Follow @gaijinass
As we speak the American government is seeking to pass a revolutionary bill that will change the way the States handle farm insurance. Gone will be deductibles farmers pay for crop failure allowing virtually risk free farming.
[Already American farmers get] a set amount regardless of whether they have planted crops. [The new bill] would set up another crop insurance subsidy, costing $3 billion a year, to cover any losses farmers suffer, known as deductibles, before their crop insurance policies kick in. — NY Times
After buying into this new insurance program you could go into the dessert and claim you were going to plant some sunflower seeds. Even though the seeds never pushed out of the ground you would be paid for the full price of the crops as if they had pushed their way up through the earth. Already commentators are predicting farmers will move onto unproductive or wild land in order to cash in on this free government welfare program.
When you can remove nearly all the risk involved and guarantee yourself a profit, it’s not a bad business decision,” said Darwyn Bach, a farmer in St. Leo, Minn., who said that he is guaranteed about $1,000 an acre in revenue before he puts a single seed in the ground because of crop insurance. “I can farm on low-quality land that I know is not going to produce and still turn a profit. — NY Times
Even though this sort of free hand out irks me as counter productive, it’s other American farming policies that drive me up the wall. For instance the prohibition of buying food aid outside of America. As it stands now all US food aid has to be grown domestically and then shipped overseas. This adds huge costs to feeding the desperate while enriching the American farming industry. If food aid could be purchased closer to its target area it would not only be cheaper but it would build up third world farming infrastructure that could break the hunger cycle, preventing future third world food shortages.
But my biggest scorn is towards the West’s policy of growing food in Afghanistan. As it stands now most Afghan farmers grow opium as it pays a decent price and they can feed their families. The Taliban tax the drug trafficers that buy the raw heroin and that money pours into their coffers that allow the bearded ones to attack American GIs.
To defend from the opium funded, AK-47 wielding jihadists the Americans spend BILLIONS fighting the Taliban. Yet a key part of the Taliban war machinery could be destroyed if Afghan farmers simply stopped growing opium. How could they do this? Simple. Take the billions US taxpayers pay for the American presence in Afghanistan and pay Afghan farmers more for food crops than they could get for opium. The price to produce and traffic opium would go up until it became unprofitable to grow and ship to western markets while at the same time weakening the Taliban and enriching the Afghan farmer, the very person you need on your side to defeat the insurgents.
If you like this, you might like:
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Biggest Threats to English Teachers | Japans Sexual Economics | Groper Train | Hypocrisy Cynicism Lies Shame | She works hard for the money |
Gaijinass 
Exactly what I have been saying for years, why is it that we, the common folk can figure this out, but governments can”t?! They do understand this but all the politicians would lose their investments and stock shares in the companies that profit of the present scheme if they were to take the more common sense approach. Just another way that governments are enriching themselves at the cost of millions of people’s misery. There is more profit in war than peace!!!!!And we wonder why some of the world’s population hate western democracies, because all they see is a giant money making scheme at their expense.
US Farm Policy and US Drug Policy are two horrible monsters that have become so huge and noxious that only the most uninformed bureaucrats could actually support them. People cling to the notion of the “family farm” but of course mega agri-corps are the real ones benefiting from the subsidies. AS for our drug policy, it seems painfully obvious that the death toll and human suffering worldwide dwarf any harm caused by drugs themselves, even if you believe the “Reefer Madness” government version of consequences.
But if you think farm policy is bad, take a moment to read about ethanol policy. (see: http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/18/hooray-congress-is-finally-sca) (NB – excellent video on “unintended consequences” on that page.)
If I read your article correctly:
A.) I need to get me some farm land
and
B.) You have something against my morphine, that didn’t really do anything for me last time I was in the E.R. (morphine my old friend we must part ways as you don’t do a thing for me anymore, no matter how much they pump into my fat American @$$). So, “B” is rendered pointless to me (which is why I went with the “A,B’ format instead of “1st and 2nd” cause now its multiple choice and one answer gets circled), therefore I agree lets pay the farmers for food and then ship it to nearby starving areas. (wait…$h!+ now both answers are correct, well this test would pass No Child Left Behind, I guess. Crap my brains a mess.) (Mess …Guess…Damn it that rhymed! Its going to be one of those days…Good article though.)