[Vision2020] Palouse Farming: was Hemp...

[Garrett Clevenger]

I pretty much agree with what you wrote here, Donovan.

As I said before, most large farms are highly subsidized, not only with tax dollars, but with the hidden costs associated with the impacts those farms have on the environment, the need for cheap oil (and what it takes to get that cheap oil) and the future costs of land that is often being degraded faster than necessary (and thus, since it will become less productive, more farmland will have to be put in to production, which is often previously undisturbed land that has its own value remaining undisturbed)

I chose a farming career with the intent to have a job that to me seems more sustainable. The type of farming we are doing (small scale, labor intensive, minimal inputs, organic and grown for locals) is hopefully going to be less reliant on subsidies, and softer on the environment, thus more reflective of true costs. Since those costs aren't being as spread out for everybody to pay, the downside is the food will be more expensive. Fortunately, demand is high for this type of food, and the people who actually eat it will incur most of the costs.

We'd love to be able to grow enough food for local restaurants. We'd love for more restaurants to be receptive to serving locally grown food. Unfortunately, most people want cheap food, food that is subsidized, and since most people don't seem to know, or care, that the food they eat is paid for by everybody, including future generations, that's the food that's more available.

You mentioned previously that only 5% of the population needs to grow food for everybody else. That may be the case, but on a local level, probably less than .1% of local people grow food for the rest of the locals. That imbalance is due to our misunderstanding of how food is grown and not knowing the true costs of providing food to people. So we pass on the consequences of that cheap food for other people to deal with by importing that food.

My point about Mt. Dew was that high fructose corn syrup receives an improportionate amount of subsidies, not that it specifically is the main cause behind the current economic woes. Mt. Dew tastes great, but in order to make it cheap, it relies on tax dollars. Add that on top of the negative health affects of HFCS, and it seems that our society places more emphasis on soft-drinks than healthy food like vegetables, which to me is symbolic of the whole thing. Give us cheap stuff, pass the true costs on to everybody including those who don't want or won't use that cheap stuff, while not placing enough value on health, which, ironically enough, was the other topic of the post you replied to that I also agree mostly with you about.

I agree that many people live beyond their means, but if you aren't taking in to account the true costs of the things you consume, then, though it is on a smaller scale, there really isn't much differnce between homeowners who now need a bailout and consumers who rely on subsidies for their cheap stuff.

I'll end this by saying whatever people think of illegal immigrants, that, too, is a reflection of our need for cheap labor. Our country built its wealth from the sweat of slaves. We continue that mindset with similar treatment of ourtsourced labor in other countries. Not all, but many aren't treated much better. At least slaveholders had an interest in ensuring their slaves stayed healthy, whereas now, labor is seen as expendible since there is someone else to take their place if they become unfit to work. There probably isn't much of a wage difference between what a slave received (food and housing) and what cheap labor now receives, and the treatment between the two is probably also comparable.

Since most people want cheap food, big farms look for cheap labor, and that often is illegal immigrants. If people really want to help lessen that problem, they need to realize that supply and demand is a driving force. If people were willing to pay more for food (or any commodity), there wouldn't be as a big a need for cheap labor.

But since there are some who want access to cheap stuff, it doesn't seem like the illegal immigration issue will stop any time soon, nor will the reliance on subsidies, nor the huge environmental impact our convential food system causes, etc, etc, etc...


gclev


--- On Wed, 3/4/09, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Palouse Farming: was Hemp...
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com, garrettmc at verizon.net
> Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 5:52 PM
> Garrett,
> 
> Farming is also subsidized as well. So to criticize the
> current free market for being subsidized I don't think
> is a fair evaluation. Not all businesses are subsidized,
> just as not all farms are subsidized. But we do live in a
> society that is quickly becoming socialistic. 
> 
> I don't think there is anything inherently evil with
> outsourcing lots of production jobs to make products
> cheaper, but you must replace the exiting jobs with new
> ones, in areas perhaps like science, engineering,
> management, construction, education, health care, research,
> electronics, computers, product design, etc. 
> 
> This is why I have a problem with illegal immigration,
> because they are taking jobs from US citizens and not paying
> taxes into the system when they do not live here year round,
> or send the money out of the country. It is the same thing,
> in my opinion, as outsourcing, only a little worse because
> we have to endure the costs of education, crime, poverty,
> health care, and pollution of the underpaid workers and
> their families. 
> 
> I do have a problem with credit, credit cards, and a credit
> based society. I think if you cannot afford something, you
> shouldn't buy it. It is that simple. 
> 
> Housing is so expensive, precisely because credit is what
> our economy is based upon. It allows people to buy things
> they cannot afford, go into serious debt, and then not be
> able to get out of debt. I think credit makes things more
> expensive, because if credit was limited, housing costs
> would have to be closer to what people could afford to pay
> in fifteen or twenty years with the builder, not 30 years
> with a bank that takes half. Cars would also have to be
> under $10,000, they would not get away with $30,000 for a
> ten year loan on a car. Overnight, a young person can bury
> themselves in unmanageable debt to accommodate a lifestyle
> they have been talked into believing they can afford when
> they cannot. 
> 
> This is all catching up to society. All these people under
> the illusion they can afford a $200,000 home and two $15,000
> cars on a $36,000 a year salary are having reality fall on
> them very hard. 
> 
> My take on the credit crisis is, "DUH!". And not
> to subsidize anyone except people that are at a reasonable
> debt/income ratio. Don't bail out banks that made bad
> loan decisions because they were taking advantage of people
> by convincing them they could afford something when they
> could not. 
> 
> If I gave money to anyone, it would be businesses that have
> hired lots of people, made good profits, and would like to
> hire some more people but don't have the capital to do
> so. I would not give money to businesses that don't know
> how to manage money. 
> 
> If you want to point blame at a bad economy, don't
> blame the $1 Diet Mountain Dew bottle I can afford, blame
> purchasing of $300,000 homes by people that cannot afford
> them and the banks that loaned them the money to buy them
> when they knew they could not afford it. 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Donovan