WiFi Petition

[Robben_DuMarsch]

Why don't the farmers make a union then? In a free market and as long as there is competition. They could help eachother without the goverments involvement. The responsibility should not be on the government as they tend to muck things up.

"Glorious People's Farmers Union of Lord of War"

Because anyone at any time could undermine their pact by opting out, to take advantage of the cash crops at the expense of everyone else.
In a free market, everyone would be placing their individual profit at risk to be undermined by anyone else that chooses they would rather opt out, and pull in the big bucks at the expense of the others. This is especially likely when everyone is responsible for their own individual profit.

They need a more binding authority to ensure compliance. That is what the Government provides.

[Lord_of_War]

They would opt out and them be screwed by the market the next year and go out of business. The economy would force them not to opt out. Are you asking to be my slave for the glory of the peoples union? I'll find you some cotton to pick. And yes I know you have a thing for me but the answer is still no.

Government force costs money. Soldiers and police cost money. Bribery costs money.The government is an inefficient way to get something done.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

They would opt out and them be screwed by the market the next year and go out of business. The economy would force them not to opt out.

The economy would do no such thing. Farmers would have two choices:

1. Agree to work as part of this "union", and earn X number of currency. X = (market rate of crops - cost of subsidy) + (percentage of participants x production advantage of coordinated farming production).
2. Not agree to work as part of the union, and earn X+Y number of currency. Y = Economic incentive of growing cash crops.

Individual wealth, the basis for the a "free market" favors the later choice in the short term, or if you are the only person to profit at the expense of the others. All it would take is a few people to decide to go in for the extra money, either because they lack altruism or they just plain want more money. Then suddenly, the members of Pool 1 would need to join Pool 2 to stay competitive, as the profit of X has diminished and the additional profit of Y is needed to maintain equity.

By introducing subsidies, the Government takes all of "Y Profit" and distributes it on any given year to those who participate in Pool 1, therefore eliminating Pool 2, and maximizing total efficiency.

It's not complicated stuff, but you are obviously struggling with the fallacy that "free markets are the most efficient form of economy." This is a falsehood perpetrated by those who can take economic advantage of the lack of restrictions in the free market economies by maximizing their own wealth at the expense of the total wealth, and by those who are not wise enough to see that they are being duped by the former individuals.

[dagrimreefah]

Everyone's best interest in a free market is not in maximizing profit. It is in maximizing their own profit, even at the expense of the overall profit. This is the important distinction.

This is not an important distinction. You are blindly holding faith and jumping to conclusions that it is. Everyone is competing with eachother, even if there were total government. That is the distinction you fail to see.

Food commodities fluctuate in price, depending on their availability in a given year due to crop conditions. The free market "lags" behind the agricultural sector.

Blind faith speaking again. No it doesn't. The free market does not "lag" behind. Where in the hell did you come up with such nonsense? If the market does "lag" behind like you think it does, someone will be there to capitalize off of that lag thus bringing stability.

Without subsidies to cover "bad years" for corn, wheat, and rice farmers (and everything else), you couldn't have more dedicated production, you would need to diversify to remain profitable. Therefore, farmers operating under a "free market" system are required to predict what supply and demand will be the next year, to generate the greatest (or often, in the case of farmers, just sufficient) profit. In having to run farms that can handle several kinds of crop, they put more work into less production.

Without the government trying to micromanage the economy, prices would be stable. Therefore, farmers would have more capital available/there'd be more farmers to meet future demand requirements. You think the economy is just a little machine that can be managed this way or that, never considering the impact prices have on the allocation of resources. Prices (i.e. interest rates for LOANS as well, for those farmers who are having a "bad year") are best left to the market, which means NO SUBSIDIES. Subsidies screw up prices, fucking up ANY market, including agriculture.

As for your other arguments which you wonderfully summed up as:

You just don't know your history.

Because you don't. Obviously.

I suggest that it isn't history that I am unaware of. It is *your* specific brand of skewed, partial, and inaccurate history that I do not know.

If you do not know it, how do you know its skewed and inaccurate?

It looks like you have taken a lot of things you don't understand, provided them a label, and blindly hold faith that they are true. Quite like Religion.

Its totally not easy to say the same thing about you. : "If nothing were subsidized, and everyone acted in their best interest..."

What's wrong with people acting in their best interests? Isn't that what society is supposed to achieve: everyone's best interests? Who best knows your best interests than you? The government? That sounds like dogma that you are blindly holding faith in.

If your argument is the the superiority of an unrestrained market over a market that operates with Government intervention when appropriate, please make that argument. Don't preach a bunch of conclusions with no supporting evidence or theory.

I made that argument. I also wanted to throw in some conclusions with no supporting theory, because you are too; and like I said

(forgive me for not wanting to indulge you in a history or economics lesson.)

Cry more about it, or move on.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

Everyone's best interest in a free market is not in maximizing profit. It is in maximizing their own profit, even at the expense of the overall profit. This is the important distinction.

This is not an important distinction. You are blindly holding faith and jumping to conclusions that it is.

Yes it is an important distinction. Your failure to understand the difference between individual profit and total profit doesn't lead to me "blindly holding faith and jumping to conclusions." I wasn't making a conclusion, I was stating a material fact. "X is not Y, therefore X is not identical to Y."

Food commodities fluctuate in price, depending on their availability in a given year due to crop conditions. The free market "lags" behind the agricultural sector.

Blind faith speaking again. No it doesn't. The free market does not "lag" behind. Where in the hell did you come up with such nonsense? If the market does "lag" behind like you think it does, someone will be there to capitalize off of that lag thus bringing stability.

Sorry, I thought this one was preschool level. Perhaps I should have made it more clear when I spelled it out in a few sentences:
Farmers plant their crops in spring, and they need to stock their seeds before that. They sell into the market in the fall.

Without subsidies to cover "bad years" for corn, wheat, and rice farmers (and everything else), you couldn't have more dedicated production, you would need to diversify to remain profitable. Therefore, farmers operating under a "free market" system are required to predict what supply and demand will be the next year, to generate the greatest (or often, in the case of farmers, just sufficient) profit. In having to run farms that can handle several kinds of crop, they put more work into less production.

Without the government trying to micromanage the economy, prices would be stable.

Where? How? - Blindly believing something to be true doesn't make it true. Besides, the idea of price stability on a free market is laughable - The world does not exist in a vacuum: By the very nature of farming, there are differences in weather that effect crop yield and value on a yearly basis. Not to mention crop loss due to insects and diseases. A percentage of crops are lost every year; supply fluctuates, creating a market that also fluctuates in price.

As for your other arguments which you wonderfully summed up as:

You just don't know your history.

Because you don't. Obviously.

"Because I say so". Your new reasoning. Quite in line with your previous.

[Lord_of_War]

People will look out for themselves and build systems that work in their best interest. The government may say it does its work in the interest of the people however it is not. The job is done by people who could not care less. Farmers economic situation will drive them to create systems that are sustainable.

Chris your arguments always devolve into "because im a bigger dick and asshole therefore I am right"

[dagrimreefah]

Sorry, I thought this one was preschool level. Perhaps I should have made it more clear when I spelled it out in a few sentences:
Farmers plant their crops in spring, and they need to stock their seeds before that. They sell into the market in the fall.

In your preschool view of the world, that's where it would end. Too bad you are too slow to think beyond that one farmer.

Where? How? - Blindly believing something to be true doesn't make it true.

Its not blindly believing it. History shows. Go read it.

The world does not exist in a vacuum: By the very nature of farming, there are differences in weather that effect crop yield and value on a yearly basis.

You're right. Its not a vacuum. There are a lot more people out there than you think. There are a lot more farmers. Weather fucking up farmer A's crops can be easily overcome in a robust free market economy. Farmer B across the country will capitalize off of this loss by farmer A. And there will be more farmers, and more capital, and more overcoming of regional "bad weather" if prices were stable. Isn't that good for the overall economy? I mean, too bad for farmer A, life isn't fair. But society overall still benefits. And history (not dogma) shows that prices are much more stable the more sound the money is, and the more unregulated the market is. That's just historical fact bud.

I also find it hilarious you government sympathizers love to invoke the "bad weather" in so many of your arguments. I don't know, just found it funny how you all do that. Must have something to do with your blind faith.

Not to mention crop loss due to insects and diseases. A percentage of crops are lost every year, and that fluctuates, creating a market that also fluctuates.

There will still be losses and gains. The difference you fail to see is the losses are far less in a free market economy than they would be if they were subsidized by government. The reason being is that in a free market, losses mean you go out of business. Whatever you are doing with resources that is losing money will STOP. Someone else will pick up those same valuable resources, and try to make a profit. If they succeed, they are SERVING SOCIETY, using less resources and making MORE. This can't happen in a communist society. The distinguishment in losses in a free market society as compared to the losses suffered by wealth redistribution is also a moral one. It is a lot more moral in my opinion to lose your wealth in a free market society due to your own recklessness, rather than having it stolen from you "for the greater good"(theft). Not even mentioning the waste of the overhead of bureaucracy involved, the losses caused by subsidies can be PLAINLY seen in history.

"Because I say so". Your new argument.

Hasn't that been your argument all along?

[Lord_of_War]

Hasn't that been your argument all along?

Its his style.

[shaunsred]

To the 3 guys measuring dicks, here you go:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=problems+of+laisse ... capitalism

[dagrimreefah]

Nifty app.