What's next? This is getting out of hand

[Rareearth]

Maybe a bankrupt capitalist?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Maybe a bankrupt capitalist?

Morally bankrupt, as opposed to financially bankrupt though.

[bucket]

So what do you call a farmer who advocates against government programs of any sort including subsidized crop insurance, but accepts that it is necessary to partake of the same programs he campaigns against, in order to remain competitive with his fellow farmers who are taking advantage of said programs.
What good is a one man stand?
I still remember when the Alberta report news magazine decided to put their money where their mouth is and quit accepting the subsidies for media, and went out of business shortly thereafter.

Probably sitting as a board member somewhere, an MP , MLA etc.

Until it hits there own house it doesn't matter ...they see it as an opportunity. Look at how quick the farm reps took on contract shortages and forgot about the other 25000 affected by drought.

[Blaithin]

I see what you are saying. And do wish there was a better way without government programs.

Everything doubles as soon as government gets into the process. Whether it is administration for the purpose of tracking everyone or funding.

A water well or livestock equipment is my recent questions but the funding comes with another number to track or rules that have essentially been in place on my farm fro years without government dictating them.

Farmers have many numbers
There is Crop Insurance Number
Agristabily number
Premise ID number
Agriinvest has a number
SIN number
Number for the recent cattle payment
CCIA number

And yet if you want to do things at your own pace it seems you are at a disadvantage.

A life without government programs would be more simple. You make it or you don’t. There would be no buffer.

To have that buffer you get complicated bureaucracy and government intervention. Easy to say it’s not worth it and we don’t want it, but are we actually capable of going it with no assistance.

Should we not take advantage of grants and programs available to us because we want less government involvement? For many this is a great way to try out new technology we otherwise wouldn’t have access too for years. In this incarnation a socialist structure isn’t awful, we are able to benefit from it. It’s a personal choice to utilize such programs, weighing the gov involvement against benefits like staying competitive and upgrading.

It seems that when the socialist structure assists others that the line starts to get blurred. Others shouldn’t be allowed it.

Now true, there are some who abuse the system. This is a fact of any system. Abusers are frustrating. Yet to have these programs there for use… it is comforting. I’ve been on EI before, I fall into the 10 head minimum for the AFSC claim for feed this year, I’m not not going to claim some help if and when I can get it if I need it.

Another alternative could be subsidized by more private monies instead of government funds. Technically probably not socialist. Would it be better? The way you hear about private corps manipulating research and information, can’t say that that sounds like a better option.

So that leaves don’t use any programs at all.

I’m sure some try this, but do they then feel embittered towards those who do use the programs and benefit from them? Why? Because it’s their taxes helping fund the programs? Then take advantage of the programs!

In the end I think it comes down to life would be a little less/differently complicated and harsh if we had no buffers like socialist supported programs and it seems like a great ideal in the face of mountains of gov paperwork and intervention. But we’re passed that in human social structure. Humans have become too specialized in our career choices and too densely populated in urban locations and too financially invested and our social structure has evolved to help with the issues these things bring with them. I don’t think it’s possible to go “back” so to speak. Not right now anyway.

So to sum up my rambling - use the socialist benefits or don’t use the socialist benefits. Regularly complain about socialist though, and you just sound bitter, because we can all access something beneficial from it. Pick on abusers if you must, but don’t toss the baby out with the bath water.

[Blaithin]

Ouch🤔

I don’t mean it poorly, just a tongue in cheek example.

But I don’t cringe and make the signs to ward off evil when I see the term socialist so…. 😂

[riders2010]

Name me one so called capitalist that hasn’t used
Government money? Today’s capitalists want to use what ever they can get to screw over the next guy to benefit themselves including government help.
They don’t like it when others have some sort of stability through tough times because that would mean they could pick off those cheaper.
True capitalists don’t exist.

[bucket]

A life without government programs would be more simple. You make it or you don’t. There would be no buffer.

To have that buffer you get complicated bureaucracy and government intervention. Easy to say it’s not worth it and we don’t want it, but are we actually capable of going it with no assistance.

Should we not take advantage of grants and programs available to us because we want less government involvement? For many this is a great way to try out new technology we otherwise wouldn’t have access too for years. In this incarnation a socialist structure isn’t awful, we are able to benefit from it. It’s a personal choice to utilize such programs, weighing the gov involvement against benefits like staying competitive and upgrading.

It seems that when the socialist structure assists others that the line starts to get blurred. Others shouldn’t be allowed it.

Now true, there are some who abuse the system. This is a fact of any system. Abusers are frustrating. Yet to have these programs there for use… it is comforting. I’ve been on EI before, I fall into the 10 head minimum for the AFSC claim for feed this year, I’m not not going to claim some help if and when I can get it if I need it.

Another alternative could be subsidized by more private monies instead of government funds. Technically probably not socialist. Would it be better? The way you hear about private corps manipulating research and information, can’t say that that sounds like a better option.

So that leaves don’t use any programs at all.

I’m sure some try this, but do they then feel embittered towards those who do use the programs and benefit from them? Why? Because it’s their taxes helping fund the programs? Then take advantage of the programs!

In the end I think it comes down to life would be a little less/differently complicated and harsh if we had no buffers like socialist supported programs and it seems like a great ideal in the face of mountains of gov paperwork and intervention. But we’re passed that in human social structure. Humans have become too specialized in our career choices and too densely populated in urban locations and too financially invested and our social structure has evolved to help with the issues these things bring with them. I don’t think it’s possible to go “back” so to speak. Not right now anyway.

So to sum up my rambling - use the socialist benefits or don’t use the socialist benefits. Regularly complain about socialist though, and you just sound bitter, because we can all access something beneficial from it. Pick on abusers if you must, but don’t toss the baby out with the bath water.

Let us take a wider angle view .

Air canada got 9 billion to save their company recently. Due to a pandemic out of their control.

All of Western Canada agriculture in the form of farmers and ranchers got what due to a drought out of their control?

There is the analogy and I think western Canadian farmers and ranchers are worth more to the economy than Air Canada.

Not sure if it makes sense to compare but the dollars bailing out Air Canada or Farmers come from the same pocket eventually. I would bet on farmers and Ranchers like Devine did in 1988.

[Blaithin]

Let us take a wider angle view .

Air canada got 9 billion to save their company recently. Due to a pandemic out of their control.

All of Western Canada agriculture in the form of farmers and ranchers got what due to a drought out of their control?

There is the analogy and I think western Canadian farmers and ranchers are worth more to the economy than Air Canada.

Not sure if it makes sense to compare but the dollars bailing out Air Canada or Farmers come from the same pocket eventually. I would bet on farmers and Ranchers like Devine did in 1988.

That surely boils down to other factors though. Government, bureaucracy, and the fact it’s probably much easier to give a lump sum to one company than a large amount of money distributed between smaller corporations and individuals being the main ones in my mind. Can get into smaller but possibly as effective reasons like media and social perception of the industries.

It’s not Socialisms fault human nature, deals, politicking and convenience get in the way.

Yes I would love to see more of a balance between resources so that ag gets a more representative amount.

It would be interesting to hear how ag fairs in more socialist nations. I have family in Norway but they aren’t even a little bit ag geared. I’ll try and remember to ask them at some point if the farmers there get more similar payouts as other people/industries or if they get the trimmings like we do here.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Let us take a wider angle view .

Air canada got 9 billion to save their company recently. Due to a pandemic out of their control.

All of Western Canada agriculture in the form of farmers and ranchers got what due to a drought out of their control?

There is the analogy and I think western Canadian farmers and ranchers are worth more to the economy than Air Canada.

Not sure if it makes sense to compare but the dollars bailing out Air Canada or Farmers come from the same pocket eventually. I would bet on farmers and Ranchers like Devine did in 1988.

While I don't support either industry recieving tax dollars, I'll try looking at it from a different perspective.
Government is facing collapsing industries all over during a pandemic and drought, but with limited resources to rescue them all.
Without support, pretend that all the farmers will go bankrupt. And all the national carriers too. After which, someone will pick up the pieces and keep growing food, but there will be no pieces left to pick up to make a national air carrier.

The airline assets (which is almost entirely airplanes) will be sold and dispersed around the world for pennies on the dollar ( in the middle of a pandemic when every airline is also in dire straits), the routes will be taken over by well subsidized foriegn carriers, likely picking up the skilled employees too, and almost no private interests will have the capital to rebuild from scratch, especially not while competing with foriegn subsidized lines. We likely would not have a national carrier again. ( we can argue if that is good or bad, given the dismal financial record of most airlines...) It only works as a massive interconnected national or international web, we can't each go out and buy one airplane and try to make a go of it

If every farmer goes bankrupt, the majority of the productive assets is farmland. It might change hands, and it might drop in value by many multiples, but it will remain right where it started, and equally as productive. Now aspiring entrepreneurs including all the recently foreclosed farmers of all types can afford to actually buy farmland and build a farm. Easier to raise the capital for 1000's of individuals, and lower risk, as opposed to financing a single air carrier. Highly doubtful that a harvest would be missed on any large scale as players pick up the pieces and try again at progressively lower asset valuations, until they get low enough to be profitable. Assuming of course that steps are taken to avoid everything falling into the hands of investors, foriegn or otherwise. And we can still be competitive with foriegn subsidized farmers, since those subsidies eventually get bid into the land cost anyways, and we will have erased that inflated debt cost.

[bucket]

While I don't support either industry recieving tax dollars, I'll try looking at it from a different perspective.
Government is facing collapsing industries all over during a pandemic and drought, but with limited resources to rescue them all.
Without support, pretend that all the farmers will go bankrupt. And all the national carriers too. After which, someone will pick up the pieces and keep growing food, but there will be no pieces left to pick up to make a national air carrier.

The airline assets (which is almost entirely airplanes) will be sold and dispersed around the world for pennies on the dollar ( in the middle of a pandemic when every airline is also in dire straits), the routes will be taken over by well subsidized foriegn carriers, likely picking up the skilled employees too, and almost no private interests will have the capital to rebuild from scratch, especially not while competing with foriegn subsidized lines. We likely would not have a national carrier again. ( we can argue if that is good or bad, given the dismal financial record of most airlines...) It only works as a massive interconnected national or international web, we can't each go out and buy one airplane and try to make a go of it

If every farmer goes bankrupt, the majority of the productive assets is farmland. It might change hands, and it might drop in value by many multiples, but it will remain right where it started, and equally as productive. Now aspiring entrepreneurs including all the recently foreclosed farmers of all types can afford to actually buy farmland and build a farm. Easier to raise the capital for 1000's of individuals, and lower risk, as opposed to financing a single air carrier. Highly doubtful that a harvest would be missed on any large scale as players pick up the pieces and try again at progressively lower asset valuations, until they get low enough to be profitable. Assuming of course that steps are taken to avoid everything falling into the hands of investors, foriegn or otherwise. And we can still be competitive with foriegn subsidized farmers, since those subsidies eventually get bid into the land cost anyways, and we will have erased that inflated debt cost.

Interesting. But they could ask the shareholders of air Canada to foot the bill just as 6he government ignorance of agriculture is expecting every farmer to foot the bill for cheap food.

Most countries support their airlines and their farmers.

The Canadian government only supports one airline in canada.