Logos
New member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- U.S.A.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
These subsidizes are something I don’t understand.
From what I have been told in talks with people is that we subsidize beef, and other agriculture for reasons like national pride (like japan subsidizing rice), in war time it’s good to be able to produce your own food, lobbying, and economic leverage with 3rd world countries.
The benefits seem to me to out way the cons of not subsidizing. For example:
National pride - America isn’t held together from pride in our agriculture
Food supply during war - we produce enough food for many times the population of the U.S.
Lobbying - well money talks
Economic leverage - the value of our trade would be just as influential to the 3rd world
Diversifies our economy - it does make up one percent of our economy but we would wipe out agriculture.
Not subsidizing saves us tax money, may lower costs of the product, improves our standing with the countries we would be trading with, produces ligitament jobs in countries that need them without major job loss at home.
So why do we do it? Is their anyone here that really supports it? I haven’t met anyone in real life that does. Europe does it too so their must be some value to it that I don’t know if about all of the developing world is doing it.
Another question. Are these farmers who are subsidized making a profit in total including what taxpayers are paying for them or is it a overall loss of money?
Someone please shed some light on why we do it, cause I have not a clue.
P.S. Did anything ever happen with the subsides fight that Europe and America were having with the 3rd world recently or did we put it off.
From what I have been told in talks with people is that we subsidize beef, and other agriculture for reasons like national pride (like japan subsidizing rice), in war time it’s good to be able to produce your own food, lobbying, and economic leverage with 3rd world countries.
The benefits seem to me to out way the cons of not subsidizing. For example:
National pride - America isn’t held together from pride in our agriculture
Food supply during war - we produce enough food for many times the population of the U.S.
Lobbying - well money talks
Economic leverage - the value of our trade would be just as influential to the 3rd world
Diversifies our economy - it does make up one percent of our economy but we would wipe out agriculture.
Not subsidizing saves us tax money, may lower costs of the product, improves our standing with the countries we would be trading with, produces ligitament jobs in countries that need them without major job loss at home.
So why do we do it? Is their anyone here that really supports it? I haven’t met anyone in real life that does. Europe does it too so their must be some value to it that I don’t know if about all of the developing world is doing it.
Another question. Are these farmers who are subsidized making a profit in total including what taxpayers are paying for them or is it a overall loss of money?
Someone please shed some light on why we do it, cause I have not a clue.
P.S. Did anything ever happen with the subsides fight that Europe and America were having with the 3rd world recently or did we put it off.