Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That is a complete crock of shit.
If our government ceased subsidizing ethanol and paying farmers to not grow food...and allowed water to once again be used for irrigation in CA's central valley (much of which has been lying fallow due to the Feds letting water drain into the ocean instead of being used for agriculture), we'd be able to increase supply and lower prices to our benefit as well as customer of U.S. output around the world.
I agree. And as a cost cutting measure to our Federal budget, we should stop subsidizing ALL farmers and stop paying them to NOT grow crops. This currently costs Joe Taxpayer $20 BILLION annually.
And we should give a shit about food costs in Mexico, why?
1+1=2
If food went up in Mex b/c they switched to corn for fuel, and it got so bad they rioted.
It would be an example of what would/could happen here if we did the same.
Riots? REALLY? Do you HONESTLY believe American citizens care that much?
Wow, first time ever I agreed with VaYank.And we should give a shit about food costs in Mexico, why?
You've broken your own personal record for willful ignorance.
Of course, why should a leftwing moonbat care about brown people living in poverty and squalor? Although your hero claims we are all connected, clearly, some connections are tenuous at best.
Here are three valid reasons why decent and rational people care:
- Humanitarian concerns over a completely manmade issue.
- Civil unrest along an already volatile border exacerbates a national security risk.
- Food commodity prices rising around the world affect Americans as well.
Unfortunately, the United State of America is broke, and we as a country and government cannot afford to care about another country's problems.
Dood. If SEIU and AFSCME thugs are willing to riot over having to pay a smidgen of their health insurance and pension costs...what's going to happen when food prices quadruple?
End all ag subsidies. End all ethanol/biofuel subsidies. Let the market correctThat is a complete crock of shit.
If our government ceased subsidizing ethanol and paying farmers to not grow food...and allowed water to once again be used for irrigation in CA's central valley (much of which has been lying fallow due to the Feds letting water drain into the ocean instead of being used for agriculture), we'd be able to increase supply and lower prices to our benefit as well as customer of U.S. output around the world.
I agree. And as a cost cutting measure to our Federal budget, we should stop subsidizing ALL farmers and stop paying them to NOT grow crops. This currently costs Joe Taxpayer $20 BILLION annually.
Yes it looks like I'm contradicting myself, but both of you are right. VaYank is correct. We are broke and cannot afford to focus on helping other nations at our expense. You are correct that we must end ag/energy subsidies on all levels. The two are tied together, and will correct together.That is a complete crock of shit.
If our government ceased subsidizing ethanol and paying farmers to not grow food...and allowed water to once again be used for irrigation in CA's central valley (much of which has been lying fallow due to the Feds letting water drain into the ocean instead of being used for agriculture), we'd be able to increase supply and lower prices to our benefit as well as customer of U.S. output around the world.
motivates to violence unfortunately.Dood. If SEIU and AFSCME thugs are willing to riot over having to pay a smidgen of their health insurance and pension costs...what's going to happen when food prices quadruple?
Nothing motivates like a hungry child.
Yes it looks like I'm contradicting myself, but both of you are right. VaYank is correct. We are broke and cannot afford to focus on helping other nations at our expense. You are correct that we must end ag/energy subsidies on all levels. The two are tied together, and will correct together.That is a complete crock of shit.
If our government ceased subsidizing ethanol and paying farmers to not grow food...and allowed water to once again be used for irrigation in CA's central valley (much of which has been lying fallow due to the Feds letting water drain into the ocean instead of being used for agriculture), we'd be able to increase supply and lower prices to our benefit as well as customer of U.S. output around the world.
As subsidization for ethanol and fallow land go away, food will increase, lowering prices and making more available for sale overseas. The farmers will profit more with increased sales, and small ag business will expand creating jobs rather than consolidate in the hands of AGM, Monsanto and others.
I don't either, but I also know that charity start at home. Stripping the government out of the way is the first move towards fixing a multiple of problems.Yes it looks like I'm contradicting myself, but both of you are right. VaYank is correct. We are broke and cannot afford to focus on helping other nations at our expense. You are correct that we must end ag/energy subsidies on all levels. The two are tied together, and will correct together.That is a complete crock of shit.
If our government ceased subsidizing ethanol and paying farmers to not grow food...and allowed water to once again be used for irrigation in CA's central valley (much of which has been lying fallow due to the Feds letting water drain into the ocean instead of being used for agriculture), we'd be able to increase supply and lower prices to our benefit as well as customer of U.S. output around the world.
As subsidization for ethanol and fallow land go away, food will increase, lowering prices and making more available for sale overseas. The farmers will profit more with increased sales, and small ag business will expand creating jobs rather than consolidate in the hands of AGM, Monsanto and others.
Here's the big difference between the two of us: I don't assume that caring about an issue means it's the government's responsibility to spend taxpayer money to solve it.
That is a complete crock of shit.
If our government ceased subsidizing ethanol and paying farmers to not grow food...and allowed water to once again be used for irrigation in CA's central valley (much of which has been lying fallow due to the Feds letting water drain into the ocean instead of being used for agriculture), we'd be able to increase supply and lower prices to our benefit as well as customer of U.S. output around the world.
That is a complete crock of shit.
If our government ceased subsidizing ethanol and paying farmers to not grow food...and allowed water to once again be used for irrigation in CA's central valley (much of which has been lying fallow due to the Feds letting water drain into the ocean instead of being used for agriculture), we'd be able to increase supply and lower prices to our benefit as well as customer of U.S. output around the world.
I'd rather have them producing and use the money we pay them not to produce to subsidize the cost of the food to our poor.
That is a complete crock of shit.
If our government ceased subsidizing ethanol and paying farmers to not grow food...and allowed water to once again be used for irrigation in CA's central valley (much of which has been lying fallow due to the Feds letting water drain into the ocean instead of being used for agriculture), we'd be able to increase supply and lower prices to our benefit as well as customer of U.S. output around the world.
I'd rather have them producing and use the money we pay them not to produce to subsidize the cost of the food to our poor.
I don't suppose you've seen the size of most of "our" poor.
So have em change crops if they can to make the healthy foods cheaper by increasing supply. Oh wait... the poor won't eat that anyway.That is a complete crock of shit.
If our government ceased subsidizing ethanol and paying farmers to not grow food...and allowed water to once again be used for irrigation in CA's central valley (much of which has been lying fallow due to the Feds letting water drain into the ocean instead of being used for agriculture), we'd be able to increase supply and lower prices to our benefit as well as customer of U.S. output around the world.
I'd rather have them producing and use the money we pay them not to produce to subsidize the cost of the food to our poor.
I don't suppose you've seen the size of most of "our" poor.
So have em change crops if they can to make the healthy foods cheaper by increasing supply. Oh wait... the poor won't eat that anyway.I'd rather have them producing and use the money we pay them not to produce to subsidize the cost of the food to our poor.
I don't suppose you've seen the size of most of "our" poor.
Little thought experiment for you.And we should give a shit about food costs in Mexico, why?
1+1=2
If food went up in Mex b/c they switched to corn for fuel, and it got so bad they rioted.
It would be an example of what would/could happen here if we did the same.
Riots? REALLY? Do you HONESTLY believe American citizens care that much?
Glib, but nonsensical. Please clarify.So have em change crops if they can to make the healthy foods cheaper by increasing supply. Oh wait... the poor won't eat that anyway.I don't suppose you've seen the size of most of "our" poor.
Just supersize it.
It's not a coincidence that there is growing civil unrest in areas where: 1) local food production is insufficient to feed the population; 2) inflation is making the scarcity very expensive.
World Food Import Export Ratio
Above is a chart dealing with food self-sufficiency. It is measuring, in calories, (exports-imports)/consumption. Green marks countries with high food self-sufficiency and the scale moves to red, which marks countries poorly able to feed themselves, much less export food (original Net Trade in Food chart).
Anybody following the current unrest in North Africa and the Middle East will immediately note that the area is bathed in red. Add in the percentage of a person's income spent on food and the picture looks even worse. For example, both Spain and Algeria are dark red, yet the Spanish spend only 14.6% of their incomes on food, while Algerians spend a whopping 44% on food.
That means that if World food prices go up they'll cut into the discretionary spending of the Spanish, while they'll cut to the bone in places like Algeria.
The Chinese are having a crop failure, but they have money to buy food imports. That, and the increasing transport costs due to rising oil prices, means that the price of food will go up. This does not bode well for stability of any post demonstration/revolution Middle Eastern and North African governments. I think it will almost certainly extend the instability of an already unstable region. ...
The way to a man's heart
And check out the photos here (and note the horrifying packaged and prepared (predigested) food of Westernized diets):
Fresh Pics: What People Eat Around The World
So what does this all mean. For starters:
1. The world is going to be a turbulent place due to scarcity and inflation (finally Paul Ehrlich can be happy).
2. The USA is indebted to China. China needs more food. Watch for increased exports from the USA to China, and an acceleration in USA food inflation.
3. The Obamanoids and the Feds will continue to ignore food inflation while the lower and middle classes are squeezed.
4. The ongoing federal deficit spending will not resonate well in 2012 as people see their own grocery bills ballooning and are faced with painful decisions (gas for car vs. food).
That is a complete crock of shit.
If our government ceased subsidizing ethanol and paying farmers to not grow food...and allowed water to once again be used for irrigation in CA's central valley (much of which has been lying fallow due to the Feds letting water drain into the ocean instead of being used for agriculture), we'd be able to increase supply and lower prices to our benefit as well as customer of U.S. output around the world.
I agree. And as a cost cutting measure to our Federal budget, we should stop subsidizing ALL farmers and stop paying them to NOT grow crops. This currently costs Joe Taxpayer $20 BILLION annually.
It's not a coincidence that there is growing civil unrest in areas where: 1) local food production is insufficient to feed the population; 2) inflation is making the scarcity very expensive.
World Food Import Export Ratio
Above is a chart dealing with food self-sufficiency. It is measuring, in calories, (exports-imports)/consumption. Green marks countries with high food self-sufficiency and the scale moves to red, which marks countries poorly able to feed themselves, much less export food (original Net Trade in Food chart).
Anybody following the current unrest in North Africa and the Middle East will immediately note that the area is bathed in red. Add in the percentage of a person's income spent on food and the picture looks even worse. For example, both Spain and Algeria are dark red, yet the Spanish spend only 14.6% of their incomes on food, while Algerians spend a whopping 44% on food.
That means that if World food prices go up they'll cut into the discretionary spending of the Spanish, while they'll cut to the bone in places like Algeria.
The Chinese are having a crop failure, but they have money to buy food imports. That, and the increasing transport costs due to rising oil prices, means that the price of food will go up. This does not bode well for stability of any post demonstration/revolution Middle Eastern and North African governments. I think it will almost certainly extend the instability of an already unstable region. ...
The way to a man's heart
And check out the photos here (and note the horrifying packaged and prepared (predigested) food of Westernized diets):
Fresh Pics: What People Eat Around The World
So what does this all mean. For starters:
1. The world is going to be a turbulent place due to scarcity and inflation (finally Paul Ehrlich can be happy).
2. The USA is indebted to China. China needs more food. Watch for increased exports from the USA to China, and an acceleration in USA food inflation.
3. The Obamanoids and the Feds will continue to ignore food inflation while the lower and middle classes are squeezed.
4. The ongoing federal deficit spending will not resonate well in 2012 as people see their own grocery bills ballooning and are faced with painful decisions (gas for car vs. food).