Farm Bills (read subsidies)

Farm Bills (read subsidies)

Are They What They Seem?

Since 1933, the family farmer has been offered various farm bills that on the surface seem to help AG, but in reality act as a control measure. Farm Bills must be looked at for what they are- a subsidy to hold food prices at a given level. They are charged against the farmer and realized by the consumer of agricultural products (let’s not forget we are talking about food).

As an example, in Belarus (Former Soviet Socialist Republic) we saw prices escalate at the rate of 1100% per year (post break-up). The only exception to this was the daily bread, which remained at 5 rubles per loaf. This was accomplished by government subsidy, in the hope that stable bread prices would imply that all is well. This subsidy is identified by the Belarusian Government as a farm subsidy. It should be obvious that this was meant as a political red herring.

The majority of so called farm subsidies in America are political in nature. while maintaining false retail selling values, they also encourage the farmer to become more dependent on the government. Are government subsidies in the best interest of agriculture, or rather a mechanism that turns the farm family into an addictive progeny? This brings to mind the old adage about a dog fetching a stick over and over-- Sure its fun, if you’re throwing the stick.

One current farm bill (1/29/96) is stalled in Congress. {I wrote this paragraph in the beginning of 1996 for a paper I was working on at the time. Today is July 26th 2010 I wonder if anything I write proves my hypothesis in any better fashion TL} Agricultural Groups are calling for rapid passage, so that planting of crops for the 1996 season can be planned. Agriculture is looking to this bill as an entitlement and fails to see the price that will be paid if it is passed. Congress is secure in their knowledge that whatever legislation they pass will be gratefully accepted. By doing this, is Agriculture allowing the government/society to define the worth of the individual farmer? After all, the bill is applied to individuals, rather than the industry as a whole.

Does the perpetuation of “welfare farming” also contribute to the cultural and economic shortcomings of agriculture, by allowing the unskilled or uncaring farmer to survive? Although it is imperative to preserve the family farm, should it be done “at any cost”, or should we allow the weak to perish and be replaced? Are these bills actually saying that we are willing to help farmers, regardless of whether they are willing, or have the capacity, to help themselves? Is the current mind set correct, or is it destined to breed mediocrity and factory farms?

Regardless, withdrawal from “the system” would be painful for both the farmer and the consumer. However, this withdrawal will eventually become necessary, simply because the method for withdrawal has been found- re-vitalizing rural economics by re-writing the rules of farm economics and cultural perception.

Many people view the farmer as lazy and a manipulator of the system. Some farmers see this manipulation of the system as a right for having to live a perceived lower lifestyle than their peer groups in the cities. Is this very thought condemning agriculture to second or third in the economic and social pecking order? Is the farmer saying that he will accept any indignity at the price of subsidies?

The family farmer will have to learn to mandate from society what he has willingly allowed to be taken away from him and his Agri-culture. Farming is not just for people who know nothing else or who can not compete in Industrial Society. The time has come to institutionalize our agricultural sector. “Power to the people” was a rallying call of the 1960s. The only problem with this was the definition of “people”. Power is a heady word and should not be used lightly. Power is also inherent in nature and who is closest to nature but the family farmer? Is it conceivable that the power that agriculture once had was given away at the price of "a better life" and further, allowed the government (and ultimately society) to define what agriculture must be?

A Solution?

Agriculture must wean itself from the government addiction. It will be painful and fearful, but if agriculture continues to allow the government to chattel their heritage and future, then the family farm truly is on the road to extinction. It should be apparent that the family farm must survive, if for no other reason than society should fear industrial giants controlling agriculture (read: food). The family farm is a glimmer of hope for future generations of consumers. There is a price to pay by both agriculture and consumers, a price that is social as well as a financial. We must teach the family farmers to empower themselves by taking several steps:

Reinvesting in the factory that is their farm. It is fine to live off of interest from an investment, but when you must spend the principal to survive, you are only putting off the inevitable. The principal will eventually be depleted and there will be no more interest. Reinvestment in this case, applies to farm equipment, buildings, and most especially the land (the old standby from your Grandfather: Stewardship of the home place)

Learn not to accept definitions as absolute and realize that many times societal definitions are not what they seem. As an example, if the real estate boards say that farm land is suddenly worth $3000.00 per acre, do not go out and borrow 80% on the accessed value. Question why this high value has been placed on agricultural land. Is it because when it is devalued (as it must) and is no longer sufficient collateral to support your 80%loans, you become a just another statistic hunting for a job and cursing the government.

Accept the imperative that agriculture must add value to products at the farm gate or community co-op level. This applies to commodities as well as all of the new technologies and crops that are being developed.

Accept that the farmer is going to have to accept responsibility for himself and that he is owed nothing by agriculture, consumers or government. It is up to him to re-focus his energy and investment dollars- nobody will do it for him.

Accept the fact that his labor, intellect, skills, and abilities have a finite value and he must be paid for this in a competitive manor. Agriculture cannot allow its youngest and brightest to leave the farm. Instead, it must bid and negotiate for the talents of these young people and require from the consumer a fair price for what he cost agriculture. How else will you be able to keep this most valuable asset?

Agriculture must take a hard look at the middleman and the manufacturers of agriculture-related products (frequently the same folks). Can this product or process be done at farm or community levels? It is inconceivable that 50 times the amount of grains produced are bought and sold in this country. Why does it make sense that Industry would want to see high commodity prices? A look at Adm.’s corporate reports show that only 11% of total sales were from fermentation or alternative agricultural products and process. ADM could see sales of 16.8 billion dollars this year, and a net of 4.5 billion dollars. This does not make them bad simply good business men.

CBOT Trading Floor

Farming is quickly becoming the most regulated industry in the world. Even a quick glance at the Clean Air Act will show many of the farm chemicals that are now in use will be banned. These chemicals were not invented or formulated by farmers, but primarily by the petroleum industry in an effort to increase production on farm land as well as to open new markets for their own petroleum products. Development of these products also resulted in a surplus of agriculture products. As long as there are surpluses of agricultural products, the price for food can be controlled and a profit can be made from the handling of the paper, rather than growing or selling of agriculture products.

We need a new look and new millennium definitions of agriculture. We can no longer ask agriculture for more while offering less. Social democracy which is our form of government can not survive without the cooperation of agriculture and the state. To receive support from agriculture you cannot ask for more, do it with less, under tighter consumer selective environmental controls, and we the state will dictate your selling price while deregulating the companies that make up agriculture's cost.

An Economic Postulate

Agriculture Metamorphosis:

An Economic Postulate

Agriculture must make an economic comeback and as importantly social recognition for the world economy to rejuvenate and stabilize.

Civilization has undergone many influences, both economic and political, while evolving to the current economic level. By analyzing the social and cultural evolution of man, one can gain better understanding that where Agriculture is today, as an economic and societal influence might not necessarily be where Agriculture should be.

A Brief History

Civilization formed as small bands of nomadic people, described as hunter-gatherers, united into quasi family groups. The size of the group was limited by the ability to find food and energy sufficient to sustain the group, and the ability to remain mobile for the sake of safety.

As man gained better understanding of the natural world around him, he developed techniques for cultivating plant crops. The discovery and constant refinement of Agriculture encouraged independent family groups to band together, forming settlements. This stabilization of the groups, and the ability to cultivate plant crops, supported population expansion. Prior to this, the size of the family group was limited by their ability to feed and hunt in a given but ever-increasing area. But in forming agricultural settlements, family size was further defined by the need for labor. The “large farm family” was born.

The farming families banded together to form a “nucleus” (rural communities) with branches extending from the core in all directions. With the increase of potential laborers, more land was cleared and planted. Over time, this caused a contraction of the nucleus as the older farmers turned over their lands to the younger generations. Eventually, the older farmers banded together with others to form towns. At the same time the agricultural branches expanded to encompass more and more land as the new families grew and others joined in.

Eventually, the expansion of rural towns and the increase of land being used for agriculture led to surpluses of agricultural products of limited variety, that were defined by what the local environment could support. Trading of surplus commodities ensued, thus beginning agricultural commerce among rural groups. The inequities of trade products soon defined the need for a new trading medium, and consequently the need for cash.

The desire to “live a better life” in this new economic environment of cash became and impetus for commerce to slowly replace the barter system. Artisans and craftsmen became key in this new environment, as the need for non-essential goods increased. An imbalance in trade developed, as the need for agricultural products was limited to the amount the population could consume. Hindered by this, agriculture began to lose it’s dominant role in the developing economy. The seemingly insatiable need for more than “the basics” in life proliferated, boosting the social and economic position of artisans and craftsmen. Over time, this shift in the cultural and economic fabric became a wave that would eventually drown agriculture’s control of, and indeed influence on, the economic system.

Agriculture’s inability to evolve further limited it’s growth, and therefore the economy of the surrounding regions. A new economic influence was needed if commerce was to flourish and the economy was to further stabilize. Necessity, in this case, truly was the mother of invention. Businessmen, tinkers and yes even farmers developed new machinery to automate labor intensive tasks.

The Industrial Revolution, fueled by the precept of “betterment of life” helped create a new economic paradigm, consumerism. Cities flourished and population increased, fueled by the Industrial Revolution, and their own innate ability to consume the products from it. Agriculture remained limited by the amount of food we could eat, and to limited extent, export. The agricultural economy stagnated. Over time, consumerism and Industry continued to flourish at the expense of agriculture. The family farm (or factory) suffered a decline in re-investment, as the investment dollars many times were spent to “better one’s life”.

This decline of manufacturing re-investment stymied the further development of agricultural infrastructure. Specialty manufacturing of agricultural equipment, chemicals and even the marketing of agricultural products were taken over by the consumer-driven Industry. The prices for these products, and the majority of the profits realized from them, were dictated by the marketers, who neither produced nor processed. Soon, agricultural marketing became a specialty of the Industrial Infrastructure. A continued lack of self-marketing and manufacturing by agriculture eventually doomed Agriculture to a non-controlling secondary role in the economy.

Social Implications:

It would be interesting to examine the social dynamic that catalyzed the shift in perception of the farm person. The commonality of agriculture has been forgotten, as the dwindling farm populations are no longer social and political leaders, but near “social outcasts” in the society which they helped develop and nurture.

The common perception of the farm person is as honest, independent, hard working (although not to bright) and either unable or unwilling to except change. Is this true? Is the farm family socially and economically inferior? Or is it simply a result of isolation and quasi-enslavement, in order to maintain control of the segment of the population that control the food supply? Control of the food supply is an appalling as well as frightening concept. What might happen if society were suddenly plunged into a world where 3% of the population controlled the food for the remaining 97%, and this certain 3% did not know it was in control? Is this true in today's economic and political structure? What is the general perception of this 3%?

Society sees the farm person as slow, committed to the old ways, willing to work for low pay and able to accept an imposed low self worth. The farm personage does not tend to be inherently less intelligent, even though the quality of education has traditionally been remedial. Unfortunately, it has been thought that if a child was going into farming, he would be best served if we limited his education, thus making it easier to get through. Currently, it has been taken to the other extreme, with a tendency for specialization that is being experienced in the colleges and universities of America. Instead of not teaching enough, are we are focusing our attention too specifically? Agriculture is just that- a culture- a living viable entity that must be lived rather than attended.

The farmer has almost become a non-entity that wields little political power, yet, due to “economics”, has allowed itself to be dependent on the political system. Is this a wise choice? Is it in the best interest of the “whole” to geld the political, social, and economic capacity of agriculture, so that it appears the same as always, but does not have the power to propagate? Has “The Family Farm” diminished in numbers because its has been deemed politically irrelevant, whether by conscious or unconscious choice? Political and economic control of agriculture is at best suspicious, at worst insidious.

At some point it will become apparent to the less than 3%, that less than 3% of the population controls 100% of the food we eat.