• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Sweet Deal For Who?

Econ101

Well-known member
What’s up Sandhusker?

Yesterday Secretary Johanns was on C-span talking about policy positions of the USDA in the upcoming Farm Bill. I could not believe what I heard him say regarding another agriculture commodity, sugar. It is absolute lunacy.

For those of you who do not know about the sugar industry, Congress has set up a program of price stabilization that comes strictly from the limiting of the supply of sugar on the domestic market. By limiting the supply of sugar on the domestic market via limited import quotas and quotas on domestic sugar production, they increase the price for the domestic market that is above the world price equilibrium. The world price of sugar is based on a thinner market. It is often erratic and affected greatly by the dumping of sugar on the world market by other countries. The quota policy takes the beta or the variability (price risk) from a world market price dominated by the aforementioned factors and to a more stable domestic limited supply /and demand. The U.S. domestic price is generally higher than the world market price but it is so in many other countries in Europe who have the same goals for sugar production in their countries. Sugar, after WWII, was considered a strategic commodity and domestic production was protected by this policy for strategic reasons.

This policy was also continued partly in response to trading with countries friendly to U.S. strategic interest and excluding one of the large producers of sugar on the world market, Cuba.

As a side note, the sugar industry has been hurt in terms of market share because of this policy, notably from competition of fructose from corn, but price stability has been achieved for the most part for sugar relative to the world price of sugar. This has kept many sugar producers in the business as other crops have had decreasing profitability. Amalgamated Sugar (a sugar beet processor) was bought out the farmers from a private holder not too long ago and so many farmers have an investment in the crop and the processing of the crop.

Now comes the Secretary of Agriculture. Yesterday in his articulation of USDA policy on sugar, he stated that the program would remain the same with one notable exception. In the past, if international imports exceeded a certain amount (and it conceivably be the case with Mexico under NAFTA), the domestic producers could sell their supply over their production quotas. Now the Secretary of Agriculture of the U.S. says that it will be administration policy to keep domestic quotas despite an over the quota limit by importers.

In the past, if domestic producers had extra supply, they had to sit on it or sell it on the world market. Now, if they have extra supply, countries like Mexico can go over the import quota and US producers still have to support the domestic price by keeping their quota.

With policies like these, why should we have a USDA? What function do they perform other than shafting domestic producers?

Sandhusker, he was your governor, what has happened to Johanns?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
He was a dang good governor. A while back I was visiting with my Congressman, Tom Osborne. I told him that when Mike was appointed Secretary, I was very happy and confident that Mike would be a good secretary as well and would clean up the USDA. However, I told Tom that I was very disappointed as Mike never changed a thing - that it was just the samo-samo. Tom kind of lowered his voice and said, "Mike's problem is that he has the same people above him and the same below him as the last secretary". That tells me what power the secretary actually has - none.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It doesn't matter who the Secretary of Agriculture is, as soon as they get that position and start basing their decisions on factual information, the blamers turn on them because they don't tell blamers what they want to hear.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
After Johanns explained the new policy decision his handlers out of camera and in front of him told him to move on. It was obvious in the press conference.

Why would a governor who was decent want to turn into a puppet?

We have had a run of sorry Secretaries in the Agriculture Dept. Maybe all below need to be fired and start over. I am sure many of them can get a job with the people they are really working for and get off the public dole.

I see a lot of ideologues in our government who have no depth.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
When Johanns explained the new policy direction, the handlers in front of him and out of camera range told him to move on. It was very obvious.

Why would a decent governor want a job as a puppet?

We have had a run of sorry Secretaries in the Agriculture department with the strings being pulled by politicians who are not ideologues but who are the whores of our democracy.

I was watching another C-SPAN show on the FCC and have watched hearings on the FDA. Seems to be the same there too.

How can we expect to help set up a foreign government when these type of actions are rampant here in the U.S.?

I guess they think they are great puppeteers.
 
Top