Government Owned & Managed Farms

[Anna Perenna]

I'm not sure if the same problem applies to the USA (or elsewhere), but the number of farms (and farmers) in Australia is decreasing every year.

There are various reasons, like:

•  
  [ ]Children of farmers are no longer interested in taking up the family business, so when the parents retire, the farmland is sold.
  [ ]Competitive production-line farms and free trade agreements are causing prices to go down, along with profit margins for farmers.
  

And so on.....

So, we're actually looking at a shortage of local food supply.

I know Hugo (and many of you) want smaller government and less government control, but in this instance, wouldn't it make sense for the Government to own and manage enough farmland to ensure food supply to the population?

Particularly since food is a basic human need - and by all means, a basic human right?

 

[hugo]

From The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:

Ricardo also opposed the protectionist Corn Laws, which restricted imports of wheat. In arguing for free trade, Ricardo formulated the idea of comparative costs, today called comparative advantage—a very subtle idea that is the main basis for most economists’ belief in free trade today. The idea is this: a country that trades for products it can get at lower cost from another country is better off than if it had made the products at home.
Say, for example, Poorland can produce one bottle of wine with five hours of labor and one loaf of bread with ten hours. Richland’s workers, on the other hand, are more productive. They produce a bottle of wine with three hours of labor and a loaf of bread with one hour. One might think at first that because Richland requires fewer labor hours to produce either good, it has nothing to gain from trade.

Think again. Poorland’s cost of producing wine, although higher than Richland’s in terms of hours of labor, is lower in terms of bread. For every bottle produced, Poorland gives up half of a loaf, while Richland has to give up three loaves to make a bottle of wine. Therefore, Poorland has a comparative advantage in producing wine. Similarly, for every loaf of bread it produces, Poorland gives up two bottles of wine, but Richland gives up only a third of a bottle. Therefore, Richland has a comparative advantage in producing bread.

If they exchange wine and bread one for one, Poorland can specialize in producing wine and trading some of it to Richland, and Richland can specialize in producing bread. Both Richland and Poorland will be better off than if they had not traded. By shifting, say, ten hours of labor out of producing bread, Poorland gives up the one loaf that this labor could have produced. But the reallocated labor produces two bottles of wine, which will trade for two loaves of bread. Result: trade nets Poorland one additional loaf of bread. Nor does Poorland’s gain come at Richland’s expense. Richland gains also, or else it would not trade. By shifting three hours out of producing wine, Richland cuts wine production by one bottle but increases bread production by three loaves. It trades two of these loaves for Poorland’s two bottles of wine. Richland has one more bottle of wine than it had before, and an extra loaf of bread.

These gains come, Ricardo observed, because each country specializes in producing the good for which its comparative cost is lower.

If Australia is importing more food than it is exporting it is most likely due to other nations being able to more efficiently produce foods Australians demand and that Australians trade goods that they are more efficient at producing in exchange. Ricardo's comparative advantage theory is one of the few theories strongly supported across the left/right political divide. I believe one legitimate reason to offer protection to an industry is national security issues. I really cannot envision a coming war where Australia would be starved out by its foes. If self-sufficiency in food is a must I would much prefer protective tariffs or stockpiled MREs over government managed farms.

I do not look at food, or health, as a basic human right. I look at property rights as a basic human right. If you are forcing Peter to feed Paul you are imposing on Peter while encouraging idleness in Paul. If someone does believe it is the obligation of the state to feed the hungry than the state should do it as cheaply as possible.

 

[hugo]

Accidental double post

 

[Anna Perenna]

If Australia is importing more food than it is exporting it is most likely due to other nations being able to more efficiently produce foods Australians demand and that Australians trade goods that they are more efficient at producing in exchange. Ricardo's comparative advantage theory is one of the few theories strongly supported across the left/right political divide. I believe one legitimate reason to offer protection to an industry is national security issues. I really cannot envision a coming war where Australia would be starved out by its foes. If self-sufficiency in food is a must I would much prefer protective tariffs or stockpiled MREs over government managed farms.

I do not look at food, or health, as a basic human right. I look at property rights as a basic human right. If you are forcing Peter to feed Paul you are imposing on Peter while encouraging idleness in Paul. If someone does believe it is the obligation of the state to feed the hungry than the state should do it as cheaply as possible.

Thanks Hugo. Let me clarify:

Australia is actually one of the world’s largest exporters of dairy, barley, wheat, beef, wine, sugar and lamb.

I'll also clarify my former 'etc etc etc etc' : + rising demand (driven by economic growth in developing countries) + the increased production of biofuels (reducing the availability of crops for food and feed) + a string of poor seasons for a number of major agricultural producers = a local (and global) food shortage = a reason to increase Australian farmers and farmland.

Australian farms also get a raw deal in the current free trade agreement. Oz and the Farmers Federation are working to reduce unfair distortions in global trade tariffs and quotas, but they've been working on it since 2005 and the Industry saw a sharp decline in 2008. So, I'm not hopeful.

Also, Agricultural technology (like most technology) is changing and improving rapidly, but most farmers can't (or won't) keep up. There are some innovators and adapters out there, but they are fewer than the traditional old school farmers who don't want to change their life-long practices. The government, on the other hand, has the resources to implement green and innovative technologies & practices.

But I agree that if the government is going to take responsibility for feeding people then they should do it as cheaply as possible. I also believe they should do it as cleverly as possible (see above) and that the bulk of the benefit should be to Australia.

So, considering all of that, it seems to me that our Government should start thinking about buying up at least some farmland. I don't see the industry improving (or surviving) otherwise.

To finish, I do see food and healthcare as a basic human right - because they could very easily be readily available to everyone on the planet, if the 'system' worked properly.

 

[timesjoke]

Most private industry fails when the Government gets involved. The reason is while thay have "good intentions" they lack the qualified people to actually do the job and most cases the day to day functions are performed by people who lack any real motivation or encouragement to excell.

Consider that Government regulation and Government involvement to help Unions take over most of the production in America has caused almost all of our American production to move to friendlier markets. It is called killing the Goose that lays the golden eggs.

I don't know if you do this in Australia but in America some farms are even paid "not" to grow certain crops. This is done to keep prices up on certain items the Government believes there will be too much of should the farmers grow what they were going to grow.

I agree with your first point about many young people not wanting to take over the family farm but also Government regulations favor the big super farms because they are more capable of taking advantage of the comples system of taxes and regulations where a smaller farmer cannot have an on staff lawyer and accountant to juggle all of these things. If you take the profit out of farming for the little guy, why would the little guy want to do it?

Governments taking over farms would be a disaster. I would say offer more relaxed regulation for the little guys and stop giving everything to the big monster farms. For example here in America the monster farms should not get the money to not grow certain crops, the reason this was started was to keep the small farmers from starving but it is now being abused by the super farms to make big money from the Government. And this one program with it's abuse is most likely one of the best examples of how "good intentions" by the Government ends up being a very bad result.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

Government involvement in anything outside the scope of national defense is a disaster.

 

[RegisteredAndEducated]

Government involvement in anything outside the scope of national defense is a disaster.

I agree RO.

 

[emkay64]

Look forward to seeing that lovely lab created beef coming to a market near you very soon.

http://www.gizmag.com/scientists-grow-meat-in-a-lab/13478/

 

[RegisteredAndEducated]

Look forward to seeing that lovely lab created beef coming to a market near you very soon.

http://www.gizmag.com/scientists-grow-meat-in-a-lab/13478/

That's a tad disgusting...

Give me good old dead cow or pig anyday... I'm not sure that I would ever eat lab grown meat.

 

[emkay64]

That's a tad disgusting...

Give me good old dead cow or pig anyday... I'm not sure that I would ever eat lab grown meat.

At some point you may not have a choice. Farm fed animals will be a luxury for the upper echelon. Us pions will be forced to eat lab meat. Would that be petri-beef or petri-pork for you?

 

[snafu]

At some point you may not have a choice. Farm fed animals will be a luxury for the upper echelon. Us pions will be forced to eat lab meat. Would that be petri-beef or petri-pork for you?

I'd eat it.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

At some point you may not have a choice. Farm fed animals will be a luxury for the upper echelon. Us pions will be forced to eat lab meat. Would that be petri-beef or petri-pork for you?

That's why I started printing Confederacy legal tender, again.

There might be a revolt in the future.

 

[timesjoke]

At some point you may not have a choice. Farm fed animals will be a luxury for the upper echelon. Us pions will be forced to eat lab meat. Would that be petri-beef or petri-pork for you?

You know, there was a time way, way back in the day when humans were capable of growing and hunting their own food, lol.....

I keep a couple cows for personal use beef and my father has had a garden for as long as I can remember. We don't do it to make money, just for personal/family use. The city folk may get trapped into eating nothing but lab created pretend meat, but there are still a few people in America who would not have to be rich to have real meat to eat

 

[emkay64]

You know, there was a time way, way back in the day when humans were capable of growing and hunting their own food, lol.....

I keep a couple cows for personal use beef and my father has had a garden for as long as I can remember. We don't do it to make money, just for personal/family use. The city folk may get trapped into eating nothing but lab created pretend meat, but there are still a few people in America who would not have to be rich to have real meat to eat

I was taking a cynical viewpoint TJ. I meant as far as the grocery store goes..there may be no choice, and with the reduction in farms it may not be possible to just have "personal use" cows.

 

[phreakwars]

Most private industry fails when the Government gets involved.

Governments taking over farms would be a disaster.

She never said anything about government taking over anything, she said how about if the government takes some of it's owned land... you know... government land... and uses that to grow crops on.
In a free market, why can't the government also compete? It already does with the postal service... surely THAT wasn't taken over by the government..

****, were paying tax's for subsidizing farmers to not grow things, how about applying some of that to grow more of what the government is saying is gonna be the winning crop on a government owned farm?

.

.

 

[timesjoke]

I was taking a cynical viewpoint TJ. I meant as far as the grocery store goes..there may be no choice, and with the reduction in farms it may not be possible to just have "personal use" cows.

This is one of the reasons I laugh at people who live in cities, lol. Every person who lives in a big city is dependent on the Government for their survival from one degree to another. This is why people who live in cities tend to be very liberal/socialist while people who live in the country are conservative. Conservative people tend to be very self-reliant, while liberals/socialists want the Government to do everything for them.

She never said anything about government taking over anything, she said how about if the government takes some of it's owned land... you know... government land... and uses that to grow crops on.

Actually she did:

So, considering all of that, it seems to me that our Government should start thinking about buying up at least some farmland.

But even without that consider this, if the Government suddenly got into the farm business what would be the first result?

The smaller and less financially secure farms would have to close down because they could not compete against a Government farm that does not have to make a profit.

In a free market, why can't the government also compete? It already does with the postal service... surely THAT wasn't taken over by the government..

****, were paying tax's for subsidizing farmers to not grow things, how about applying some of that to grow more of what the government is saying is gonna be the winning crop on a government owned farm?

.

.

The government, on the other hand, has the resources to implement green and innovative technologies & practices.

Where do you two believe the Government resources (tax money) come from?

So first you tax the **** out of farmers and the produce they grow, then you take some of that tax money to start Government run farms and put that farmer out of business?

Interesting you mention the postal service Bender, are they doing a great job managing that service? While the Government has the power and the unlimited resources (tax money) to do anything they please, they do not possess the knowledge or the capability to actully do the work in an efficient way.

Then of course there is the private sector to consider, the mosre private sector jobs you eliminate and replace with Government workers your losing tripple the tax income each worker represented. Every time the Government grows, tax funds decline because there are less workers to collect taxes from.

 

[phreakwars]

Government employees don't pay taxes?

And complain about the post office if you like. I've never missed a water bill or electric bill in the mail yet. So what happens if the post office goes under? Do we like, not get mail anymore?

 

[ImWithStupid]

She never said anything about government taking over anything, she said how about if the government takes some of it's owned land... you know... government land... and uses that to grow crops on.

In a free market, why can't the government also compete? It already does with the postal service... surely THAT wasn't taken over by the government..

****, were paying tax's for subsidizing farmers to not grow things, how about applying some of that to grow more of what the government is saying is gonna be the winning crop on a government owned farm?

.

.

Maybe government should take some it's own land/resources and start to make car parts and put car parts manufacurers out of business. Maybe government should start using it's own land/resources to come up with a train system to move passengers from city to city, oh yea, they did that already and it's a failure.

Article 1 of the Constitution empowered the Congress to establish a post office and roads, and in effect, it can't compete. Like all government, it's far less efficient than the private sector. It only survives because some things are mandated by law, that only the post office can deliver it.

The reason we pay people not to grow things is to keep prices from tanking and people going bankrupt. Nothing good ever comes from the government deciding what the "winning" anything will be. That whole ethanol mandate should be enough of a disaster for anyone.

The government deciding what the winners and losers are, tramples on innovation and ingenuity.

 

[phreakwars]

Maybe government should take some it's own land/resources and start to make car parts and put car parts manufacurers out of business. Maybe government should start using it's own land/resources to come up with a train system to move passengers from city to city, oh yea, they did that already and it's a failure.

Article 1 of the Constitution empowered the Congress to establish a post office and roads, and in effect, it can't compete. Like all government, it's far less efficient than the private sector. It only survives because some things are mandated by law, that only the post office can deliver it.

The reason we pay people not to grow things is to keep prices from tanking and people going bankrupt. Nothing good ever comes from the government deciding what the "winning" anything will be. That whole ethanol mandate should be enough of a disaster for anyone.

The government deciding what the winners and losers are, tramples on innovation and ingenuity.

Yeah, I guess that makes sense. But on the other hand, your talking about a necessity of life, not a retail product. Cars and trains and windmills and power plants and etc is one thing. Food on the other hand, is something we will need even if we did away with the Federal reserve monetary system. Correct?

.

.