5 ms·

> I believe it's all about price control on the supply side, not capacity. That doesn't contradict GP's point. Keeping prices from dropping too low reduces inc

> I believe it's all about price control on the supply side, not capacity. That doesn't contradict GP's point. Keeping prices from dropping too low reduces incentives for farmers to exit the business, thereby maintaining high capacity for when it's needed.

giantg2 5y ago
"thereby maintaining high capacity for when it's needed." How so? We're talking about acres not farmers. Small farms can go under and larger farms will take over working the land. We saw that in the 80s. The land being conserved is generally lower capacity anyways (they aren't going enroll the high producing acres). So it might not contradict in theory, but the evidence from the current situation seems to support that the capacity is not valued and only the price control reason is. Is there any support for the idea that it's about having reserve capacity to utilize? Has it ever been utilized?
- modmans2nd 5y ago
  If farmers can't profitably farm they sell the land off to other interests or go bankrupt. People are not choosing to go into farming....at all. thus a bankrupt farm will sit fallow, be bought by some golf course development, or be turned into a "nature preserve", reducing capacity. The dots are not hard to connect.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    The dots connect differently than you suggest. Sure, maybe in a suburban area the farms turn to golf courses. Many small farms are scooped up by larger farms. Looks like almost 10% reduction in number of farms since '86 and the size of the large farms have increased. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/big-farms-are-getting-bigger-and-most-small-farms-arent-really-farms-at-all/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/big-farms-are-getting-b...
  - supportlocal4h 5y ago
    This is obviously false. If nobody at all had gone into farming in the last 40 years, there would be no farmers left. Let me introduce you to my neighbors, the farmers. Hint: they don't live in San Francisco. Drive through Central Valley and guess how many 20-40 year old farmers are involved in all that food production. There are much fewer farmers than there used to be. But simple math tells you that more food consumption divided by fewer farmers provides a huge opportunity for more profit per farmer. If you are politically- and business-savvy enough you can become enormously wealthy.
- kube-system 5y ago
  Protection from disruptions by political and/or environmental factors are primary goals of agriculture policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_policy#Objectives_of_market_intervention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_policy#Objectives...
  - giantg2 5y ago
    That's in general. Price controls are an agricultural policy too. Do you have something that shows which general policies apply to which specific ones?
    - kube-system 5y ago
      As an example, the Conservation Reserve Program is pretty clear about its purpose. > CRP protects more than 20 millions of acres of American topsoil from erosion and is designed to safeguard the nation’s natural resources https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/2019/conservation-reserve_program-fact_sheet.pdf https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/Fa...
      - giantg2 5y ago
        That's not the same as what you were claiming.
        kube-system 5y ago
        I don’t see how “Protecting topsoil from erosion” is not obviously in direct support to the “environmental factors” claim above.
        giantg2 5y ago
        The claim/policy being discussed is about preserved land being set aside for the purpose of using it when additional capacity is needed. So far there is no evidence that is the purpose, since it has never been unenrolled or utilized, even as there is talk about food crisis related to the war in Ukraine. If anything, the information you've posted seems to support my position that the policy is not about utilizing that additional capacity, but about other goals. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/why-does-the-govt-pay-farmers https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/why-does-the-govt-pay-f...
- roenxi 5y ago
  In theory I think the capital needed to farm might be the real issue; it needs to be maintained even if it is unprofitable to do so in a given year. I'm in two minds. We can't afford for anything to go wrong with food security, so it might make sense to do something otherwise wildly stupid if it contributes to people not starving to death. But I question whether any given policy is likely to help or if it is a handout for nothing. But to resolve that specific policies, places & examples are needed. Debating theory isn't enough.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    The real issue is that most primary sector industries can't compete internationally due to the cost of living difference. The capital expense and living expense is high, while the profits are low since other countries can produce the product more cheaply. We subsidize crop production. Without these subsidies our products wouldn't even be close to competing on the international marketplace. It could be interesting to what happens with subsidies removed, but I'm guessing the affect would be large and negative.

giantg2 5y ago

"thereby maintaining high capacity for when it's needed." How so? We're talking about acres not farmers. Small farms can go under and larger farms will take over working the land. We saw that in the 80s. The land being conserved is generally lower capacity anyways (they aren't going enroll the high producing acres). So it might not contradict in theory, but the evidence from the current situation seems to support that the capacity is not valued and only the price control reason is. Is there any support for the idea that it's about having reserve capacity to utilize? Has it ever been utilized?

modmans2nd 5y ago
If farmers can't profitably farm they sell the land off to other interests or go bankrupt. People are not choosing to go into farming....at all. thus a bankrupt farm will sit fallow, be bought by some golf course development, or be turned into a "nature preserve", reducing capacity. The dots are not hard to connect.
- giantg2 5y ago
  The dots connect differently than you suggest. Sure, maybe in a suburban area the farms turn to golf courses. Many small farms are scooped up by larger farms. Looks like almost 10% reduction in number of farms since '86 and the size of the large farms have increased. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/big-farms-are-getting-bigger-and-most-small-farms-arent-really-farms-at-all/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/big-farms-are-getting-b...
- supportlocal4h 5y ago
  This is obviously false. If nobody at all had gone into farming in the last 40 years, there would be no farmers left. Let me introduce you to my neighbors, the farmers. Hint: they don't live in San Francisco. Drive through Central Valley and guess how many 20-40 year old farmers are involved in all that food production. There are much fewer farmers than there used to be. But simple math tells you that more food consumption divided by fewer farmers provides a huge opportunity for more profit per farmer. If you are politically- and business-savvy enough you can become enormously wealthy.
kube-system 5y ago
Protection from disruptions by political and/or environmental factors are primary goals of agriculture policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_policy#Objectives_of_market_intervention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_policy#Objectives...
- giantg2 5y ago
  That's in general. Price controls are an agricultural policy too. Do you have something that shows which general policies apply to which specific ones?
  - kube-system 5y ago
    As an example, the Conservation Reserve Program is pretty clear about its purpose. > CRP protects more than 20 millions of acres of American topsoil from erosion and is designed to safeguard the nation’s natural resources https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/2019/conservation-reserve_program-fact_sheet.pdf https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/Fa...
    - giantg2 5y ago
      That's not the same as what you were claiming.
      - kube-system 5y ago
        I don’t see how “Protecting topsoil from erosion” is not obviously in direct support to the “environmental factors” claim above.
        giantg2 5y ago
        The claim/policy being discussed is about preserved land being set aside for the purpose of using it when additional capacity is needed. So far there is no evidence that is the purpose, since it has never been unenrolled or utilized, even as there is talk about food crisis related to the war in Ukraine. If anything, the information you've posted seems to support my position that the policy is not about utilizing that additional capacity, but about other goals. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/why-does-the-govt-pay-farmers https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/why-does-the-govt-pay-f...
roenxi 5y ago
In theory I think the capital needed to farm might be the real issue; it needs to be maintained even if it is unprofitable to do so in a given year. I'm in two minds. We can't afford for anything to go wrong with food security, so it might make sense to do something otherwise wildly stupid if it contributes to people not starving to death. But I question whether any given policy is likely to help or if it is a handout for nothing. But to resolve that specific policies, places & examples are needed. Debating theory isn't enough.
- giantg2 5y ago
  The real issue is that most primary sector industries can't compete internationally due to the cost of living difference. The capital expense and living expense is high, while the profits are low since other countries can produce the product more cheaply. We subsidize crop production. Without these subsidies our products wouldn't even be close to competing on the international marketplace. It could be interesting to what happens with subsidies removed, but I'm guessing the affect would be large and negative.