tungsten on 1/7/2006 at 02:10
Or maybe a "free market" is simply not a good model for a stable and functioning (world-) economy.
The rich nations always say it it the right thing, but only when it suits their ends (not along the farming or textile lane..). A "free market" is like communism, a model that was tried in part, and failed miserably because it just doesn't work with human beings. It's time for some genious to come up with something better.
Ko0K on 1/7/2006 at 02:17
Quote Posted by Starrfall
Yeah, but the
smart ones get summer jobs in nice air conditioned retirement homes. ;)
I think plenty of people would be willing to work field jobs as long as the conditions weren't shitty, but I think aguy is right to say it still wouldn't be enough. I don't know much about the workings of agriculture, but I do know (or assume) that some things HAVE to be tended/picked by hand (strawberries, vineyards, etc) and out here I've seen fields of those fuckers bigger than most of the cities I've lived in. They're so massive and so relatively far removed from the bigger population centers that I can't imagine there's enough casual american workers to handle it all.
There is a vineyard not far from where I work, and I am yet to see a single teenager around there who isn't a Latino. But that's hardly representative of anything.
Mingan on 1/7/2006 at 03:27
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
Q: Does Canada allow dual citizenship, or does a child born of American parents visiting Canada lose their Canadian citizenship if they become American citizens?
I think so, but I don't have the law texts before me, so it might not be so clear. But I can't see why it shouldn't be allowed.
Renegen on 1/7/2006 at 04:34
Quote Posted by tungsten
Or maybe a "free market" is simply not a good model for a stable and functioning (world-) economy.
The rich nations always say it it the right thing, but only when it suits their ends (not along the farming or textile lane..). A "free market" is like communism, a model that was tried in part, and failed miserably because it just doesn't work with human beings. It's time for some genious to come up with something better.
Now comon, the rich countries may profit from the cheap exports from the 3rd world countries and even set them to fail in the future, but what will any politician do in the short term when he could improve the economy of his country by imposing tariffs? Plus, the free market just does't work for some industries because they are vital to survival, for example the job market.
Tony on 1/7/2006 at 12:25
Quote Posted by Convict
America and the EU (Japan?) should perhaps be importing much more of their food from countries that can produce it more efficiently - e.g. Australia and developing countries. Indeed, many economists attribute problems of the 3rd and 2nd world to these very subsidies Americans and European (inefficient) farmers get.
Do you realize that the reason the American governent pays farmers is to
not grow too much food? Only Israel has more efficient farming than America, in terms of being able to produce food. The reason the United States government doesn't want "too much food" in America is because it would mess with the economy. I believe it is something along the lines of a case where no one will farm because food has so little value on the market.
SD on 1/7/2006 at 12:52
Quote Posted by Tony
I believe it is something along the lines of a case where no one will farm because food has so little value on the market.
Nah. If some farmers stop farming because food is too abundant, then food will become scarcer and its value will rise again. The market if left alone will always find an equilibrium, so people will always farm, and you will never have a situation where it is uneconomic to produce food. The subsidies are actually there to stop the market from finding that equlibrium, as it would result in lots of farmers leaving the farming trade. The simple reason for this is that there are too many farmers in developed countries.
Deep Qantas on 1/7/2006 at 16:56
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Nah. If some farmers stop farming because food is too abundant, then food will become scarcer and its value will rise again.
And in the mean time how many people starve to death? Farming is slow business.
TheGreatGodPan on 1/7/2006 at 19:54
Farming is subsidized for political, not economic reasons. There is no good "too important" for the market. The more important it is, the more vital that the market handle it without government interference. There are about as many (if not more) people working for the bureau of agriculture than actual farmers, and it doesn't have any connection to any sort of marginal utility of ag bureau employees vs. farmers.
Don't try to equivocate between the "failure" of capitalism and communism. If we restrict our analysis to real world examples, communism fails miserably against any more capitalist example, and capitalist countries do poorly only in comparison to other capitalist countries.
Deep Qantas, no one will starve to death, except bulimics and anorexics. Don't be silly.
Chimpy Chompy on 1/7/2006 at 20:31
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
There is no good "too important" for the market. The more important it is, the more vital that the market handle it without government interference.
That's very debatable.
Deep Qantas on 3/7/2006 at 05:07
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
Don't be silly.
Fair enough. :p
But the point is that crops can't keep up with the speed of market fluctuations. If there's not enough food being produced and the prices go up it'll still take a long while to get new farms going. While waiting for that to happen you'll have to import your food from other countries. That'll cost dearly.
Food is vital to the people and therefore to the government. Market is about profits. That's why I will refuse to believe this:
Quote:
The more important it is, the more vital that the market handle it without government interference.
