this point unless it's part of a specific long-term strategy to drastically cut world population by billions within a century, to expedite resource distribution, improve ease of management, and speed homogenization.


China's population is completely out of wack due to the 1 child policy and in the coming decades

The alternative would have been several hundred-million more Chinese than otherwise in the interim, a huge number to administer. The effects on Chinese demography would have been visible anyway, as whether it's following government mandate or "FREE PERSONAL CHOICE", the underlying mindset vis-a-vis gender is only to be modified through decades of targeted education and cultural shift. The result would have been the same, just with a higher absolute population.


As wealth and education increase, birth rates go drastically down, this has been proven time and time again.

In Africa, despite overall development...


The sky is falling everyone, milk might be $8 a gallon. Better put birth control in the drinking water, it is the only humane and rational thing to do. Better yet, following Husar's logic, let us just reopen those concentration camps I am sure he is a 15 min drive from and start throwing in those from lower socio-economic backgrounds so that we may prevent the suffering of those children that would have to live in a world where they can't afford two smartphones while at uni because the bread is now only as cheap as it was back in the 1890s.

The simple fact of the matter is that larger populations are both unwieldy and add a factor of volatility in international relations.

What is this fetish for eternal population growth?

[Husar]

This might be the most disgusting thing I have read this thread.

Up to that point maybe, but then someone posted this:


The sky is falling everyone, milk might be $8 a gallon. Better put birth control in the drinking water, it is the only humane and rational thing to do. Better yet, following Husar's logic, let us just reopen those concentration camps I am sure he is a 15 min drive from and start throwing in those from lower socio-economic backgrounds so that we may prevent the suffering of those children that would have to live in a world where they can't afford two smartphones while at uni because the bread is now only as cheap as it was back in the 1890s.
This quote sounds worse than anything I'd expect from the Chinese.
It worries me how fast people ask for concentration camps just because of the food prices.


I said it earlier on in this thread these sauces and burgers and readymeals and other conveinence foods have been driven too low in price.

Do you think it would help to give the lady at the cash register a nickel or two more per can so they can improve the quality?
The low prices have been getting on my nerves for a while now, just recently the prices for almost everything were raised by 20% but obviously our supermarkets are still too poor. Perhaps we should start a charity for corporations so we don't force them into criminality anymore. It saddens me to no end if corporations are forced to be criminal just to survive. And it's all because of the communist EU, wouldn't happen if they could sell their products on say, a consumer market or summing.

[gaelic cowboy]

Do you think it would help to give the lady at the cash register a nickel or two more per can so they can improve the quality?
The low prices have been getting on my nerves for a while now, just recently the prices for almost everything were raised by 20% but obviously our supermarkets are still too poor. Perhaps we should start a charity for corporations so we don't force them into criminality anymore. It saddens me to no end if corporations are forced to be criminal just to survive. And it's all because of the communist EU, wouldn't happen if they could sell their products on say, a consumer market or summing.

Supermarkets have been too clever by half

[Sigurd]

The sky is falling everyone, milk might be $8 a gallon.
I wish... here it's $9.6 pr gallon already.

[luigi_I]

The presentation was by broadcaster Paul Harvey, who gave it in 1978 at the Future Farmers of America conference. The “God Made a Farmer (http://www.cardealexpert.com/news-information/auto-news/god-made-a-farmer-ad/)” ad has also benefited that group, as Ram made a $1 million donation to the FFA on the back of the success of the ad.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually, milk in the USA is already $8/gallon. It's just that half or more of that is paid out of taxes as a subsidy so we don't encounter the real price when purchasing our jugs of pastuerized cow excreta in our local supermarket. This lets taxpayer's like me buy milk for the non-taxpayers without me having to choose to be charitable. After all, why should I have such a choice in a free society? My money should be taken from me to fund others' purchases according to some formula developed by bureacrats in the DofA and sent to Congress for rubber-stamping in a twelve-pound pile of paper that none of them will read before voting upon. That's government in action. By gum, we need more of this! Less individual thought, more regulatory bureaucracy running my life and decisions for me. Gotta love it. Somebody hand me that soma.....

[Beskar]

Actually, milk in the USA is already $8/gallon. It's just that half or more of that is paid out of taxes as a subsidy so we don't encounter the real price when purchasing our jugs of pastuerized cow excreta in our local supermarket. This lets taxpayer's like me buy milk for the non-taxpayers without me having to choose to be charitable. After all, why should I have such a choice in a free society? My money should be taken from me to fund others' purchases according to some formula developed by bureacrats in the DofA and sent to Congress for rubber-stamping in a twelve-pound pile of paper that none of them will read before voting upon. That's government in action. By gum, we need more of this! Less individual thought, more regulatory bureaucracy running my life and decisions for me. Gotta love it. Somebody hand me that soma.....

Though that does pose the question, if that subsidy is all that is keeping the farmers afloat, then how would you solve it?

Simply removing it short-term would mean supermarkets sell at the same price, pocketing it, whilst the farmer doesn't get anymore money. Since this means they don't have that subsidy, it means they will have to start selling up and shutting down whilst the big corporations plays Scooge McDuck with the farmer, trying to use their collective power to force the worst possible price on them, whilst at the same time, blaming the government for the lack of subsidy whilst using it as an excuse to force a price-hike on the costumer, probably to the point where they might be shipping in milk from Mexico for the cheapest buck...

Kind of a lose-lose situation for farmer and consumer... government is blamed even though it is those corporation and their lobbyists which is dictating the policy.

[Greyblades]

Actually, milk in the USA is already $8/gallon. It's just that half or more of that is paid out of taxes as a subsidy so we don't encounter the real price when purchasing our jugs of pastuerized cow excreta in our local supermarket. This lets taxpayer's like me buy milk for the non-taxpayers without me having to choose to be charitable[...] That's government in action. By gum, we need more of this! Less individual thought, more regulatory bureaucracy running my life and decisions for me.

That is a good point until you take into account the, unfortunately frequently proven, assumption that the majority of people are not going to consistently give to charity.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'd like to see us gradually pull away from all subsidies in the agro industry, and for that matter most other industries as well. We live in a world where people starve while paying farmers to plow corn under rather than let it reach market. Just wrankles...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That is a good point until you take into account the, unfortunately frequently proven, assumption that the majority of people are not going to consistently give to charity.

What about the relative unwillingness of some to give charity -- I'd dispute it being a majority -- undercuts my arguments as to rights? Should I be forced to take care of others at the proverbial "point of a gun?" Not, mind you, to fund something for the common good of all (roads, sewers, etc.) but for the good of only some (admittedly less fortunate someones).

Is such enforced "charity" equitable when all too many of those less fortunates are spending a surprising portion of their limited funds on tobacco or other so-called vice products? Should I have a say in their behaviors because of my "largesse?" As it is, they have a claim on my finances because of their misfortune, and uncle sugar sees to it that I have to pay.

I view charity as a moral good and a necessity in large part because of the faith in which I was raised. Catholicism teaches that charity is a virtue and is its own reward. My wife and I give quite a bit each and every year, as we should. I do not believe that wealth transfer, as opposed to funds to provide those goods and services that are simply impossible for an individual to procure for themselves, is the correct goal of taxation.

[Greyblades]

Eh?
I thought we were talking about using taxes to give subsidies to companies to lower the street price of things like milk so that the poor can afford it, not welfare.

[Sigurd]

I don't think the majority of the people in the west spend much of their budgets on food. Apparently I spend around 12% of my income on food according to statistics. This is not really much considering the fact that 50 years ago, people statistically spent 40% of their income on food.
But this is here in the west, I bet that in other parts of the world this percentage might be significantly higher.

[Montmorency]

Seamus, you've rather misconstrued the purpose of food subsidies: that keeping the poor and a significant swathe of the lower middle class from having to sink the majority of their incomes into food purchases is purely a matter of social order?

Who is the most likely to riot? The one who is slightly hungry and desperately insecure over the provision of food to oneself and one's family.

To say nothing of petty crime... Would you like food to become the new crack? Think of the consequences of what you propose.

So this is for the common good of all. Think through the consequences of what you propose.

Finally, you must come to understand that relative food security is one of the cornerstones of the modern civilization driven by constant technological innovation. Reducing a large proportion of the population to subsistence and/or food insecurity undermines this capacity for growth.

Addendum: The providers of "whole" foods, "organic", and all-around "healthy" foods, would suffer considerably from losing a chunk of their customers - those who would be forced to downgrade to cheaper items. Not even the upper middle class would be immune here. Truly, the reverberations - and recall that America is a large food exporter - would be felt across the whole world. I wouldn't doubt the possibility of a diplomatic crisis arising from such a policy-change.

Which are you Seamus: a lover of reason, or a lover of treason? :brood:

[Papewaio]

Milk here in Australia is $3.80 a gallon for the supermarket brand, up to $17 a gallon for the high end brands.

I get the cheap low fat stuff for myself and the high end fatty stuff for the wife.

Food security is probably a very good reason to have local production. You would not want to be in a conflict and be relying on overseas food sources with just in time supplies.

[Sigurd]

One way is to put import tax on certain items that you want to be produced locally. Here we put a 388% tax on milk imports. That is to ensure supermarkets sell only Norwegian milk.
There was an incident of shortage of cream butter during Christmas in 2011, where the government was forced to temporary lift this "embargo" by reducing the import tax on butter. Some blame the low carbo diets, but I think it was simply mismanagement.

Milk prices are to high, there is no doubt about it. The farmers get far too little for their milk and if you look at the numbers through the last decades, there is a mismatch of retail prices and production prices. You would expect that they increased proportionally. The price given farmers increased by 44% in 10 years, but the price on milk in the shops increased by 121% in the exact same time frame.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Interesting how much people ran with my milk comment. I didn't even put any thought into it, but I realize now that living in california skews my perception of milk prices I guess. The most expensive brand at my local Albertsons is a little over $5. I could not live without it though, I drink a gallon every week.

[HoreTore]

One way is to put import tax on certain items that you want to be produced locally. Here we put a 388% tax on milk imports. That is to ensure supermarkets sell only Norwegian milk.
There was an incident of shortage of cream butter during Christmas in 2011, where the government was forced to temporary lift this "embargo" by reducing the import tax on butter. Some blame the low carbo diets, but I think it was simply mismanagement.

Milk prices are to high, there is no doubt about it. The farmers get far too little for their milk and if you look at the numbers through the last decades, there is a mismatch of retail prices and production prices. You would expect that they increased proportionally. The price given farmers increased by 44% in 10 years, but the price on milk in the shops increased by 121% in the exact same time frame.

With the grocery structure we have here, Sigurd, you can't just look at the price of single items. You have to look at the price of all the goods offered by a grocery store.

The price Meny charges for ilk isn't determined by what Norgesgruppen pays Tine for it. It's determined more by what they charge you for tacos, soda and toilet paper.

EDIT: Oh, and the price paid to the farmers is done through a planned economy, not market regulation. Agriculture is the bastion of communism, ya know.