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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kirk © who wrote (6458)	8/5/1998 9:28:00 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Re: "Can you tell me again why agribusiness is more important than high tech and deserves government protection?" Yes. If we have a famine, you can't eat chips. By protecting agribusiness, we make sure there is a surplus of food in good times, so we don't have to starve in bad times.

To: Kirk © who wrote (6458)	8/6/1998 1:13:00 AM
From: Sandy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Kirk - If my computer goes down it may be inconvenient, but I won't die. If I have nothing to eat, I will starve to death. Compaq can control it's production of PC's, the farmer has no control over his production because of the weather and other growing conditions. I have no problem, as a taxpayer, supporting the farmers, but I do have a HUGE problem with my tax dollars being spent paying farmers to not farm. And if I really want to get myself boiling I think about my tax dollars being spent to subsidize tobacco! Sandy J

To: Kirk © who wrote (6458)	8/6/1998 1:05:00 PM
From: Trebor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

>They overproduce and the government steps in and buys up their surplus so they don't have to take a loss...< If you are referring to the recent USDA purchase of a few million bushels of grain to give to Africa, that's nothing more than congressional and presidential window-dressing to give the impression they are dealing with the problem. It may raise the price of grain a few cents, but it is still below the cost of production for most farmers. Wheat has gone from $5.75 per bushel in 1997 to $2.50 now, the lowest price since 1991. Corn has gone from $4.50 in '97 to $2.11 now. This graph shows the precipitous drop in corn prices: usda.gov And this graph shows the rapidly widening gap between what farmers receive for their efforts vs. what it costs them to produce it: usda.gov And if we're paying farmers so much to "over-produce", why are experts predicting a $7.5 billion decline this year in farm income -- more than seven times the cost of the GM strike? Plus it's not a matter of over-production, it's a matter of declining exports due to the Asian situation, the high price of the dollar, etc. Cotton growers aren't over-producing, they are plowing up their crops in California and Texas due to both poor yields (too much rain in CA, not enough in TX) and the fact that the price they will receive this fall is less than their costs to bring the crop to harvest. Where you got the notion that farmers "don't have to take a loss" is beyond me. Anyway, my intent was not to stir up a debate on farm policy as much as to lament the fact that this story and other equally important ones are being neglected because our news media (and apparently the American public) can't focus on anything larger than Willie and his wee wee. It's a sorry, sorry chapter in American history. Can we agree on that much? Your other points need addressing too but right now I've got to go stuff my face with cheap food.

To: Kirk © who wrote (6458)	8/6/1998 5:44:00 PM
From: Alan Whirlwind	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Kirk, As a long time farmer I can tell you that subsidies are gradually being eliminated. And to tell you the truth, a lot of farm subsidy money went into the pockets of tax write-off city folk and big wheels who wouldn't know fertilizer from Ralph Acampora. Farmers are subject to commodity price swings that wipe them out in cycles, thus subsidies to keep things stable. Of course the programs were a boondoggle in many cases. In Wisconsin, taxes on farm land soared in 1970's and '80's much faster than people in town saw. So my impression was that we were subsidizing the city folk for awhile ourselves. If we ever see a decade of weather like the 1930's again, a lot of people will long for the days of subsidies when they could afford to eat. Food prices would climb ten-fold. --Alan