Left, Right and Food

About time. Now, there's something "fundamental" -- food, healthy and from the good earth. Maybe some really common "ground" there? Maybe somewhere we can all agree?

Um. Agribusiness has resulted in a surplus of food, planetwide. (Local shortages are reflective of difficulties in distribution, not that there isn't enough to go around.) Back to those hundreds of acres of flowering fruit trees I saw driving in the California Central Valley two weeks ago. Those aren't "family farms" in the accepted use of that term.
Before we start on other values, can we agree that having enough is a good thing?
China, which has had devastating famines still in living memory, is primarily concerned that that not happen again. Maybe being feel-good about community life or rituals and customs that celebrate human participation in the life cycle is a luxury, mostly indulged in by people who have never had to skip a meal.

I don't think all of us can agree that having enough food is a good thing, there are some who think that material prosperity isn't worth what they consider the cost of lost virtue. They're free to think that, and we're free to disagree: the problem is that some who idolize pre-industrial agriculture are not content with choosing to farm for themselves; they want to impose that on the rest of us -- and the inevitable higher costs of food and the decrease in the reliability of food production, both of which disproportionately hurt the poor.
What Lanz apparently doesn't realize is that mainstream conservatives already have a political position on food: Like all commodities, food should be produced by the free market. Why craft a special policy for food production when the general policy of individual economic freedom is both more efficient and more moral than any alternative? To do that would be to grant the assumption that food production needs state control at some level. Well, I see I answered my own question.

(And one more aside about the virtues of the farmer: Biblically, the first murderer wasn't an accountant.)

Susan What exactly is your definition of family farm? I think we have to decouple two ideas that are linked in most peoples minds and shouldn't be: the green revolution and big agribusiness. The green revolution resulted in use of modern technology, chemical fertilizers, and high yield crop varieties that have created a worldwide surplus in food production. These methods are now used in places like India (seen it firsthand) and China. The peasant working a dozen acres with oxen is becoming a rarity in today's world. However, U.S. style big agribusiness is not necessary for mass production. Most "family farms" in the U.S. are at least a quarter or half section (160-320 acres) and have high per-acre production. The big agribusiness companies make much of their profits through government subsidy programs and lobby for changes that hurt independent farmers, who they see as competitors. You don't need ADM in order to have cheap food.

Bubba If you think we currently have a free market in food production, then you are kidding yourself. Ask any farmer who has ever had to deal with ASCS/FSA.

"However, U.S. style big agribusiness is not necessary for mass production. Most "family farms" in the U.S. are at least a quarter or half section (160-320 acres) and have high per-acre production." This is not what I would call mass production either. 160-320 acres isn t very much land.
But then again I live in Texas

Stephen I live in Texas too. I grew up on a farm in West Texas. We farmed cotton, wheat, milo, and raised Hereford cattle on a half section. Yeah, that's not huge by Texas standards. But it's a long way from the subsistence farming of 100 years ago. My point is that if per-acre yields are good, and you have lots of independent farmers, then you have mass production.

That sounds good, to me. I guess, my question is, what is the problem with ending the farm subsidies and actually letting the market beging to work this out a little more?

Bubba The problem isn't just government interference in the ag market, though that is a big part of it. The biggest problem is that government routinely interferes on the side of big agribusiness against independent farmers/producers. For just one example look at the mad cow scare. Small independent producers and even foreign countries were begging the USDA to allow testing on all cattle. The corporate producers were opposed to this. Well, USDA banned independent testing. If you are a local beef producer you cannot test your entire production for mad cow without USDA approval, which you will not get. And there are USDA inspectors onsite to make sure you do it their way. I've got tons of examples like this. Beef isn't subsidized, yet USDA regulates it in such a way as to benefit the corporate producers. Look up the stink over NAIS. It's even worse for subsidized crops. If you want to grow cotton, corn, sugar, etc. in this country you will have the government telling you how to run your farm. There isn't much about farming right now that is "free market".

"The worst long-term consequence of the current agricultural revolution is that, if a counterrevolution every materializes, it will probably be a leftist operation, allowing the left to monopolize the debate over how to protect agriculture and community life. In accomplishing this, the left will penetrate the last bastion of traditional life and transform it into a radical one." Also, I have to ask...exactly what would be wrong with that? To paraphrase one well-known conservative, since when has radicalism in defense of tradition been a vice?

Food is tricky. First, it would not be wise to let the free market take care of food production. There are various reasons why this is the case. First, we want to make sure that we can feed our nation. We do not want to let the market determine this. Remember that the market is correct over time, but in specific points in time, it can have a surplus on a certain crop or, worse, a not enough food to meet demand. Second, this kind of uncertainty creates a national security problem. We don't think about this because our government has made sure that we will have enough food through subsidies. But without a more or less guaranteed food security, we can be at the mercy of other countries. Look at Mexico. Because it doesn't produce enough corn, the ethanol mandate in this country had the unexpected result of pushing up the price of corn in Mexico, spiking inflation. I am sure that none of us want this for ourselves. At the same time, the subsidies in rich countries do create a problem in poor ones. Again, the case of Mexico: cheap, subsidized corn brought from the U.S. makes it impossible to make a living by it in Mexico. The free market solution for this problem is that they illegally cross the border into the U.S. Yet another market solution that neither Mexico of the U.S. want. This is a tricky issue. :)

The free market solution for this problem is that they illegally cross the border into the U.S. Yet another market solution that neither Mexico of the U.S. want. Wha-wha-what? Mexico letting their dirt poor come here, work, and send back billions of dollars every year is something mexico doesn't want?

First, we want to make sure that we can feed our nation. We do not want to let the market determine this. Remember that the market is correct over time, but in specific points in time, it can have a surplus on a certain crop or, worse, a not enough food to meet demand. Perhaps Hugo should point to a real-world example of socialism providing a commodity wholly without surpluses or shortages before he criticizes the free market for this particular defect. Fact is, all economies suffer from surpluses and shortages. It's just a question of which sort of economy recovers the fastest: here's a hint, it ain't socialism.

Why Bubba, you free-wheeling capitalist, you. I agree completely. The dreaded Jonah Goldberg himself pointed out some months ago that when Barney Frank can correctly take the Right to task over their farm subsidy-agribusiness polcies, the Right really is hip-deep in in hypocrisy.
There really are very few things that ever benefit from government interference - at least in the long run.

The idea that farmers have any type of humility as a group, natural or otherwise, goes against all of my experience. Sorry. And yeah, like Rob & Maclin said, the extremes lose the basic point; that's why normal logical conservatives don't care about this stuff. Might as well blame the Jews (LOL, J-Pod.)

Aron, As I said, neither Mexico nor the U.S. like this situation. In Mexico it is seen as evidence of the failure of the Mexican government to solve the economic disparity. It is disparity because Mexico actually does make a lot of money. The problem is that its millionaires don't like to share it.
Down there it is a free-market paradise. So they don't have to share it. The side effect of their selfishness is that poor people migrate to the U.S.
We can let the market solve it, which is, do nothing and live with the situation, or we can find a solution through our governments. I rather find a government solution. Bubba, I don't know what you are talking about. :) I was talking about the U.S. subsidies program the entire time. And historically, it has guaranteed food security for the U.S. since WW2. We make enough food that we export grains and meat to other countries. So even if we are short of some staple, our system makes sure that we have a substitute. Without subsidies, I don't know if we would have this same security. Look at Mexico. They don't have farm subsidies. So it doesn't produce enough staple food for its own economy. So a decision made in a foreign country has a huge impact in their economy. Not a pretty sight, and not one that I want for the U.S. either :)
One more point for you to ponder: if government protection is so horrible, why does every corporation and business in the U.S. seeks it?

And then every once in a while we get a reminder from that negated nature, you know, like a tornado that knocks out the power or a hurricane that takes the roof of a hospital.