Obama wants to sue China ove car parts subsidies

i hope we hire a good lawyer!

Quote from Danman114 : Win/Win for any consumer of sugar? No. Win/Win for the poor farmers in foreign countries? No. Win/Win for any consumer of crops corn growers would switch to in order to earn a profit? No. Win/Win for politically connected farmers and those on the receiving end of the taxation on imported sugar? Yep. Political favoritism FTW! What a terrible situation for consumers, right?

One potential use of sugar is in making HFCS. What else do you suppose that many farmers could grow in that much bulk to replace the growing of sugar? That's an awfully big niche to fill when one of the reasons these farmers grow corn in the first place is because it is the most appropriate crop for their land.

And this at what? A hidden cost increase to the consumer of a few cents per gallon of finished sweetened product?

You're probably right that there is a good deal of corruption in the system, but ditching corn subsidies now would, any way you look at it, negatively affect American farmers, both of corn and of sugar beats. The fact is most Americans are not conscious enough consumers to consider the fiscal solvency of product producers when purchasing products. What happens to an already oversaturated job market when a bunch of corn farmers suddenly can't sell their corn and can't grow anything else to come even close to the profit they make with corn? I suppose you have a plan for them?

Quote from Mixels : One potential use of sugar is in making HFCS. What else do you suppose that many farmers could grow in that much bulk to replace the growing of sugar? That's an awfully big niche to fill when one of the reasons these farmers grow corn in the first place is because it is the most appropriate crop for their land. And this at what? A hidden cost increase to the consumer of a few cents per gallon of finished sweetened product? You're probably right that there is a good deal of corruption in the system, but ditching corn subsidies now would, any way you look at it, negatively affect American farmers, both of corn and of sugar beats. The fact is most Americans are not conscious enough consumers to consider the fiscal solvency of product producers when purchasing products. What happens to an already oversaturated job market when a bunch of corn farmers suddenly can't sell their corn and can't grow anything else to come even close to the profit they make with corn? I suppose you have a plan for them?

The problem is that a majority of corn is grown and processed by huge companies who do it almost solely because of the subsidies! Making a product that the govt subsidizes is good for their pockets, and bad for the rest of us. Its pretty vicious how the Farm Lobby operates, its mostly huge companies, but they trot out poor Farmer John anytime their money is threatened.

We are ALL paying for the corn in our diets through our taxes, before we even eat one kernel. Farmers seemed to have grown plenty of other things because corn became the rage, wheat was a big one up until the 1970s when it was more profitable to switch to corn instead, and our waistlines started increasing the next year.....

Quote from Danman114 : Why would we want tariffs (and quotas) on sugar? Most sugar producing countries are extremely poor and would love to supply us with more the good stuff.

In one of the debates, Gingrich mentioned sugar and how very powerful the sugar lobby is. I think he said he tried to reform the subsidies one time and got nowhere.

As for corn, it sticks in my mind hearing some farmers say it's stupid as hell to subsidize it and use it for things like ethanol, but that, hey, they'll keep taking the money.

Quote from Mixels : One potential use of sugar is in making HFCS. What else do you suppose that many farmers could grow in that much bulk to replace the growing of sugar? That's an awfully big niche to fill when one of the reasons these farmers grow corn in the first place is because it is the most appropriate crop for their land.

That's an answer the farmers will have to figure out. Some might still grow corn, some might grow soy beans, potatoes, green beans, wheat, cotton, whatever. It's not the government's job to tell farmers what to grow.

Quote from Mixels : And this at what? A hidden cost increase to the consumer of a few cents per gallon of finished sweetened product?

It increases the supply of corn, and decreases the supply of just about every other grow-able vegetable.

Quote from Mixels : You're probably right that there is a good deal of corruption in the system, but ditching corn subsidies now would, any way you look at it, negatively affect American farmers, both of corn and of sugar beats. The fact is most Americans are not conscious enough consumers to consider the fiscal solvency of product producers when purchasing products. What happens to an already oversaturated job market when a bunch of corn farmers suddenly can't sell their corn and can't grow anything else to come even close to the profit they make with corn? I suppose you have a plan for them?

Well, if a farmer can't adapt and grow profitable crops, they go out of business. Dems da breaks.

But if a person is growing corn and is dependent on welfare from the government taken from corn consumers, then they probably shouldn't be in the business they are in to begin with.

Quote from Danman114 : That's an answer the farmers will have to figure out. Some might still grow corn, some might grow soy beans, potatoes, green beans, wheat, cotton, whatever. It's not the government's job to tell farmers what to grow. It increases the supply of corn, and decreases the supply of just about every other grow-able vegetable. Well, if a farmer can't adapt and grow profitable crops, they go out of business. Dems da breaks. But if a person is growing corn and is dependent on welfare from the government taken from corn consumers, then they probably shouldn't be in the business they are in to begin with.

Soy beans, cotton, and wheat are already subsidized along with corn. I'm not sure about potatoes and green beans. If those subsidies are taken away from farmers and the farmers can't adapt (they go out of business), what do you expect will happen to supply curves for corn and other vegetables?

Now, the current subsidy program is broken. I don't think there's anything wrong with claiming that. Limits on how much subsidy each farm can claim haven't been enforced ever as far as I know, so big farms have just kept getting bigger (danke, economics of scale). Those limits need to be enforced to promote diverse distribution of the subsidies if the point is to help struggling American farmers. Also, if health should be brought into the picture, more comprehensive studies of HFCS should be done to determine its relative effect on human health versus equal consumption of sugar. This would be difficult to do with all the political pressure from both sides on the issue of corn subsidies. But if it could be shown that HFCS poses a health hazard where sugar does not, corn subsidies should be ended or severely lowered.

I don't think the right answer here, though, is to get rid of subsidies. It sounds silly, but if consumers saw a decrease in taxes, most of them would never notice it--but raise the prices on soda, juice, sweets, frozen veggies, milk, and more, and the public would throw a hissy fit, even if the net cost they're paying for those products is lower (which, I should point out, is certainly not the inevitable consequence of removing subsidy programs, again thanks to economics of scale). IMO we need to put an end to abuse of subsidy programs, definitely, but ending them now would hurt too many people financially in a time when no one really has the option of career-hopping.

Quote from Mixels : Soy beans, cotton, and wheat are already subsidized along with corn. I'm not sure about potatoes and green beans. If those subsidies are taken away from farmers and the farmers can't adapt (they go out of business), what do you expect will happen to supply curves for corn and other vegetables?

Potatoes and green beans are not, and we should stop subsidizing the others too.

The supply curve for corn will probably go down as we import more sugar, but this certainly isn't a bad thing, it's that natural way the economy would work if the government didn't stick its grubby hand in to favor big agri-business.

The supply would probably increase in other vegetables (making them cheaper!!!) as corn farmers pushed out of the corn market try to make a move elsewhere.

I would also envision more organic crops being grown as that seems to be a growing segment in agriculture, again lowering prices of organic crops.

Quote from Mixels : Now, the current subsidy program is broken. I don't think there's anything wrong with claiming that. Limits on how much subsidy each farm can claim haven't been enforced ever as far as I know, so big farms have just kept getting bigger (danke, economics of scale). Those limits need to be enforced to promote diverse distribution of the subsidies if the point is to help struggling American farmers.

Is the point to help struggling American farmers? What makes you think farmers are struggling any more than a restaurant owner or a coffee shop owner?

Quote from Mixels : Also, if health should be brought into the picture, more comprehensive studies of HFCS should be done to determine its relative effect on human health versus equal consumption of sugar. This would be difficult to do with all the political pressure from both sides on the issue of corn subsidies. But if it could be shown that HFCS poses a health hazard where sugar does not, corn subsidies should be ended or severely lowered.

I'd be satisfied with letting people make their own, uninterrupted decisions. Clearly limiting the supply of real sugar encourages the consumption of HFCS to the point where even soda manufacturers make the switch for the US market.

Quote from Mixels : I don't think the right answer here, though, is to get rid of subsidies. It sounds silly, but if consumers saw a decrease in taxes, most of them would never notice it--but raise the prices on soda, juice, sweets, frozen veggies, milk, and more, and the public would throw a hissy fit, even if the net cost they're paying for those products is lower (which, I should point out, is certainly not the inevitable consequence of removing subsidy programs, again thanks to economics of scale). IMO we need to put an end to abuse of subsidy programs, definitely, but ending them now would hurt too many people financially in a time when no one really has the option of career-hopping.

Could we ever end subsidies? Or does the general rule of thumb that "ending subsidies hurts people on them" hold true to infinity?

Quote from Count_Chocula : i hope we hire a good lawyer!

Heard it was Jackie Chiles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpcEietIoxk