Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (108716)	5/1/2000 2:08:00 PM
From: pgerassi	Respond to of 1576858

Dear TW Fowler: HIstorically, subsidies have been sold to the people at large, usually when there are shortages, as paying a higher price now so that you will have enough when supply interruptions occur. The problem is that, what you get is too much production most of the time. This is where the "Pay you not to grow" policies came from. We will keep you in business, if you have the ability to plant when we need it (stockpiles not big enough). This constant oversupply, is what is exported to other countries at "Dumping" prices. The farmers in this country grow so much, that rots in storage, that we could feed about 30 to 40 percent of the world all by ourselves. Furthermore, we have the capacity, by changing what we grow, to feed about 3 to 4 Billion people. In general, we need better storage techniques than subsidies. We can store food in such a way, with current technology, that keeps it usuable for 5 to 10 years. This was not the case, when the subsidies were passed. In my opinion, all current subsidies, including those that lead to large corporate farms, should be removed. And laws to stop the practice of cornering the markets be enforced much more. This leads to a much more "sane" and predictable market. This is the better way to do it. Pete

To: TimF who wrote (108716)	5/1/2000 9:45:00 PM
From: kash johal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576858

TW, re:"Historically must subsidies have INCREASED food prices. Eliminateing subsides, in particular price supports, would lower food prices. A free market, results in more freedom, more economic efficancy, more overall wealth, AND is often better for the poor as well. If we are going to do anything to help the poor, then it should be done in the least economicly distorting way. Private charity, or public aid like food stamps is better then manipulating the whole market to bring down prices, and remember most government intervention in agriculture increases prices." You sound like a real believer in the true free market for political and philiosophical reasons. If you look at history, it is pretty clear that the "free market" needs controls or it runs roughshod over individual peoples rights. And there are also strategic reasons for a country to want to control its means of food manufacturing or military manufacturing or power generation or education services etc. If your argument is that subsidies are inefficent then i would tend to agree with you. The most efficent form of government is a dictatorship. Just look at all the money we would save if we got rid of all the politicians. Hell we could save some more my having all the prisoners do hard labour. And then we could force all the unemployed folks to do work too - gee that would save bug bucks too. And kids don't learn anything much in school - why not have the ones (over 12-13 or so) who don't make the grade and have no chance - get kicked out and start working for a living. Hell i'm sure i can some up with a whole bunch more original ideas if i had to. Kash