MRJ said:Econ101 said:Charlie1948 said:You guys don't seem to get the picture Parity Parity the Hell with all this blame one thinks the other is wright the other thinks he is.
I want to see us the American Farmer Rancher get the cost of production + a resonable profit .The Dam government set this Parity up in 1910 -1914 years and went on for years and then they let it go no on knows why.
But I will argue with you all day and nite about the price we getand we can't price our products like every other business in this great nation.
Some of you have been brain washed into thinking we cant and have to let supply and demand rule that does't work.Been there done that.They manupilate the markets.If we don't get our head out of our asses we will not be able to farm in the future.Let't here some more bull s*** on why we can't get a fare price come on boys new year sulealy you guys have more blame BS .
Now I hope every one had a good NewYears and hope you all have a good year ahead.
Charlie, I understand your argument on parity. I agree with it. The reason you can't make a living in agriculture is because instead of having policies that decrease supply, the government has policies of increasing the supply. It leads to a lower cost product for the people who hire the lobbiests and give the political donations. It is a cheap food policy.
Secretary Johannes has had to go out on a fact finding and listening tour for the next farm bill. The secretary of Agriculture for the state of Lousiana got up and told him that the reason we are not going to have enough farmers in the future is because agriculture doesn't pay. He was right.
I thought it was so hypocritical of the Secretary of Agriculture to get on RFDTV in front of an audience of mostly FFA students and talk about the future of farming and the next farm bill. The current cheap food policies of this government is cheating farmers out of their value of their assets and their labor. He is the leader and main enforcer of this policy.
Tyson found a way of reducing the supply of beef----at the expense of the beef market----- and profited greatly from that contraction through their poultry business. At the same time, they are cheating the poultry farmers. Supply management will happen---when the packers have the tools that give them the profits from that supply management. They have them in poultry. They will get them in the beef markets unless they are stopped. Pickett was the best chance of that happening amiacably through the system of justice we have in this country.
The 11th circuit just peed on that process.
IF, and it is a big IF, there is an orchestrated "cheap food policy", isn't it more likely to be about voters than about keeping lobbyists happy?
What do we have more of, consumers or lobbyists? Bingo! Politicians want the VOTERS (consumers of food, one and all!) happy! Farm Programs and subsidies are not about farmers. They are to enable farmers to produce food and keep food costs low FOR VOTERS!
MRJ
MRJ, voters don't like to pay taxes but they do. They don't like to pay for their gas bills, their auto loans, or the electric bill. They still do it.
We have a cheap food policy not because of voters, but because we have some really wimpy politicians that are cow towing to those who are paying for their campaigns. We have politicians that are willing to pay for what they spend today with the children of tomorrow's paychecks and earning power. Put it on the country's credit card. Give out corporate welfare. Pay the minimum payment of interest only and pay the principle back with the future children of this country's earning power.
Today we have plenty of politicians and not enough statesmen.