farm subsidies

[lesm]

Had a interesting discussion this A.M. with my city friends regarding farm subsidies, ie crop insurance, agri-stability, agri- invest. Most argued that since all other private businesses work on a do or die basis, why are farmers considered a sacred cow? I somewhat agree because we all have choices and no one is forcing us to farm. I would probably forgo some of these programs if I could get that CWB albatross of my back. Any thoughts?

[liberty]

Farm subsidies just cost taxpayers money. They don't confer an advantage to any particular farmer.

The reason is that farmers compete against each other, not so much in the field of selling their product, but terms of purchasing inputs, and in terms of skills and experience. Subsidies don't turn an incompetent farmer into a smart one.

Essentially, all subsidies do is drive up the cost of inputs like land. It's like increasing the starting chip stack in a poker tournament. It may make the game last a bit longer, but it would be a mistake for a player to think that the larger stack gives him some sort of an advantage over the other players.

[bucket]

IF i could do my own marketing without the government controlled cwb losing money on my behalf, I would gladly tell the government to **** off. But until that happens I guess the government must continue to subsidize us.

My 08 durum crop won't be paid for until december 10 which is just three months short of three years from the time it went in the ground. If the government wants to control that, then I have no problem waiting for their shitty subsidies.

And BTW what did your friends think of the handouts to the auto sector?

[Burbert]

Your city friends are ignorant about farm issues, ie subsidies and private sector bailouts and subsidies as well. Let me think about it, for a fraction of a second, tnings that come to mind are GM, Chrysler, Ford, Kanadian magazine publishing, the Amerikin economy, farm subsidies etc, etc. To name a few. Yeah a level playing field for farmers, grand idea. So long as the price of Shreddies or buns doesn't increase a penny. Urbanites would be thrilled indeed. City people know nothing about farms, half of us farmers know nothing about farms................

[ajl]

When the government wants to play in the space you have to participate because land and input values all reflect the revenue that is assumed to come from government. The other factor is if they get rid of these programs what would the bureaucrats do? I would be happy to be rid of CWB, Agristability et al, but it has to be all of them. Another thing It would be nice if the Pest Management Regulatory agency was not a tool of the established chem companies and would make it easier to register generics so our chemical costs would be the same as in the US. As far as other business swimming on there own: what was the stimulus for? Right now there is nothing going on that you can't trace back to the government.

[ivbinconned]

Bucket, please hold the profanity.

In 1930 there were over 3000 people living in our RM. today its under 300. If farmers were so subsidized I doubt so many would have left the field.

The city folks have it backwards which tells us how well our story gets told. The ag sector rather subsidises the urban in ways few know...including farmers.

The taxes applied to the end product of a bushel of malt barley garners the government (the people) million$$. The farmer gets a very very small portion of that. The CWB has protected Canadian distillers from the harsh reality of the world market because it could always steel from producers and help their friends in the malt industry.


For decades Sask producers have payed, per family, 4 times as much school tax as our city families. helping the city folks with better buildings and programs!!

There are many other examples (Bu of wheat produces so many loaves etc) that one does not know where to start.

[bucket]

Sorry about that one. I wasn't talking to anyone in particular just the government. Can offend anyone there because they don't read this stuff and they certainly don't listen. If a tree falls in the forest does anyone hear?

Back to the subsidy stuff, you are right the government makes more on taxes than our hard work. And the worst part of it is they won't change it. If city folks had to dedicate more of their income to food they might start to understand. But governments like the cheap food policy. It allows city folks to buy expensive houses they can't afford so the government buys their vote by subsidizing banks so they can afford it.

If the consumers would start to question the price of bread in relation to the price of wheat it might start a better dialogue.

[sagewood]

Have had this very discussion with the urbanites I know and I tell them that one thing I do know is that they can live without a lot of things, but food is not one of them and unless and until the government stops their 'cheap food policy' that was started during WWII, then they can continue to pay a 'subsidy' to keep me in business because if they do not, then they will be paying every cent they earn to a foreign country to import food that is of lesser quality than the Canadian owned and raised food. I have said it before and I say it again, what this country needs is a good famine to last long enough for them to remember how an empty stomach feels and remember how much they had to pay for a piece of moldy bread and cheese to feed the family. The answer to a lot of trends and questions about the 'agriculture problem' is easy--at least in my mind--we can draw young people back to the farm--we can make agriculture on all levels pay--we will lessen our reliance on imported food--all of this accomplished by allowing farmers to be paid what they are worth when they are alive and actually producing food--not the old "live poor and die rich" system that happens currently. I could go on, but let me just say--this country will live to regret its lack of real support to its farmers/ranchers--we are dropping like flies and there is no one to pick up after us. The so-called support programs of the day and the reworked programs that they keep trumpeting are useless to most operations--never enough to pay all the bills--the only people who get real value from the ag. programs are the government and bureaucrats of the day....

[ivbinconned]

Just some thoughts. Why can't some farm groups take up space on city bill boards stating some of the above...like...

"Farm families pay 4 times as much school taxes as us city folk! Is this fair?"

Or..."A farmers yearly income off a quarter of land = $30,000.00...the governments take on end product taxes = $1,000,000.00...thats right one million. Is this fair??

[Burbert]

Sagewood. Well said, all the points that you made were good and valid. The only concept missing was, GREED, which is the motivating factor that runs the market and our world for that matter. Our nort american gov'ts will never let a famine occur here at home, cause they'd never, ever, ever git re-elected if'n they did. The balancing act that they use, is to give farmers just enough profit, to keep them farming and hoping that one day they'll discover a silver bullet and make a killing on the farm and get rich. It'll never happen though, hence the phrase that has been coined "dumb farmers".

[liberty]

I find it ironic that L Weber's post above mentions the pervasive influence of socialist thinking among the Western Canadian farm community, at the same time that several of the posters for this topic seem to prove his point.

"...we are dropping like flies and there is no one to pick up after us."

If I had a dime for every time I heard that ridiculous statement, I'd be a millionaire.

While it's true that there are far fewer farmers today than there were ten, twenty or fifty years ago, the amount of land in cultivation is still roughly the same as it always was, and its productivity has soared.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the free market has worked in agriculture for the most part as it should have: to make sure that incompetent, unproductive farmers are pushed out of the industry so that competent, capable producers can take their place. More subsidies would only slightly delay, but not stop, this vital dynamic.

Can you socialists also stop repeating that absurd cliche about our alleged "cheap food policy"? An example of that would be the CWB's cut-rate post-war grain sales to Britain, but I doubt that you socialists would want to dwell on that issue for long.

In any case, what would you propose to replace a "cheap food policy" with? An expensive food policy?

[ivbinconned]

"Greed" has been around since Adam and Eve and it may explain some things but not everything.
Man's inner instinct to be creative and productive is what has driven western cultures, industry, and even trivial pursuits for hundreds of years.

Saddly many today fall for socialist cures having been enticed there, by government funded corporate entities that champion the "free market" all the while hiding behind regulations implemented by their political friends that regulate their competition.

I go to jail if I haul my wheat outside my borders...

“A slave is one who waits for someone else to free him”

[sagewood]

liberty, some of your comments don't really deserve a reply--you seem to have trouble expressing yourself without using profanity.

I have no trouble with a cheap food policy, as long as it is not on the backs of those in agriculture who are supposed to work double time to keep the prices down and continue to raise food to feed this country. Those in other industries are able to raise their prices to cover the input costs--when this happens in agriculture in this country, the government simply brings in cheaper imports to undercut home-grown products. If we were simply competing with each other as you say, well fine, even playing field--but when we have to compete with the government and live by their rules, (or go to jail), well then I cannot agree that we are socialists. Not all of us were given the farm and all the equipment by our parents--many, many of us have had to pay top dollar to stay in the business, while being paid what amounts to less than a minimum wage.

liberty, please try to get a little sleep tonight and have a better day tomorrow.

[ivbinconned]

As I was writing that last blurb I was thinking...I have spouted off on this topic before. The old memory still works!!

On sept 5th 03 we had a good discussion going here on this topic and I don't know how to access the archives but I did save the thread to my putor for future reference.

Here is one of my posts way back then.


posted Sep 6, 2003 11:04
________________________________________
From 1991 to 1999, there was a 78%reduction in direct federal expenditures in support of the agri-food sector in Sask. and a 69% reduction for Alberta. In the same time period there was only a 27% reduction in Quebec. I am NOT bad mouthing the Quebec farmer but I do "bad mouth" a system that bleeds money from Alberta to "lavishly" support farms in another province.

If Alberta farmers don't mind this at least you would think they would rise up and insist that the money goes to there neighboring province where there grandpa and uncles farm.

Now that is just the federal expenditures! What about the "lavish" support of Alberta dollars the Quebec farmer gets through their provincial government via federal transfers...hush-hush...were not supposed to know.

While I have seen my Saskatchewan assets drop in value 50% in the last 10 to 15 years, in Quebec the high level of Quebec government support is a major reason why average net worth of grain and oil seed producers increased 51.3% compared to 12.7 per cent in Ontario from 93 to 97; during the same period, average assets in Quebec increased by 53.5 per cent compared to 15.8% in Ontario.

When total crop receipts for Quebec were just $1.3 billion as compared to Ontario’s $3.1 billion the Quebec Ag ministry spent $527 million while Ontario's spent just $372 million! Neat what you can do as a "have not" province while Alberta sleeps.

I have said it before in these threads, what does a pick pocket do? He makes you look the other way! So we are told to look and blame the U.S. and Europe, while with in our own country the 21 year old Quebec ASRA programs (indirectly funded with ALBERTA money) heaps impressive benefits on, for example, in Quebec a 780 acre corn grower over a 9 year period ending in 99 amounted to $580,000, or an average of $64,445 per year with a 99 provision of $99,480! Not bad eh!

This program now includes all ag production and guess what, it is acreage based, cost of production based, and also has an interesting aspect to it in that the benefits are based on 90% of a skilled workers wages in Quebec, ie. nurse, teacher, government employees, etc.
Could this be why the average age of farmers in Quebec is much lower than say Saskatchewan?

Could it be that a net payout in 1999 of $120.00 per acre of barley to a Quebec farmer is why he could afford to send us that load of hay that the Canadian Alliance got so excited about and we where all supposed to feel so warm and fuzzy about. Give me a break!
End of old post.

[sagewood]

liberty, I apologize, I see it was not you using profanity on this site...