WARNING, this is so [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] it gets two [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] signs up front.
Wellard, I despise large Agri-business in the US. I despise how it treats animals, how it uses a sledgehammer amount of fertilizer to swat flies, how it pollutes, how it has killed small farms, etc, etc.
However, on a theoretical level, agriculture is one of those things you should subsidize if the market won't support it. This is because it is the most basic of security issues. Being able to live without *needing* to import any food is a big plus on the national security scale. Hopefully, you would never need these extreme measures, but planning for the worst is best.
In the USA, the market won't support agriculture. Mainly this is a labor issue. Most all production jobs are fleeing or will flee the US and seek cheaper labor elsewhere (the US economy is becoming ever-more service-centered, note that in most cities service jobs are 50%+ of the work force). The savings between labor costs make it much cheaper to buy food from other countries.
So, the market not supporting it and it being a security issue, you reasonably subsidize it.
[img]graemlins/givingspeech.gif[/img] Disclaimer: I do not claim that the *way* we do it is proper, and as I said the current situation is wrong: it is an Oligopoly orgy with the government, and most regulating agencies are "captured" by the industry.
[img]graemlins/givingspeech.gif[/img] As well, I do not claim that my logic stated herein is or ever has been the logic used by the government. The government's logic is much more straightforward: go look at ADM's and Monsanto's lobbying expenditures. Bribes are bribes.
[ 05-29-2003, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]