USA FArm Subsidies.Socialism? Corporate welfare?

[Michaelangelica]

Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post.

Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm - washingtonpost.com

"The 2008 Farm Bill not only runs counter (to) the long-term process of reform in agriculture," it said, adding that it intensifies competition between rich nations and farmers in poor developing countries.

"The unfair competition, brought by subsidies, hinders the process of market liberalisation by developed and developing countries alike," it said.

Jamaica Gleaner News - Emerging economies slam new United States farm subsidy bill - Wednesday | June 4, 2008
US Farm Subsidies and the Farm Economy: Myths, Realities, Alternatives | Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Cedars

Ah, Grimm and his 30 acres of wheat on steeply rolling land. 30 x 300 = $9000 dollars. But this isnt farm subsidy money so its irrelevant.

I did look up and 1 bushel of wheat produces around 50 lbs of flour. Should help you do the math on what the farmers take per loaf of bread is. Thats whole wheat, not wonder bread which is a mix of several grains.

No, it is not irrelevant! It clearly shows that by taking and reducing farm land the profit per acre has tippled. Now farmers can make more money by farming than by taking subsidies or other payments. It is the simple economics of supply and demand, when supply is down and demand is up then prices rise. It makes economic sense to grow more crops.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Freddy

No, it is not irrelevant! It clearly shows that by taking and reducing farm land the profit per acre has tippled. Now farmers can make more money by farming than by taking subsidies or other payments. It is the simple economics of supply and demand, when supply is down and demand is up then prices rise. It makes economic sense to grow more crops.

I dont see how you conclude reducing farmland caused the profit per acre to triple. Grimm never did take the farmland out of production, but was considering it at this one point in his (unknown) farming career. He was considering it due to commodity prices being so low there was no profit. His wheat profit is likely a temporary condition market wise and likely shifted greatly from last year for Grimm, due to an unusually cold and wet spring in MN.

One or two years of positive gains and profits does not negate the actual history of commodity profits for farmers and their downward spiral over the last 65 years.

Nobody with any experience in the world of commodities trading understands this margin of increase and will tell you the product is over-valued by speculators. This signals to me it is a temporary condition on that alone, without adding in the fact that more acreage (over 5 million acres) has been reintroduced into commodity growth between 06 and 07 in the USA alone.

I havent been following the weather in the Ukraine area this year to see if the drought there has been relieved yet (the start of the increased wheat run in the fall of 06 or 05 I cant remember which) nor have I followed the wheat conditions of australia (another supposed source of the wheat run by India).

I have spent no time on the falling dollar value making US commodity markets more attractive to other countries either. Another (hopefully) temporary condition.

BTW, a baker can produce around 70 loaves of bread per 50 lbs of wheat flour. This is pure wheat flour, and not a mixed grain breads.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm - washingtonpost.com

The Washington Post article was interesting. I dont know Texas property tax rules, but this state had no problem taking lands smaller than x-amount off their agricultural property tax (grandparented in existing smaller properties) but once it was sold, or the agriculture stopped, off the farmland doles it went.

This did not bar people from having agriculture on this land, and existing properties that were already used as agriculture but too small to qualify under the new rules were grandparented in as agricultural.

I am surprised that this subsidy was transferable (no rice growing), and I do wonder if these various transfers were legal but I dont have the time to look up the rules. I know why they are transferable, it is due to inheritance/sale issues surrounding the big picture of getting rice farmers to move to other crops. But thats not to say it cannot be abused or frauded.

from the article:
"Owners could do almost anything they wanted with their land, as long as they did not develop it."

Again and again the article quotes what a developer promoted to people as "your entitled to it" people who are collecting this knew they were not going to use it for agriculture and chose to collect the subsidy they are under no obligation to file for. Wonder how many of them complain about their taxes? Anyways it shows more about people than government.

When I worked for state government, I remember the length of time spent trying to word every sentence just right so people could not manipulate the law to something outside of the intent. We used to joke about hiring a criminal to figure out ways the wording could be manipulated so we get it right. Hard to write laws to cover things like this, when your basically an honest person.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Cedars

I dont see how you conclude reducing farmland caused the profit per acre to triple. Grimm never did take the farmland out of production, but was considering it at this one point in his (unknown) farming career. He was considering it due to commodity prices being so low there was no profit. His wheat profit is likely a temporary condition market wise and likely shifted greatly from last year for Grimm, due to an unusually cold and wet spring in MN.

One or two years of positive gains and profits does not negate the actual history of commodity profits for farmers and their downward spiral over the last 65 years.

Nobody with any experience in the world of commodities trading understands this margin of increase and will tell you the product is over-valued by speculators. This signals to me it is a temporary condition on that alone, without adding in the fact that more acreage (over 5 million acres) has been reintroduced into commodity growth between 06 and 07 in the USA alone.

I havent been following the weather in the Ukraine area this year to see if the drought there has been relieved yet (the start of the increased wheat run in the fall of 06 or 05 I cant remember which) nor have I followed the wheat conditions of australia (another supposed source of the wheat run by India).

I have spent no time on the falling dollar value making US commodity markets more attractive to other countries either. Another (hopefully) temporary condition.

BTW, a baker can produce around 70 loaves of bread per 50 lbs of wheat flour. This is pure wheat flour, and not a mixed grain breads.

Also, there is a significant amount of farmland formerly planted with wheat which is now planted with corn because planting corn is more profitable. This has contributed to the rise in wheat prices.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Also, there is a significant amount of farmland formerly planted with wheat which is now planted with corn because planting corn is more profitable. This has contributed to the rise in wheat prices.

No, not really.
Corn
05 - 81.7 million acres planted
06 - 78.3 million acres planted
07 - 93.6 million acres planted

Wheat
05 - 57.2 million acres planted
06 - 57.3 million acres planted
07 - 60.4 million acres planted

Heres easy to run queries on all the grain crops.
NASS - Statistics by Subject - Crops & Plants

There are additional links below each returned query for additional information.

BTW, Wheat grains can be stored over multiple years (recommend 3 years or less) without significant loss of nutrient value. Even well stored grains that are 5 years old are ok to use as flour, but there is reduction in nutritional value. Once its converted into flour its shelf life is around 1 year under optimum conditions.

[Michaelangelica]

Some years ago I was told about an Irish farmer (from a friend living there) who cultivated, or maybe ran stock on land he was paid to let lie fallow. I can't remember which.
He was visted by the Agriculture Police who had picked his (illegal!) activities up via sattalite

There is something fundamentally wrong with this.

[Michaelangelica]

The Hypocrisy of Farm Subsidies
Published: December 1, 2002

When Mexican corn farmers tramp through their fields behind donkey-drawn plows, they have one goal: to eke out a living. Increasingly, however, they find themselves saddled with mountains of unsold produce because farmers in Kansas and Nebraska sell their own corn in Mexico at prices well below those of the Mexicans.

The Hypocrisy of Farm Subsidies - New York Times

Farm Subsidies That Kill

*

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: July 5, 2002

J'accuse! I hate to condemn a colleague this way, but our tax dollars are going to pay an indolent New York journalist for not growing wheat on the West Coast.

Could there be a worse indictment of American agricultural policy, rendered even more scandalous by the new $180 billion farm bill signed by President Bush?

Agricultural trade and poverty at Resilience Science

The Hive: New York Times Calls For An End To Agriculture Subsidies

guest column: george wuerthner's "on the range"

Questioning Agriculture’s Accounting Practices

By George Wuerthner, 6-11-08



The US Congress passed a $286 billion farm bill. A significant percentage of that farm bill consists of food stamps and other food assistance for the poor. But the farm bill has plenty of goodies for farmers. For instance, the bill allows producers with an adjusted gross income of $1.5 million annually to obtain subsidies. Furthermore, price supports kick in if commodity prices drop a mere 10 percent over two year averages.

These and other financial and other benefits are showered upon American farmers despite the fact that nation-wide full-time farmers are doing quite well. The average full-time commercial farmer will earn $229,000 this year according to the USDA—many times what the average American earns. In 2007 approximately 1 million farmers received more than $5 billion in direct crop subsidies, with 60 percent of that funding going to the top ten percent of producers. This figure does not include many other subsidies from the Conservation Reserve Program, drought insurance, and numerous other payments that help to booster farm incomes.

Despite the fact that we continue to borrow money at unprecedented rates, there are still limits to the federal treasury and every dollar going to farmers is one less dollar available for some other worthwhile project or sector of society—many in far more desperate need of federal assistance.

Questioning Agriculture’s Accounting Practices | Travel & Outdoors | New West Network

[Michaelangelica]

This goes to air tomorrow.

Usually a good show worth listening to

FREE TRADE VS FAIR TRADE
Reporter: Jane Shields
It's an ideological battle between those who want a fairer, better deal for the poor farmers in the developing world - and those who say the best way to get that is having a world wide free market.
There are fault lines in both arguments.
Background Briefing - 13 July 2008 - Free trade vs fair trade

Sunday 13th July 9.10am
Tuesday 15th July 7.05pm
Wednesday 16th July 4.05am

The audio of each Background Briefing is available on-line for four weeks after the program goes to air. To listen back to recent programs or download them to your computer or mp3 player, click on the links below:

[goku]

Originally Posted by Mike C

Like I said, our country is a republic that serves the wealthy, not the
Democracy that it should be serving the general population.

sounds like you're gona vote for the terrorist.

have you ever heard, ''and to the republic for which it stands'', "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" ??????


well i'm not a corporation just a small farm. but there is alot of abuse of the farm subsidies. i use some farm subsidies and they do help, a little. what would really help me is to cut out the middle man. i could sell milk at 2$ per gallon and make a killin.

if the government is involved you can bet there's something wrong.