Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Farmers raking it in this year

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 4
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
  • #31
    I'm surprised it would jump that much year over year. Then again, I'd bet farmers in 1st world are more able to increase production quickly than others, so they may be taking into account the increased demand.

    Or it might be that prices for US food exports (grains) are increasing faster than prices for US food imports (everything else?).
    12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
    Stadtluft Macht Frei
    Killing it is the new killing it
    Ultima Ratio Regum

    Comment

    • #32
      I imagine the value of exports has more to do with the value of goods exported and farm goods have extremely volatile prices.
      Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

      Comment

      • #33
        Originally posted by DanS
        My source is this...

        Page Not Found: 404
        http://www.fas.usda.gov/cmp/outlook/2008/Feb-08/AES-02-21-2008.pdf


        It includes the FY 2008 figures, which indeed are estimated at a $25 billion surplus. The FY 2007 balance figure was much lower.

        We expect to export 29 million metric tons of wheat, 59 million metric tons of coarse grains (mostly corn), and 39 million metric tons of soybeans and derivatives.
        Why don't you answer my question?

        I wonder why...
        Only feebs vote.

        Comment

        • #34
          Originally posted by Riesstiu IV
          Fact is many countries live beyond their means. By having massive populations that continue to have an average of 6 - 10 kids per family is not sustainable forever. Every country should strive be able to feed it's population without relying on imports.
          Yeah right. The average third world family, even if it has 10 kids, is less environmentally destructive than two redneck Americans and their two fat, whining kids.

          The third world residents have very little to do with causing climate change, but they will be the losers.
          Only feebs vote.

          Comment

          • #35
            Originally posted by Agathon
            Why don't you answer my question?

            I wonder why...
            Because your question doesn't interest me. It doesn't illustrate any profound choice and it's nothing that the market can't solve.
            I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

            Comment

            • #36
              Originally posted by DanS

              Because your question doesn't interest me. It doesn't illustrate any profound choice and it's nothing that the market can't solve.
              Horse****. It's a real practical problem, arguably at the root of what is going on now. It has been happening for years one way or another. For example, the predilection of wealthier people for meat has used up resources that could otherwise have kept the entire planet in a reasonable state of nutrition.

              This just shows how divorced from reality you are. The market has already failed in such cases.

              Please explain how the market will solve that particular problem in a reasonable time. Clue: reducing the supply of people by famine is not an acceptable answer.
              Only feebs vote.

              Comment

              • #37
                Originally posted by Agathon
                reducing the supply of people by famine is not an acceptable answer.
                So much for tradition. How should we reduce the supply of people then? I suspect war wouldn't be an acceptable answer either...
                "In the beginning was the Word. Then came the ******* word processor." -Dan Simmons, Hyperion

                Comment

                • #38
                  Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi

                  So much for tradition. How should we reduce the supply of people then? I suspect war wouldn't be an acceptable answer either...
                  You don't. This is an obvious case for regulation, since it's morally wrong (to everyone who isn't a sociopath) to treat people the same as other goods.

                  The only problem is that fundies like DanS are in denial when it comes to market failures.
                  Only feebs vote.

                  Comment

                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Agathon
                    Horse****. It's a real practical problem, arguably at the root of what is going on now. It has been happening for years one way or another. For example, the predilection of wealthier people for meat has used up resources that could otherwise have kept the entire planet in a reasonable state of nutrition.
                    Your malthusian views are not grounded in reality and I'm not really interested in arguing with you about it. I would rather let the market prove that there are other, much better solutions for our transportation needs.
                    I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                    Comment

                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Barnabas
                      If I were the president of the national association of farmers, I would create a plan, which would offer the state something like,

                      ok, we sell 25% of our production at a lower price inside the country, but let us export the rest and get the full international price
                      I agree that this would be the most expedient thing to do for some, but it's still a very bad idea. The quickest way to resolve this on a global basis is to allow full unsubsidized incentive to all farmers, such that they plant more and use better yielding techniques. Instead, the proposed expedient action would encourage lawlessness in securing the export price.
                      I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                      Comment

                      • #41
                        Originally posted by DanS

                        Your malthusian views are not grounded in reality and I'm not really interested in arguing with you about it. I would rather let the market prove that there are other, much better solutions for our transportation needs.
                        It's not necessarily a Malthusian view, so there's one mistake for a start. In fact it's just a practical problem.

                        Again, how is the market going to solve this problem, and what does this have to do with transport anyway (other than trucking food to people)?

                        I suspect that you aren't interested in arguing about it because you don't have a reasonable answer. If I am so badly mistaken, then I would like to know why.
                        Only feebs vote.

                        Comment

                        • #42
                          That's fine. Next!
                          I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                          Comment

                          • #43
                            Originally posted by DanS
                            That's fine. Next!
                            Pathetic. You're no better than the fundy god botherers.
                            Only feebs vote.

                            Comment

                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Agathon


                              Yeah right. The average third world family, even if it has 10 kids, is less environmentally destructive than two redneck Americans and their two fat, whining kids.

                              The third world residents have very little to do with causing climate change, but they will be the losers.
                              What the hell? I wasn't even talking about the environment, just ability of nations to support their populations. I don't like people in the third world or rednecks so it makes little difference to me.

                              Comment

                              • #45
                                Originally posted by KrazyHorse
                                I'm surprised it would jump that much year over year. Then again, I'd bet farmers in 1st world are more able to increase production quickly than others, so they may be taking into account the increased demand.

                                Or it might be that prices for US food exports (grains) are increasing faster than prices for US food imports (everything else?).
                                The report I cited marks about half of the change (since the November report at least) to price increases -- baked into that are currency effects, of course. We are eating less Danish Havarti and eating more Wisconsin cheddar, I guess. But it also mentions increases in volume.

                                Regarding the increases in volume, I'm guessing that farmers in the first world are able to switch crops more easily in response to market demand. Perhaps first-world farmers could also better afford to plant a fallow field in especially good times. But there are some interesting substitution barriers going on. F.e., in contrast to much of the rest of the world, US production of rice is entirely mechanized, so US farmers are less able to respond when the price of fuel is high, even when the price of rice is handsome.

                                I've also seen it mentioned that some countries who resisted GM (e.g., Japan) are lowering those barriers. Almost 100% of US soybeans are GM, so new markets are being opened up.
                                Last edited by DanS; April 16, 2008, 22:48.
                                I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
                                Working...
                                X