agricuture's future

[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