patrick.net

Malcolm,

What phillistine just said + how US agricultural subsidies devastate 3rd world farmers. I don't particularly feel like debating this anymore. It's already established that we disagree on 90% of all topics that come up for discussion. Let's leave it at that.

Philistine,

That was my traditional view, so what the prices go down and that is good for the consumer. The problem for food supply though is a little more complicated. As a matter of public policy it is a larger detriment to a society to have it's farming industries collapse. We can comfortably debate this with refrigerators full of food, however you would be hating life if a pure failure in the market led to you having to pay many multiple more times the current cost of food. This can happen when in a year everyone at capacity produces a surplus crop which then makes prices crash. Now the industry is in ruin and farms are forced to close down. (this is a classic market failure where the more you produce the less you make.) The following years no one produces for the fear and risk of losing money so you end up with shortages. Now instead of a huge tax base from the farmers the government has a bunch of starving farmers on its hands.

DinOR,

Good to see you can now focus on one RE problem.

Jeebus, family pressure to set up an internal transfer based on a fairytale valuation. I've seen this (twice) within my own family as part of breakups, but never associated with a marriage. That's truly tough.

I suppose one factor here is the internal motivations of your In-Laws-To-Be. From what you have posted, I have the impression that you believe the wishing price for this McAlbatross is greater than the outstanding loan amount, which in turn is greater than its current value.

If that's correct, then I suppose I have 2 questions:
1. Where on the above continuum are your ILTB pitching their sale price to the kids?
2. What do they propose the kids do with their existing home?

(And in passing I hope your ILTB and daughter don't frequent this blog, or else you could really be in the deep doo-doo.)

Farmers are less than 5% of the population, and only a small proportion of that headcount gets money from the government to overplant. If they can't work their farm based on market price, they can get another job like the rest of us. And I don't really have time to get into water usage issues and their use of illegal migrant laborers, but I will if I have to.

A subsidy is money to underplant.

DinOR,

I don't want you to disclose too much information, but how does these people propose to have your daughter get loans for their McAlbotross? Based on your description, I don't think she can afford a conventional or even the less lunatic non-traditional loans.

That might be enough to blow up the whole deal.

It takes water to grow crops. If you want crops then you have to water them. Water politics is a fun topic in Calif history and current politics, but very few would put one of our state's largest sector in jeopardy. The solution is to increase water availability through public works projects.

Back to farming, some bright people could ask wouldn't just limiting entry into the business do the same thing by putting a constraint on supply? Then it wouldn't take tax money to do the same thing.

The answer would be yes, it would do the same, however as a matter of public policy and variability of crop yields the government would see it in the public's interest to have excess capacity built in to the system. Therefore you want to be able to quickly stabalize if you had a crop failure without having to wait for the free market to adjust to this.

ozajh,

That's about the size of it. To say that the valuations are "strained" doesn't even scratch the surface.

Malcolm,

I have several major issues with the current US farm subsidy system.

First, the end-point of all this subsidy, which goes mostly to corn and soy, is that it supports low prices for highly processed and unhealthy foods. This is all that packaged crap in the "middle aisles" of the supermarket and the stuff that goes into fast food. There's a correlation for sure, and possibly causation - the advent of mass farming subsidy and processed foods pretty well matches the US obesity epidemic.

My second gripe is that these subsidised farms are part of an idiotic food industry that mass produces corn and soy in the Midwest, produce in California, and then ships them all over the country. Produce quality has declined as a result of a need for longer shelf life produce, and you get ridiculous situations like the fact that in a typical Iowa supermarket, almost none of their products for sale are actually made in Iowa (grain is shipped out, processed, shipped back in state, for instance). This system puts us at higher risk that a tainted supplier will lead to food-borne illness on a massive scale (like the spinach thing a while ago), not to mention the transport fuel costs and waste. Besides, local produce ALWAYS tastes better.

Advocates argue this system has made food cheap for poor people, and that it's only the wealthy who can buy local produce etc at the farmer's market, etc. I call BS on that one - what do you think people did before mass farm subsidies? They bought at their local markets. The good news is that the local/fresh food movement gets bigger and bigger every year.

Skibum, you are describing another free market failure, and I am totally with you. I am tired of these factory farms (that's the end result when all the little ones go under) pumping chemicals into the food stream, and then people like me who complain about it are called extremists for demanding organic foods. That pet food incident could have easily been human food, and all of those pets could have been people who died.

If I had my way we would ban all growth hormones from cattle, we would also return to a more sustainable farming methodolgy. (I'm all about sustainability). Someone started this off talking about fertilizers, which has some truth. Rather than keeping livestock in miserable caged conditions, they should be free range, and should shit all over the place, that's real fertilizer. But no, we have this same bubble mentality in farming as in housing (oh that field is sitting empty, better make it start earning its keep.)

What you are describing is a little different than what I'm talking about where the government interferes to prevent the prices sliding all the way down, not the other type where it encourages production.

The market failures you are describing are the point where government needs to regulate industry, literally to impose morality. Example, if one farmer adds a cheap cancer causing additive to make crops look better, or grow faster, he now has a competitive advantage over an organic farmer, so now the organic farmer either does the same or has to close down.

Now we can't even wait a few years for a cow to reach maturity with this insane production farming model, now we have to force them to age with dangerous drugs to get them to marke faster. I totally agree with you that this is completely unacceptable.

And not just corn and soy, there are tobacco subsidies paid for non production of tobacco to keep the price high. I see no social benefit to this, and think it is a complete waste, and encourages a disgusting industry. Clearly these types of programs are traded favors between legislators trying to bring home as much pork as possible.

I think the only thing I see us disagreeing on is on the macroeconomic level. You as a doctor probably push all of that to the side (rightfully so) which is why policy makers rely on your expertise in balancing economic prosperity with health issues in forming social policy. I was impressed with the macro-economic point of the thesis I read which concluded that the relatively small investment in non production subsidies has a much greater return in income tax revenues, and helps promote competition because it allows more smaller farmers to produce some of the aggregate total which otherwise would be produced by just a few larger factory farms.

I would prefer to keep produce as a perfectly competitive commodity instead of factory farms turning food commodities into a monopolistic model.

Malcolm,
Yeah, it looks like we're on the same page on this one.

I do care about your opinion on this though, although it is more an economic debatable issue but you seem to have a strong opinion. Do you really believe that subsidies (production or not) are the direct cause of the declines that we are both in agreement on? Or do you see it as an inherent free market flaw where the constant drive to gain a competitive advantage causes more and more reckless behavior which forces competitors to follow suit? I don't know of a cattle growth hormone subsidy.

I guess this is the variable in our discussion.

Malcolm,
Coming from a more naive economic perspective on this issue, I think the opposite is true - the government subsidies are distorting an otherwise free market system in produce and farmed products. To me, the other variable we haven't raised yet is that the US subsidies are in many ways in response to and sustained because of European and other countries' subsidies. Americans can push for more locally grown foods, but as long as the US is competing with other devloped nations that are paying off farmers to NOT grow, the system will be distorted in the economic and supply delivery senses.

Oh, I'd be the first to admit that subsidies (in their current form anyway) are definitely influenced by international commerce. In fact for my thesis I based some of the need for public private partnerships as a response to the fact that other governments encourage R&D in other countries, so that is another point not in debate.

In agriculture (and I'm no expert in the industry) different countries find comparative advantages mainly due to climate so we don't really compete per se except with certain crops like Avocadoes here in California. But your point makes me think of Mexican imports. Avocadoes are a great example of a problem, because it is hard to predict the imports, and the crop yields. I guess that is what I mean by needing some government buffer. When the imports are high, and we produce a lot that creates even more of a glut so the pricing ends up being devasted and the local farmers suffer. This is a bad situation, because your concern is promoting locally grown produce, but the long term is yet another domestic industry being moved off shore.

Advocates argue this system has made food cheap for poor people, and that it’s only the wealthy who can buy local produce etc at the farmer’s market, etc. I call BS on that one - what do you think people did before mass farm subsidies? They bought at their local markets. The good news is that the local/fresh food movement gets bigger and bigger every year.

hmm, grow your own in your own backyard...

actually, I would say that shipping food out, processing it and shipping it back in has not made food cheaper for poor people, but allowed more profit to flow to the business owners for an inferior net result, through economies of scale and convenience to them. the business owners gain from economies of scale, but the nutritive value and freshness is diminished, which is just an 'externality' that they pass back to you.

actually, I would say that shipping food out, processing it and shipping it back in has not made food cheaper for poor people, but allowed more profit to flow to the business owners for an inferior net result, through economies of scale and convenience to them.

Leave it to DS to turn a perfectly decent discussion into yet another "the evils of corporations" derailment. Yes, the net result is inferior quality, and of course corporations benefit, but you are wrong about cost. There is no denying that food is cheaper as a result for the poor in the US. It is well documented that processed food has significantly higher calorie per price than fresh food in the current system. They are empty calories often, but from a pure substinence standpoint, processed foods are cheaper. That's just nutty.

Well, I would actually lean a little to the 'evil corporation' position. I firmly believe that if there was no one looking over their shoulder who knows what they would put in the food. The movie Supersize Me clearly had an agenda but it was eye opening. If there were no truth in advertising laws you would have corporations advertising pure sugar products as a nutritious breakfast. This is an area of concern for me as I am sure it is for you.

skibum Says:
actually, I would say that shipping food out, processing it and shipping it back in has not made food cheaper for poor people, but allowed more profit to flow to the business owners for an inferior net result, through economies of scale and convenience to them.

Leave it to DS to turn a perfectly decent discussion into yet another “the evils of corporations” derailment. Yes, the net result is inferior quality, and of course corporations benefit, but you are wrong about cost. There is no denying that food is cheaper as a result for the poor in the US. It is well documented that processed food has significantly higher calorie per price than fresh food in the current system. They are empty calories often, but from a pure substinence standpoint, processed foods are cheaper. That’s just nutty.

higher calories? isn't there an epidemic of obesity, particularly in the US? anyhow, people should be eating a more natural diet they have evolved to of whole grains, fresh fruit and vegetables for roughage and fibre and antioxidants and vitamins, some of which are broken down by processing. Macronutrients in the form of carbs, protein and fats are all too cheap and easy to come by.

Is it true that doctors still receive no proper training in nutrition and preventative medicine, skibum? Is it true that most doctors in the US are attracted first by the money? Have you done a day's study of anything outside medicine and the disease model in your life? Have you looked at how other countries operate?

I'd challenge one thing that from my own first hand experience I'd like to ask you. I keep hearing doctors saying the hype about constipation, and colon cleansing has no medical basis. I used to have all the symptoms I would see in the infomercials; my stomache bloated up, and I had little pin holes scabs that didn't seem to go away. I would go days without a movement. I went to GNC and did the 21 day clense, and it was literally amazing. I had huge movements now very regular, I feel more energetic, and lighter on my feet almost to the point of being athletic. Why do doctors disagree if they do in fact?

higher calories? isn’t there an epidemic of obesity, particularly in the US?

You miss my point. I suppose subtlety of argument is something generally lost on you. Of course there is an epidemic of obesity in the US. This is precisely because empty calorie foods are cheaper and bought by the poor, leading to obesity. Read my posts instead of glossing over them looking for points to attack out of context.

Is it true that doctors still receive no proper training in nutrition and preventative medicine, skibum? Is it true that most doctors in the US are attracted first by the money? Have you done a day’s study of anything outside medicine and the disease model in your life? Have you looked at how other countries operate?

Stop your holier-than-thou attitude - it's really childish. Your stereotypes are just as bad as anyone's. You're narrow-minded and see with blinders on. But I'll answer your questions:
- No. Most med schools have nutrition courses. Your thinking is from the 1980's.
-No. If you're attracted to money, being a doctor is not a smart thing to do. There are much better ways to make money.
-Yes. Don't make assumptions about my background. And your implication that you're some kind of compassionate renaissance man is preposterous.
-Yes. Haven't you read any of my posts?

Gimme a break. I suggest you stop making unfounded assumptions about things you know nothing about.

Malcolm,

It sounds like we agree a lot more than we disagree. I'm against the harmful market distortion of production/acres planted agriculture subsidies. I do agree that some market support/anti-dumping can result in a net positive result.

I follow the community agriculture movement quite closely and my sense is that small, substanable agriculture receives virtually no support from the federal government. The vast majority of the money is going to established corporate farming practices. I do think corn/ethanol is a red herring. Those acres would yield a better result if they were turned back into grassland/tree farms. Solar and nuclear energy is the way to go.

DS,

Are you still working as a mortgage broker?

Skibum, I have to say I admire someone who actually can use the word 'preposterous' and still sound cool.

If you get a chance, I am interested in what you think about colon cleansing.

Malcolm,
Thanks. :)
Maybe we need a colon cleansing thread...

skibum Says:
Gimme a break. I suggest you stop making unfounded assumptions about things you know nothing about.

unfortunately, the most salient and regrettable aspects of your posts are large arrays of non sequiturs and a profound inability to connect the dots. the irony is that your posts concerning me seem to be huge displays of projection...

astrid Says:
DS,
Are you still working as a mortgage broker?

hee hee. i wish. my bro just took out ownership of a MB franchise in oz tho, but I estimate that a MB here makes 1/4 of the US variety for doing the same work...

Malcolm Says:
Skibum, I have to say I admire someone who actually can use the word ‘preposterous’ and still sound cool.

his very assertion was preposterous. a self-reflexive sentence...

DS,

That may no longer be the case. My mom knows two pretty big mortgage brokers here and their businesses are down sharply.

unfortunately, the most salient and regrettable aspects of your posts are large arrays of non sequiturs and a profound inability to connect the dots. the irony is that your posts concerning me seem to be huge displays of projection…

Seems to me this pretty accurately describes your own posts.

astrid Says:
That may no longer be the case. My mom knows two pretty big mortgage brokers here and their businesses are down sharply.

i wonder how the subprime specia1ists are going… there will always be some demand for those loans, altho there could be a shake-out of MB numbers if there have been a lot of new recruits in recent times…

Seems to me this pretty accurately describes your own posts.

not at all. maybe you should read up on the 'diseases of civilisation'. you are talking about empty calories in an age of obesity and claim this 'benefits the poor' when in fact the poor could be looked after a whole lot better in the most affluent country on earth. you are failing to walk the talk, and even talk the talk, when it comes to healthy, nutritious eating. clearly the 'post-80s' nutritive medical training was lost on you. this is an era when even mcdonalds is now forced to serve salads to stay in business. in finland, it is compulsory to serve salads at all restaurants, for instance. would you tell me what the daily preferable number of standard serves of fruit and vegetables is? you are clearly in no way associated with any kind of preventative efforts in your country, sorry, just acting as an elitist doctor on a high salary talking about 'the poor'...

you are clearly in no way associated with any kind of preventative efforts in your country, sorry, just acting as an elitist doctor on a high salary talking about ‘the poor’…

DS,

CLEARLY, you continue to miss the point. I in NO WAY EVER stated that empty calories benefit the poor. I was making the argument that the poor nutritious content of processed food is yet another bad outcome of mass farming. GET A CLUE through your thick brain. As I've now stated 2-3 times, I have never advocated that the current state of nutrition in the US is healthy or good. Jeez, can you even read and interpret an argument? Can you understand sarcasm?

Instead, you've read my posts through your narrow-minded knee-jerk liberal filter of a brain and turned it personal by constantly attacking me as an "elitist doctor on a high salary." Smacks of bitterness and sour grapes to me. Besides, unlike Ha Ha, you have no idea what my salary is.

Leave it to DS to turn a perfectly decent discussion into yet another “the evils of corporations” derailment. Yes, the net result is inferior quality, and of course corporations benefit, but you are wrong about cost. There is no denying that food is cheaper as a result for the poor in the US. It is well documented that processed food has significantly higher calorie per price than fresh food in the current system. They are empty calories often, but from a pure substinence standpoint, processed foods are cheaper. That’s just nutty.

so this was irony? OK, whatever...

so this was irony? OK, whatever…

Again, you're taking quotes out of context and fitting them to your own arguments. You really do miss the forest through the trees. You either are just that clueless, or you might make a great politician. Maybe they are one in the same.

I'm not entirely sure what point it is you were trying to make -- at any time, about anything, then. Perhaps you should just enunciate a clear statement about your views of the poor, empty calories, what constitutes good nutrition, the nobility of corporations, and so on.

Your constant self-corrections and so on start to sound like Alice In Wonderland --

`And how exactly like an egg he is!' she said aloud, standing with her hands ready to catch him, for she was every moment expecting him to fall.

`It's VERY provoking,' Humpty Dumpty said after a long silence, looking away from Alice as he spoke, `to be called an egg -- VERY!'

`I said you LOOKED like an egg, Sir,' Alice gently explained. `And some eggs are very pretty, you know, she added, hoping to turn her remark into a sort of a compliment.

`Some people,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking away from her as usual, `have no more sense than a baby!'
...
'There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

`When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

I’m not entirely sure what point it is you were trying to make — at any time, about anything, then. Perhaps you should just enunciate a clear statement about your views of the poor, empty calories, what constitutes good nutrition, the nobility of corporations, and so on.

I'm done with trying to debate with you and your closed-minded point of view. You stopped making sense long ago.

Your constant self-corrections and so on start to sound like Alice In Wonderland —

Self-corrections? Now you're just making $hit up.