The View From 1776

New York Times Inadvertently Damns Democrats

The problem is that the Times can’t recognize economic cause and effect.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07/31 at 07:17 PM
  1. BACK TO THE BASICS

    1. In order to anticipate the consequences of choice, humans require the use of accurate and reliable Criteria; Principles and Standards.

    2. Humans, birthed in an ego-centered condition, cannot invent Criteria greater-than-self. (Lesser man-made criteria produces results of mediocrity - and worse.)

    3. The only Transcendent Criteria available to humans is God-made. Transcendent Criteria is found only in The Holy Bible. An excellent beginning is found in Psalm 119:1-176.

    4. The Humanist IQ Test prefers mediocrity - and worse. "I'm only human."

    semper fidelis
    vincit veritas
    Posted by Choicemaker  on  08/01  at  09:35 AM
  2. Conservatives generally don
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/02  at  08:37 PM
  3. Wow - a well written post, but you might want to do a little more research on the history of the farm support program, and how it changed in the early 1970s.

    (See - the Nixon administration, sale of grain in the 'Ever Normal Granary' to the Soviet Union, and the Dept. of Agriculture under Earl Butz.)

    The regime of overproduction came after the actual elimination of New Deal programs that empahsized farm ownership and price stability and replaced them with programs that emphasized production and rapid growth in agricultural exports.
    Posted by Sousy  on  08/04  at  01:51 PM
  4. With regard to Sousy's comments, yes there have been many changes over the years in farm subsidy programs.

    Undeniably, however, they originated in FDR's AAA, under the impetus of his Agriculture Secretary Henry A. Wallace and his deputy Rexford Guy Tugwell.

    The phrase "ever normal granary" was employed by Wallace to describe the original AAA.

    Both Wallace and Tugwell were openly avowed socialists. Both saw the AAA as a key pillar in establishing socialistic regulatory control of the economy.

    Overproduction of farm products, by the way, did not start in the 1970s. It was a huge problem in the late 1940s and 1950s.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/04  at  04:12 PM
  5. Something to note: the programs put in place by the Wallace Dept. of Ag. related entirely to stability, which was entirely missing from the farm economy as it existed at the time.

    Overproduction was also encouraged in the late 1940s because there was a pretty drastic event that occured in the early 1940s that threw the world agricultural economy for a loop - and drove the need for increased exports from the United States.

    Seriously - look into the difference in farm support systems pre-Soviet grain sale and post-Soviet grain sale. You'll probably be surprised at what you find.
    Posted by Sousy  on  08/04  at  11:12 PM
  6. I also need to point out a fallacy here:

    <i> That
    Posted by Sousy  on  08/04  at  11:22 PM
  7. Sousy,

    When you say "... a well written post, but you might want to do a little more research on the history of the farm support program, and how it changed in the early 1970s." I'm not sure whether you're referring to my post or to the article itself.

    Assuming mine, then I am not sure how the Nixon/Butz augmentation of farm subsidies makes any difference to the point I made. Yes, Nixon changed the function of farm subsidies (I am actually old enough to recall him doing that). However, he didn't do that by cancelling the prior function, but rather he created a new category of subsidies that covered up imbalances created by earlier subsidies; in effect, paying some farmers to plant and others to not-plant the same crops. This only illustrates my point the more. We create programs we can't later get rid of, that are incredibly wasteful, and pile up like so many relatives who help themselves to all we provide and just won't leave. But, here's the really weird part; it is not that some are the moochers and others the mooched, we've got so many of these programs going that we're all mooching off each other and complaining its the other guy, while government is neatly taking its 70% cut off the top of every transaction.

    That's right! You'll see government report how much it takes in and an almost equal amount being spent by category. Notice, though, how it buries the amount spent in 'administrative' costs way down where no one bothers to look. So, if government says it is spending 100-billion in Medicare benefits, how much of that do you think is paid for services (hospital bills, prescriptions, MRI's, &c) and how much goes to administrate those services. For every dollar government takes to fund its many programs, it returns only about 30-cents in subsidies, benefits, grants, &c. At least, that was the situation a few years ago, and I haven't seen any big cry since Reagan for government to trim fat. So, who's the big winner here?
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/14  at  08:33 PM
  8. http://iowaunderground.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6922

    Okay, I think I see where Sousy is coming from. He posted the above article awhile ago supporting subsidies for organic farming. Somehow, I tripped a switch that got his attention when I went looking for examples of subsidy defenders (possibly, he is a monitor or contributor to Organic Consumers Org also). He
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/14  at  09:33 PM
  9. <i>However, he didn
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/15  at  10:38 PM
  10. Sousy,

    I won
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/20  at  11:30 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.