Food Production

minktrapper

Why dont people just pay for their food instead of subsidising the cost of producing it.

thebman

Same reason we don't increase corporation tax I would imagine.

Subsidising farming is much like subsidising FDI using the IDA or our low corporation tax.

Our farming exports, more than pay for the subsidies I imagine though I've not looked into it. It is one of the few indigenous industries we have.

ei.sdraob

thebman wrote: »

Same reason we don't increase corporation tax I would imagine.

Subsidising farming is much like subsidising FDI using the IDA or our low corporation tax.

Our farming exports, more than pay for the subsidies I imagine though I've not looked into it. It is one of the few indigenous industries we have.

Apples and oranges

Godge

What is this thread about? A one sentence opener is really enlightening.

Debtocracy

minktrapper wrote: »

Why dont people just pay for their food instead of subsidising the cost of producing it.

If it was left to capitalism and free markets, the food supply would need to decline for farming to become profitable. Given that we all need food to survive, this would not be a good thing.

RichardAnd

OP, you're going to have to write more than one line if you want to spark off a proper discussion. If you start a thread by sharing your own views, you'll get far more responce than you might do otherwise

ei.sdraob

Debtocracy wrote: »

If it was left to capitalism and free markets, the food supply would need to decline for farming to become profitable. Given that we all need food to survive, this would not be a good thing.

If left to free markets those millions of people in Africa and Asia who are deliberately locked out of western markets would not have to starve or be malnourished

irishh_bob

ei.sdraob wrote: »

If left to free markets those millions of people in Africa and Asia who are deliberately locked out of western markets would not have to starve or be malnourished

i grew up on a farm but this is very true , the trade agreements under CAP shield european and american farmers from competition from 3rd world producers , its pure IFA propoganda to suggest that subsidys are there for the consumers benefit , if they dumped subs and allowed food from poorer parts of the world on to the market ,the cost of food would be lower for consumers most likely

Tipp Man

So they can't feed themselves but they are going to feed Europe and the US??

And if they could feed themselves why would they sell on their own markets when the prices in Europe and US markets are so much higher? So even if these countries could produce the food their people still wouldn't have access to it as it would be exported to the well off Western world

Tipp Man

irishh_bob wrote: »

i grew up on a farm but this is very true , the trade agreements under CAP shield european and american farmers from competition from 3rd world producers , its pure IFA propoganda to suggest that subsidys are there for the consumers benefit , if they dumped subs and allowed food from poorer parts of the world on to the market ,the cost of food would be lower for consumers most likely

Food prices are going up around the world not down

PeadarCo

One of the reasons farmers in Ireland get subsidies and are protected is that they have to deal with far more regulation than many of their competitors internationally.
This thread goes into the different arguements in detail http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056318840&page=9

irishh_bob

PeadarCo wrote: »

One of the reasons farmers in Ireland get subsidies and are protected is that they have to deal with far more regulation than many of their competitors internationally.
This thread goes into the different arguements in detail http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056318840&page=9

american farmers get subs aswell yet regulation is minimal compared to europe , the subsidy industry in europe ( and especially ireland ) provides a lot of employment for beauracrats

irishh_bob

Tipp Man wrote: »

So they can't feed themselves but they are going to feed Europe and the US??

And if they could feed themselves why would they sell on their own markets when the prices in Europe and US markets are so much higher? So even if these countries could produce the food their people still wouldn't have access to it as it would be exported to the well off Western world

they dont get a fair deal when it comes to international trade , this hinders thier ability to move beyond subsistance farming , thier not inherently weak or genetically incapable of making money from thier resources , dont worry , i only air theese views on annonymous forums , i wont be running for the IFA on a ticket promoting a deconstruction of the CAP but i think its no harm to admit to the inherent unfairness in the present set up

minktrapper

irishh_bob wrote: »

american farmers get subs aswell yet regulation is minimal compared to europe , the subsidy industry in europe ( and especially ireland ) provides a lot of employment for beauracrats

Incorrect.American food production is subsidised so as to provide Americans with a cheap and a reliable food supply.Same as in Europe.Have travelled there and you wouldnt believe the amount of dairy farmers gone out of business.

minktrapper

Godge wrote: »

What is this thread about? A one sentence opener is really enlightening.

To open your mind up a little.

Suryavarman

Debtocracy wrote: »

If it was left to capitalism and free markets, the food supply would need to decline for farming to become profitable. Given that we all need food to survive, this would not be a good thing.

Like in New Zealand? When they got rid of farm subsidies food production and agriculture as a percentage of GDP increased.

minktrapper

irishh_bob wrote: »

i grew up on a farm but this is very true , the trade agreements under CAP shield european and american farmers from competition from 3rd world producers , its pure IFA propoganda to suggest that subsidys are there for the consumers benefit , if they dumped subs and allowed food from poorer parts of the world on to the market ,the cost of food would be lower for consumers most likely

Food production subsidys must be there for the consumers benefit.Why is there over 100,000 milk producers gone out of milk production in Ireland alone in the last 35 years alone.Never mind beef,sheep,grain or potatoes.Poor countries can hardly feed themselves never mind the rest of the world.

minktrapper

Suryavarman wrote: »

Like in New Zealand? When they got rid of farm subsidies food production and agriculture as a percentage of GDP increased.

Im not in New Zealand

minktrapper

PeadarCo wrote: »

One of the reasons farmers in Ireland get subsidies and are protected is that they have to deal with far more regulation than many of their competitors internationally.
This thread goes into the different arguements in detail http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056318840&page=9

If food producers get these ''subsidys'' why is there over 100,000 milk producers gone out of business in Ireland in the last 35 yrs.It seems strange.If food producers get these ''subsidys'' everyone would be producing food.Land would be making millions of euros per acre all over the country.We have enough problems as it is.

minktrapper

RichardAnd wrote: »

OP, you're going to have to write more than one line if you want to spark off a proper discussion. If you start a thread by sharing your own views, you'll get far more responce than you might do otherwise

Thats the idea.

minktrapper

Debtocracy wrote: »

If it was left to capitalism and free markets, the food supply would need to decline for farming to become profitable. Given that we all need food to survive, this would not be a good thing.

Food production must be profitable.If it wasn't no one would do it.Or all food producers would starve to death.They would not be able to buy food without money.

Suryavarman

minktrapper wrote: »

Im not in New Zealand

In your OP you asked:

minktrapper wrote: »

Why dont people just pay for their food instead of subsidising the cost of producing it.

I gave an example of a country that got rid of farm subsidies and what then happened. I don't see how where you live makes any difference to the relevance of my answer.

PeadarCo

minktrapper wrote: »

If food producers get these ''subsidys'' why is there over 100,000 milk producers gone out of business in Ireland in the last 35 yrs.It seems strange.If food producers get these ''subsidys'' everyone would be producing food.Land would be making millions of euros per acre all over the country.We have enough problems as it is.

Farmers have gone out of business because even with the subsidies farming as a business has become univable for them. One of the issues is the price farmers get hasn't really increased in the last two decades in the case of beef. Dairy has seen a similar situation. Any increaes in shops is down primarily to the various intermedaries .ie factories and shops. One of the arguements for subsidies is that if they were removed it would substantially reduce the number of farmers. These bigger farms would have more bargaining power when dealing with factories and supermarkets and could push up the price they get to a price that would give a profit for them (Alot of farmers only make money due to the subsidies) This would ultimately be passed on to the consumer leading to higher food prices.

minktrapper

Suryavarman wrote: »

In your OP you asked:



I gave an example of a country that got rid of farm subsidies and what then happened. I don't see how where you live makes any difference to the relevance of my answer.

I see the angle you are looking at.But in New Zealand land was cheap and was freely available.That is why I said ''I am not in New Zealand.''

minktrapper

PeadarCo wrote: »

Farmers have gone out of business because even with the subsidies farming as a business has become univable for them. One of the issues is the price farmers get hasn't really increased in the last two decades in the case of beef. Dairy has seen a similar situation. Any increaes in shops is down primarily to the various intermedaries .ie factories and shops. One of the arguements for subsidies is that if they were removed it would substantially reduce the number of farmers. These bigger farms would have more bargaining power when dealing with factories and supermarkets and could push up the price they get to a price that would give a profit for them (Alot of farmers only make money due to the subsidies) This would ultimately be passed on to the consumer leading to higher food prices.

If food production subsidys went ALL food producers would go out of business not some of them.Thats the reason for the thread ''WHY DON'T PEOPLE PAY FOR THEIR FOOD'' and there would be no reason to subsidise the cost of producing it.(Food producers don't get subsidies)

irishh_bob

minktrapper wrote: »

Food production subsidys must be there for the consumers benefit.Why is there over 100,000 milk producers gone out of milk production in Ireland alone in the last 35 years alone.Never mind beef,sheep,grain or potatoes.Poor countries can hardly feed themselves never mind the rest of the world.

as i said earlier , its hard to move beyond subsistance farming ( like in africa ) when you cant get fair access to international food markets , makes creating a dynamic industry difficult

View

ei.sdraob wrote: »

If left to free markets those millions of people in Africa and Asia who are deliberately locked out of western markets would not have to starve or be malnourished

The free market can't compensate for a drought hitting a region as we can see in southern Somalia today (Nor can that be blamed on "the government" since Somalia doesn't have any meaningful one).

Nor did it go a great job in Ireland in the 1840's - despite the then Prime Minister (Robert Peel) destroying his political career after he pushed through repeal of "The Corn Laws" (tariffs on corn imports) against the wishes of his own party.

PeadarCo

minktrapper wrote: »

If food production subsidys went ALL food producers would go out of business not some of them.Thats the reason for the thread ''WHY DON'T PEOPLE PAY FOR THEIR FOOD'' and there would be no reason to subsidise the cost of producing it.(Food producers don't get subsidies)

If food subsidies went all food producers wouldn't got out of business. Alot would but there would be consoliation within the industry. Current prices that farmers recieve are below the true market value due to the effect of subsidies. If they went the number of farmers would decrease until the price they recieved enabled them to make a profit. Leading to higher food prices. Ireland's temperate climate gives the country a number of natural advantages such as the ability to feed animals primarily with grass and very fertile land.

In answer to the question "why don't people pay for their food" They do just through a combination of paying themselves and through the tax system. Either way if people want food that is produced to high ethical and enviormental standards and with tracibility people have to pay for it. All these elements increase the cost of production. If there were no subsidies they would pay this extra amount in the supermarkets

ei.sdraob

View wrote: »

The free market can't compensate for a drought hitting a region as we can see in southern Somalia today (Nor can that be blamed on "the government" since Somalia doesn't have any meaningful one).

Yet this "country" has a thriving mobile phone industry, go figure
The people in some parts of this large "country" are being displaced in a conflict/civil war its sort of hard to trade in a war you know :rolleyes: same with neighbouring Ephiopia which is doing quite well in the north (both countries cover an area similar to Western Europe btw)

View wrote: »

Nor did it go a great job in Ireland in the 1840's - despite the then Prime Minister (Robert Peel) destroying his political career after he pushed through repeal of "The Corn Laws" (tariffs on corn imports) against the wishes of his own party.

You need to brush up on your history mate, neither did they have a "free market" the country was a colony after all with resources being extracted "for the good of the empire" and we weren't the only ones under the British boot.

Icepick

Despite their minuscule economic output, farmers have a strong lobby, because food and land are emotional topics.