Printable View
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?
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 attentionQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Meh, does it matter?
Life sucks, then you die.
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.
I miss Paul Harvey.
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.
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.
@ 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 appeallingfood.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Strike, aren't beeves at an all time high right now?
Food is immensely important strategically. That's why all industrialized countries subsidize food production - imagine if US depended on food produced in USSR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
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.
It might if a EU-US free trade agreement is reached, though for that reason the agreement itself still seems unlikely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
This post brought to you by Monsanto. All quotations of this post, and references to this post, remain the property of Monsanto.
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, .... !Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
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!
Because this isn't 1896?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
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.
That's true, and in fact this is the main rationale that was used to justify the CAP since the beginning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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 tohellSiberiathe northern, barren regions of Finland.
we can outsource food preparation but we cannot outsource the actual land.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
This. All of this. The family farm's damn near mythical, at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
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.
....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? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
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.
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.
Fishing is effectively the same as mining a free resource.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
an example of an outsourced food processor/
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
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.
hmmm arent fish farms are effectively feeding a free resource to there fish.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
About as free as feeding cattle.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
A farmer generally would be incentivised to renew his animals and grassQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
A fisherman is really only incentivised to catch fish
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.