RobertMac said:
When a subsidy becomes a government program, its value is figured into a producer's production loan. The producer then becomes a conduit for money to support the supply industry and reduce lender risk. The producer still operates on low margins with a profit or lose depending on their management skill compared to the average.
RM - you nailed this issue perfectly. While the check might be made out to the producer, the only benefit he or she actually receives is to be able to stay in business.
The true beneficiaries are the commercials and the consumers, who have the luxury of plentiful, cheap, cheap raw product and food.
What I find most disturbing about this scenario is that the industries that use our commodities are little more than pimps who take full advantage of our ability and apparent willingness to continue producing an excellent, reliable supply at a price that does not reflect our true cost.
And on the consumer side of the equation - well, they are totally immersed in their conditioned belief that they deserve to go to the store day after day, year after year, generation after generation, and find the shelves full of the best and cheapest supply of food in the whole world.
All the while, they show almost no understanding or gratitude for the ones who ensure this abundant supply for their consumption.
So that is why I got off of the treadmill of mainstream thinking and production. I refuse to be a slave to a system whose appreciation for my contribution is forgotten as soon as they burp after supper.
I will long remember the comment made years ago by my Dad's cousin from Northern New York State when they were discussing farm economics. His solution was quite simple - "Let the bastards starve!" How do you like that for succinct expression of his thoughts?
Can you maybe tell that this has been a burr under the blanket for me?