Jim Hlavac
| Politics Home The Practicalist The Socialist Era Politics Re-Explained Fundamentals Domestic Affairs Economic Theory Foreign Affairs Libertarian Ideas Political Theory Philosophy Royalty & Theology |
Domestic Affairs
I would think that it's time to go through all the economic statutes and single out those
passed before certain milestone years: Before World War One, and before World
War Two -- and go look and see what still makes sense and what is dangling on the
abyss of absurdity.
A lot of subsidies to farmers would seem to be on the chopping block. Why are
we paying farmers to produce more, covering their losses, and then paying them
even more to sell or warehouse their produce?
The liberals want us to continue the farm subsidies so that we can give all the
food to the poor. The conservatives want us to continue the farm subsidies so that
we can hoard all the food in case of a national emergency. But they both want the
same thing -- a continuation of farm subsidies. And the reasons they give is that the
farmer is basically more productive than there are people to buy the produce. So
instead of looking for more customers they argue over giving it away or hoarding it.
No one seems to be looking at selling it.
Of course, this is because the poor people of the world don't have the money to
buy the produce. Which brings in foreign policy -- the rest of the world is poor
because they work hard at being poor. And thus the only solution is to make them
rich so that they can afford to buy more food.
Why are we giving 100 million a year to mohair producers? Why is the price of
peanuts kept artificially high by limiting production? Do we still need to protect the
peanut farmers from the Depression? Yet we have a 114 billion dollar farm
subsidies program, all to bring us bloated bureaucracy, higher prices, poverty
abroad.
Now what would happen if we took just say, 114 billion and put that to use in
creating companies headed by farmers to go to our southern neighbors to train
people in modern methods, and in setting up the systems needed for production,
processing, storing, distributing, and financing? All of these areas are woefully
inadequate in most of the world.
So as subsidies are eliminated and some farmers might go out of business as
farmers, they would lend their expertise to the rest of the world and make quite a
handsome living at it. Programs to provide food aid are in fact giving the man the
fish, and not teaching him how to fish.
passed before certain milestone years: Before World War One, and before World
War Two -- and go look and see what still makes sense and what is dangling on the
abyss of absurdity.
A lot of subsidies to farmers would seem to be on the chopping block. Why are
we paying farmers to produce more, covering their losses, and then paying them
even more to sell or warehouse their produce?
The liberals want us to continue the farm subsidies so that we can give all the
food to the poor. The conservatives want us to continue the farm subsidies so that
we can hoard all the food in case of a national emergency. But they both want the
same thing -- a continuation of farm subsidies. And the reasons they give is that the
farmer is basically more productive than there are people to buy the produce. So
instead of looking for more customers they argue over giving it away or hoarding it.
No one seems to be looking at selling it.
Of course, this is because the poor people of the world don't have the money to
buy the produce. Which brings in foreign policy -- the rest of the world is poor
because they work hard at being poor. And thus the only solution is to make them
rich so that they can afford to buy more food.
Why are we giving 100 million a year to mohair producers? Why is the price of
peanuts kept artificially high by limiting production? Do we still need to protect the
peanut farmers from the Depression? Yet we have a 114 billion dollar farm
subsidies program, all to bring us bloated bureaucracy, higher prices, poverty
abroad.
Now what would happen if we took just say, 114 billion and put that to use in
creating companies headed by farmers to go to our southern neighbors to train
people in modern methods, and in setting up the systems needed for production,
processing, storing, distributing, and financing? All of these areas are woefully
inadequate in most of the world.
So as subsidies are eliminated and some farmers might go out of business as
farmers, they would lend their expertise to the rest of the world and make quite a
handsome living at it. Programs to provide food aid are in fact giving the man the
fish, and not teaching him how to fish.
| Domestic Affairs |