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 (183558)	2/25/2004 12:30:20 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574261

What the hell is wrong with farm subsidies? 1 - They cost billions of dollars. So does military hardware......billions upon billions. 2 - Many of them are structured to increase food prices which hurts consumers esp. the poor. No, they're not.......they are set up to guarantee the farmers a subsistence standard of living. Trust me, no farmer is getting rich off of Uncle Sam. 3 - Like all subsidies they create a situation where resources are less efficiently used. How is that? 4 - Third world countries are impoverished by food trade barriers and subsidies. Third world countries are impoverished for lots of reasons and can't afford to buy foor or anything else for that matter on the open market. ted

To: TimF who wrote (183558)	2/25/2004 10:15:07 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574261

Tim Re...Re...1 - They cost billions of dollars. I haven't checked out the cost in the most recent budget but I know in the past they have been over $20bil a year, and that is just the actual government spending it doesn't include the indirect costs. Technically, every expenditure, in the budget costs money. The more pertinent question is, do we, the general public get our money's worth. Subsidies, if they could be precisely targeted enough, such that they actually did, what their proponents claim, could be worth the money, as food is very important to me, and a little insurance, such that the corporations couldn't manipulate prices and supply, would be a judicious use of mine and the publics money. 2 - Many of them are structured to increase food prices which hurts consumers esp. the poor. That I think is a false statement. The history, of corporations, is littered with examples of corporations, limiting competition and manipulating supply, to create an optimum price; much as MSFT regulates the price of Windows, based on their maximum profits, not cost to produce. Food is far too important, to take that risk. While the small farmers are less efficient, and produce less/ acre, they also provide diversity of supply, and right now, diversity will be a problem, before lack of supply. 4 - Third world countries are impoverished by food trade barriers and subsidies Boy, that is really pushing the quid pro quo thing quite a bit. Yes, cheap food, and subsidies can hurt local farmers, but it does feed the poor, if only short term. The obvious answer, is to supply both, cheap food for the poor, and the technology, such that their farmers can grow food, at a competitive prices. That said, you must also build up their whole industrial sector, such that those farmers you displace, with your technology, have a place to go. In the end, it gets to be a complicated mess, which is why we are stuck with the simplest, short term solution.