This Agricultural Subsidies is also going away

Example -Michele Bachmann owns some farm land that she never plants crops on and has been paid millions of dollars in farm Subsidies to not farm that so called farm land over the years.

Michele Bachmann is by trade a lawyer, not a farmer. I want that farm subsidy by my government taxes to stop everywhere as it is not necessary at all for farming in the USA.

Free market farming is a disaster. Subsistence farming is possible though risky. Our whole system of agriculture is socialist.

Big corporate farms do fine as those are spread over many states. The Family farms don’t. It’s that simple.

Farming is a big bigness and as Wal-Mart is big so do the farms need to be big. Mexico and Australia as well as South America are currently used and in reality need to be used as the land is where it’s at for farming.

Family Farms need to go as those are way too inefficient. We in the USA are not a Socialist country.

Time to move forward.

You see Larry, we grew up in different places, you on the east coast and I in California and farming has been in me and my family all the time the Imperial Valley, San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento Valley is in my blood. My uncle ran the migrant farmer workers from California through Texas and beyond for 40+ years.

My dad met mom in Salinas around 1935 or 36 Steinbeck wrote a book about those years and that place it’s called the Grapes of Wrath, he also was in error. I know all about that, I’ve already written about and have no purpose to do so again.

Large corporate farming is here to stay and is quite efficient, thank you. It’s time that the East coast get on board with the more efficient method of farming in the USA as well as the world at large.

Richard,

How is farming in the U.S. not socialist?

I grew up in central and west Texas. My uncle and cousins are / were farmers in Iowa. I did farm labor.

Well let’s take the Wikipedia definition of that word Socialism

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

These are the 1, 2, 3 and 4’s of those above.

1.^ socialism Britannica ACADEMIC EDITION. Retrieved 19 January 2012.
2.^ O'Hara, Phillip (September 2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. p. 71. ISBN 0-415-24187-1. "In order of increasing decentralization (at least) three forms of socialized ownership can be distinguished: state-owned firms, employee-owned (or socially) owned firms, and citizen ownership of equity."
3.^ Peter Lamb, J. C. Docherty. Historical dictionary of socialism. Lanham, Maryland, UK; Oxford, England, UK: Scarecrow Press, Inc, 2006. p. 1.
4.^ Nove, Alec. Socialism. New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition (2008): http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_S000173

Let’s look at the first part of that definition

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1]

As the USA Government actually owns all the property in the USA except for some land in Texas, I’ll give you that part.

And a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity. [2]

OK, I guess I need to work on this, give me a minute. In my opinion we don’t usually do ‘social’ ownership, as that would be multiple owning the land like a city or a group of people here in this country even tho we do have many Co-ops that do share the facilities for packing the harvests up to be sold. Corporations are like an individual not a social club.

There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them. [3]

So which variety of Socialism are you referring to, the fact that the ownership of property that most folk have of what they think is their (Grant Deed.) If so then just who granted them that Deed? Actually the USA Government, and anyone that knows anything about property knows that as well as what the word Grant means.
I’ll give you that one also.

They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism. [4]

We in the USA have property zoning and planning for the ‘proper’ use of that land that was granted to one. Therefore the use of that property must be done as the zoning says. Each County in California say what the zoning is, therefore each state could be different in my opinion. Any person or Corporation as long as they follow the proper zoning law can do as they desire. They can hire anyone that they want, piece meal work is the usual method (one is only paid for the stuff that they do, therefore do more and get paid more) Big farms are much more efficient than small farms, that I know. And thus that is also the only reason for bigger farms.

Richard,

It seems to me that the government is heavily involved in all aspects of farming. The farmer is told what to produce, how to produce it, to whom to sell, and at what price. The subsidies are just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.

Well there's always Cargill, the USA government certianly doesn't tell them what to do, in my opinion of it all, but the Futures market does.

See the following

The world’s largest grain merchant is truly massive. Though you may never have heard of Cargill, you are likely to have consumed something that it produced, processed or distributed fairly recently. From fats, fertilizers and fnancial services, to coal, cocoa, cotton, container shipping and chickens, Cargill’s portfolio is as broad as it is deep. The largest private company in the USA, in 2009 it had a turnover of $116.6 billion.1

If this was Gross Domestic Product, it would have been the 54th richest country in the world, just after New Zealand.2 But the company wields power far beyond that of nations.Ingrained power Cargill is one of a terrifyingly few companies that have control of the global grain trade: as of 2007 three companies controlled nearly 90% of it.3

Buying where it’s cheap and selling where and when prices rise, Cargill exercises its market muscle ruthlessly. Whilst the price of staple foods, which Cargill sells, has risen dramatically in recent years, the price of tropical crops such as cocoa and cotton, which Cargill buys, have hardly risen at all. Cotton and cocoa had lower nominal prices in June 2008 than in 1995, the year the World Trade Organization was established.4

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981830236

Richard,

Cargill is one of the big money interests. Big money interests control our government. Thus, Cargill gets the rules it wants. But the rules are still there.

Cargill is also far more than just farming.

Agriculture in the U.S. is socialist according to the definitions you have provided. The government has operational control (used to please big money interests).

Hi Larry, I finally understand and it’s only 11:15 pm, first the Federal actually owns all the land and the Farmers are granted that land, also if everyone were to plant Wheat only it would be a total disaster, for there would be no corn.

I also know that small farms are not efficient thus also not effective. But large farms are. Therefore the large farm in my opinion is preferable.

I also knew actually that a farmer needed to ask mother may I plant Tomato’s this year. But I have no knowledge tight that control is. I actually understand it all as a Social Structure.

I actually do know what Eminent Control is.

Sorry for being stupid

Richard,

You are not "stupid" at all. You are quite intelligent and perceptive. I also like your style.

For so many years as a Systems Analyst I was forced to work at what is called the root of the problem is.

Therefore what is the root of the problem in farming in the USA?

The first issue in that is who owns that property?

Well the USA government does.

The Grant Deed holder for that property tells what can be done within zoning laws as well as where that property is at.

The people that are granted the use of that property in that farming zone by the USA government can only do Farming on that property as the USA government wants.

Therefore, as the owner of that ‘real’ Farming property is the USA Government, they are the ones that set the management rules for farming that property, not the person that holds the grant deed.

Farmers actually in their own way and do understand that, however, we non-farmers need to think about what is really going on in the USA with real property.

What’s imminent Domain, is used to move cities and towns out of danger like what happened in the Red River valley a few years back by moving the town of East Grand Forks back around 2 to 5 miles away from that river. I worked daily at Target with a man as he and his wife were moved to a new house they loved that process as well as that new home. That may or may not be done on the East coast towns that go underwater because of the rising ocean.

There are only a very few Deeds of property in the USA mostly in Texas. If you have a Grant Deed in your hands then the USA Government actually owns that property and is granting the right to use is based upon the zoning laws. The USA Government can and has many times used imminent Domain, to do things like build freeways as well as Dodger Stadium as well as move the entire town of East Grand Forks MN a few miles away from the Red River.

Richard,

There's a much more fundamental problem than that. (You probably already know the one I reference.) Yes, property ownership is very restricted with government able to ignore the "owner's" wishes as it likes. But that is a consequence of the nature of our money. Government, itself, is a consequence of the nature or our money. Government employs people in a variety of capacities. In order to "earn their pay" these employees must do as they are told. "I was just doing my job." is a statement often made by people doing things which harm others. Oppression of others requires employees to carry out the will of the oppressor. Government taxes in order to gain the money to employ. Government manufactures money (in various ways) to employ and to buy. Government acts to gain money for those who control government.

With our current form of money we have all sorts of property ownership. The state owns property. Individuals own property. Corporations, associations, married couples, and even churches own property. With such a diversity of ownership, responsibility for property is diverse, confused, complex, and ignored.

With a different kind of money, property could be strictly owned by individuals with no joint or collective ownership. In that fashion, responsibility would be clear, definite, and inescapable.

You are going into another area here. I won't go there in this subject.

I suggest that you start nother thread.

I'm well aware of problems there, however solutions, righr now I can't think

I wonder what people will say when they are paying the much higher prices at the store for farm products.This will affect everyone in the country as we all have to eat. The subsidies have made it possible for farms to keep going over the years and prices for agricultural products to stay withing the reach of the ordinary person. Make no mistake about it.things will change as many farms are sold to large corporations.

We all pay for it in our taxes anyway.

By the way large corporations for farming are wonderful, compared to the inefficient family farm