agricuture's future

[chuckChuck]

Tom, perhaps you think it is okay for a few percentage points of the worlds population to control the majority of the worlds wealth and resources but I don't. Call it what you want, but the greedy executives who got us into this financial mess and economic downturn failed miserably. Perhaps you have faith in a in an unregulated free for all system that is subject to physchology of the herd, but it has proven to be unstable and a poor way to build an economy.

[haveapulse]

Define subsidy please.

While I am all in favor of survival of the fittest, I find it hard to fight with so many monkeys on our back (heck monkeys are at least helpful...) its the bag of rocks we carry that is the issue.

We nend to \
So let us define subsidy: are TUAs a subsidy? How does allowing an inefficient railroad to gouge add to our costs. We need to define the word, as it is metamorphisisng into new arenas these days. The thing needs to be dissected and charted to find where it is now entering our cost of production, before the discussion have merit.

Socialism for the rich is in vogue, these days as we use tax payers money in creative ways to support industry and institutions that would otherwise suffer the consequences of reality, and while I am prepared to be a true comepetitor I would ask for the arena to be cleared of those with their
tin cans permenantly on my payroll due to government policy or lack of government policy.

The future of our industry lies in our ability to provide a viable product to the world in competition with the world.

We cannot do this when asked to support a system that enjoys the fact we are a land locked industry
with very little cohesive voice or political control.

[checking]

A very successful farmer in SE Saskatchewan once suggested that they (government, the mob, the poor, the jealous, whomever) could take all that he had away, and within a few years he would have it all back. What would you do with a greedy bastard attitude like that, that represents a small percentage of people, and how many times would you be prepared to do it to him. Talk about a spirit breaker. (lol)

[parsley]

haveapulse, you are just so logical, lol, I copied the definition of subsidy from Wikipedia:

"In economics, a subsidy (also known as a subvention) is a form of financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector. A subsidy can be used to support businesses that might otherwise fail, or to encourage activities that would otherwise not take place.

Subsidies can be regarded as a form of protectionism or trade barrier by making domestic goods and services artificially competitive against imports. Subsidies may distort markets, and can impose large economic costs.[1] Financial assistance in the form of a subsidy may come from one's government, but the term subsidy may also refer to assistance granted by others, such as individuals or non-governmental institutions, although these would be more commonly described as charity." Pars

[parsley]

Wiki also defined some subsidies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy

Pick out which you want to discuss, haveapulse:

Types of subsidies

Direct subsidies
Indirect Subsidies

Labor subsidies
Tax Subsidy
Perverse subsidies
Production subsidies
Regulatory advantages
Infrastructure subsidies
Trade protection (Import)
Export subsidies (trade promotion)
Procurement subsidies
Consumption subsidies
Tax breaks and corporate welfare
Subsidies due to the effect of debt guarantees

Pars

[checking]

My one and only identifiable subsidy (one that I actually have to fill in, date, and sign) called the 2009 Farm Fuel Program Exemption Permit Renewal for Saskatchewan arrived last week. The thing that pleased me most about it was that for once I didn't have to fill in a CWB number in order to be identified.

[classicalliberal]

Obviously chuck chuck if those kids who inheret wealth go on to create even more wealth, then they have earned it because they have made it bigger. Actually most family businesses don't last more than a few generations because they are given to people who don't work hard and deserve it or are not good at that occupation usually take the business down. You have to be good at what you do in order to make a good living.

[haveapulse]

Parsley you are so right, there are so many subsidies which do we target.

While it is fair to say that as a rule all subsidy is not bad and indeed for the most part is intended to direct policy and create wealth it is kind of important the be sure that darn old cow gets the odd bit of hay so she can continue to produce milk.

The balance is in defining which subsidy adds fair value, the roll of government then becomes that of insuring the balance is maintained in relationshp to the competitors in Canada and around the world.

Given the fact that even with the renewed prosperity today net farm income still is lower than in the 70s,
therefore we can assume with the intervention of intellectual property rights, these subsidies have clearly have benefited the industry more than the farmers net income.

But we do get to grow 50 bushel canola crops.. gotta love that!

Plato said:
You cannot be a statesman until you understand the politics of grain, problem today is we are long pundits and short statesman, not only in government but in farm leadership.

[parsley]

haveapulse:

I DO say ALL continuous subsidy is bad.I'm not talking about earthquake aid, either.

haveapulse, I view as toxic, your presupposition saying:

"defining which subsidy adds fair value"

IMHO, subsidies don't add value at all, let alone FAIR value. Period. Scheesch. Subsidies merely shift money from one pocket to another.

Governments try to give gifting/charity/benefits special names, so we don't recognize what the transfer of money for what it really is, but the reality is they take money from Peter to pay Paul. Period.


I see a role for government only in providing essentials.
.....ieProtect the country.
.... Protect the citizens. etc.
Government should act as regulators, NOT PLAYERS!


I do not endorse Government as the maestro of what you describe as: "The balance is in defining which subsidy adds fair value the roll of government then becomes that of insuring the balance is maintained in relationshp to the competitors in Canada and around the world."

The role you refer to makes me shudder: Governments taxing more and more of the wealth Canadians create and then dishing it out at farm soup kitchens, or any kitchens, allows governments to pick winners and losers. Allows governments to establish classes of wealth which are not based upon merit.But upon favor and whim.

Farmers are clearly losers in the process we now endure,as you point out: "these subsidies have clearly have benefited the industry more than the farmers net income."


If Canadians allow larger and larger subsidies to determine outcome, inevitably, a handfull of token stupid along with handful of incredibly greeded-smart will end with a headachey prom queen. Pars