Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Renegade

Rural Subsidies

Recommended Posts

WHEN THEIR ECONOMY GOES IN THE TANK? IN ONE YEAR?

how about try justifying the way it is now and has been for the last while instead of pulling all that . Country hicks aint pulling their weight and that's simple enough to see. And do you make the prediction in your last sentence that cities produce more deadwight than rural communities in a year.

Canadian farming shouldn't be subsidized ever but forced to compete.

1) Rural Canada is not all farmers

2) Canada subsidizes their farmers less than Europe and less than the USA.

3) Is the ability for your country to produce it's own food important to you?

4) Would you just prefer to ignore the facts and call people hicks?

I kind of hope you will pick 4.

Edited by White Doors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Rural Canada is not all farmers

2) Canada subsidizes their farmers less than Europe and less than the USA.

3) Is the ability for your country to produce it's own food important to you?

4) Would you just prefer to ignore the facts and call people hicks?

I kind of hope you will pick 4.

WD, we have discussed US subsidises here: US Dumping Corn in Canada?

Who cares if Canada grows its own food. The more relevant question is how do we secure access to a resource we are dependant on?. If we have relatively secure access to food grown by other countries it is irrelvant where it is grown. There are many countries who operate quite successfully without much in the form of its own agriculture.

If US and European taxpayers want to subsidize the Canadian and other consumers, let them. Why should Canadian taxpayers repeat the same folly?

Edited by Renegade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How the hell does Japan keep going on then??? There's no concern that we'll have no food in the future and to imply such is absurd. Come back down to earth will you. You need a bigger argument for the subsidies than that. Money can be saved if we stop and allocated more efficiently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How the hell does Japan keep going on then??? There's no concern that we'll have no food in the future and to imply such is absurd. Come back down to earth will you. You need a bigger argument for the subsidies than that. Money can be saved if we stop and allocated more efficiently.

You should go to Japan and find out. Rice in Japan is far more expensive than in the rest of Asia because Japanese rice farmers are so heavily protected. The same goes for the rest of their agriculture. Even though they import a lot, they put a huge amount of importance on being able to produce their own food. Most European (read EEC now) countries have a similar attitude toward their food supply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People who live in the country should pay the TRUE cost of living out there. Subsidies are created for them because of an inability to pull their own weightin society. Remove the subsidies they receive and they'll be forced to stand on their own feet, which will move the amount of farmers closer to the necessary market equilibrium.

Getting rid of rural subsidies will chip off a bit more of the economic deadweight we suffer from and thereby move us closer to efficiency.

I would think you would be giving them rebates then.

Many rural dwellers are subsidizing the nearby small town. Does plowing cost $3000 a year? Nope. But then small families subsidize larger families, business people who travel subsidize those that dont. Bicyclists sub for car and truck drivers....and so on.

My sibsidizing goes to the Town of Huntsville.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If country people want garbage pickup they pay their own way or take to the transfer center which they paid through property taxes. Telephone cost more the further out you are. Not all rural areas can get high speed for their computers but you'd pay higher fees. Municipality water line cost more to get and install if you can get it. Some rural areas can't even get natural gas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If country people want garbage pickup they pay their own way or take to the transfer center which they paid through property taxes. Telephone cost more the further out you are. Not all rural areas can get high speed for their computers but you'd pay higher fees. Municipality water line cost more to get and install if you can get it. Some rural areas can't even get natural gas.

Not to mention the fact that a great deal of the infrastructure people talk about is actually built by people from rural area's. As to not wanting control over ones food source. How fricken stupidly insane can one get? Of course a nation should have control over it's food source. To not have that control is to hand it over to some one else. Perhaps some might think this is of no concern but history shows us time and again that it is a major concern.

As for the country hick comment, thats just plain ignorant and the kind of thing a smug useless self centered person might utter. I've mostly lived in major cities myself. If any one deserves the designation of hick it would be the vast majority of city dwellers, not rural folk. I've found that rural people are extremely capable, a problem arises, they solve it with what is at hand. They tend not to wander around with a latte and cell phone glued to their hands. They also tend to produce real and tangible products and services, not just clerking or working in an office or factory. Before yelling hick it would be wise to actually gather some real information rather than merely spouting baseless hot air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to mention the fact that a great deal of the infrastructure people talk about is actually built by people from rural area's. As to not wanting control over ones food source. How fricken stupidly insane can one get? Of course a nation should have control over it's food source. To not have that control is to hand it over to some one else.

Angus, are you concerned about your personal food supply? So do you then grow your own food to alleviate your concern?

Perhaps some might think this is of no concern but history shows us time and again that it is a major concern.

Please cite some examples of this major concern in history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If country people want garbage pickup they pay their own way or take to the transfer center which they paid through property taxes. Telephone cost more the further out you are. Not all rural areas can get high speed for their computers but you'd pay higher fees. Municipality water line cost more to get and install if you can get it. Some rural areas can't even get natural gas.

So are you claiming that rural consumers are not being subsidized?

Edited by Renegade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually just recently a friend and myself butchered a beef that we split. we also keep a couple of pigs and a sh*t load of chickens on his acreage. We also have an extensive vegetable garden and his wife puts up a lot of what it grows as preserves. We aren't totally autonomous but we also rely on commercial foods a lot less than many people do, I even like to make my own bread (not with one of those silly bread makers).

As for food as a weapon just google "food as a weapon" it will bring up lots of examples. I've seen it with my own eyes when I was deployed to Somalia. People take food for granted. When food is gone it becomes a huge incentive to do as one is told. Food is also becoming more and more the focus of strategy. Remember the old saying, an army marches on its belly? Very true, no food no fight. The same applies to a nation. It is just sheer insanity to turn that power over to a foreign nation that may not now or in the future have our best interests in mind.

You need three things above all else in life, they are, air, water and food. Why would anyone consider any of these three essentials as irrelevant or not of the highest priority? Throughout history we've seen food used as a weapon. Why do you think long sieges worked? Do you really believe people gave up through boredom? Or could it be that they had no choice when they ran out of food and water?

You really shouldn't need links for this one, it's pretty much a no brainer and yes, history is rife with examples of food being used as a weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So are you claiming that rural consumers are not being subsidized?

Not the way you think they are, nor to the degree when indeed they are. I pay for garbage, water, sewer and town improvements. I also pay more for high speed ($46.00). So I think you may be a little off in your initial premise. Besides, I enjoy the company of rural folk a lot more than the average urbanite. Rural people tend towards the salt of the earth type, not effete pretty much useless bodies who are lost without all the amenities of civilization.

As you may have noticed I take real exception to the designation of "hicks". As I said, show me the city dweller who is half as usefull or capable as these "hicks". If you can I'll declare it a genuine miracle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually just recently a friend and myself butchered a beef that we split. we also keep a couple of pigs and a sh*t load of chickens on his acreage. We also have an extensive vegetable garden and his wife puts up a lot of what it grows as preserves. We aren't totally autonomous but we also rely on commercial foods a lot less than many people do, I even like to make my own bread (not with one of those silly bread makers).

You and a friend?? Why did you not raise the cow? Is it your expectation that each person should grow their own food to be self-sufficient? Why or why not?

As for food as a weapon just google "food as a weapon" it will bring up lots of examples. I've seen it with my own eyes when I was deployed to Somalia. People take food for granted. When food is gone it becomes a huge incentive to do as one is told. Food is also becoming more and more the focus of strategy. Remember the old saying, an army marches on its belly? Very true, no food no fight. The same applies to a nation. It is just sheer insanity to turn that power over to a foreign nation that may not now or in the future have our best interests in mind.

Huh? Virtually anything we use can be used as a weapon. Google "oil as a weapon" and you will see what I mean. In any case, having some food grown in country does not prevent its use as weapon. If beef farmers decide to sell their beef to Japan because they get a better price there, are you suggesting that they should be stopped?

You need three things above all else in life, they are, air, water and food. Why would anyone consider any of these three essentials as irrelevant or not of the highest priority? Throughout history we've seen food used as a weapon. Why do you think long sieges worked? Do you really believe people gave up through boredom? Or could it be that they had no choice when they ran out of food and water?

Actually, no one said that they were irrelevant or not a priority. The point, which seem to have been missed is that you don't need to personally create these essentials in order to be resonablly assured of a supply.

Sieges worked simply because they were able to cut off the area under seige from the outside world. Areas under seige typically were not large enough to create their own food supply while under seige. There is no threat of Canada being cut off and being unable to import food from other sources. The physical ability to create a food embargo would not be reasonably possible.

So let's have real examples because everything you have pointed to is not a credible threat.

You really shouldn't need links for this one, it's pretty much a no brainer and yes, history is rife with examples of food being used as a weapon.

Humor me then and provide some links, because despite your claims I see no parallels with history and the situation of a local food supply. To be a relevant example the threat must be credible and the solution you propose should be similar to what you point in the example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not the way you think they are, nor to the degree when indeed they are.

I'm not sure how you can read what I think, but I'd be happy to be enlightened. Be specific, what do you think is subsidized, and what is not, and to what extent?

I pay for garbage, water, sewer and town improvements. I also pay more for high speed ($46.00). So I think you may be a little off in your initial premise.

The only amount you quantify is high speed. You may be glad to know you do not pay "more". The cost of Rogers High-Speed in GTA is $47.95 ($44.95+$3 modem rental). Rogers High-Speed

Besides, I enjoy the company of rural folk a lot more than the average urbanite. Rural people tend towards the salt of the earth type, not effete pretty much useless bodies who are lost without all the amenities of civilization.

As you may have noticed I take real exception to the designation of "hicks". As I said, show me the city dweller who is half as usefull or capable as these "hicks". If you can I'll declare it a genuine miracle.

I was not the one who called anyone a "hick". I have no problem with rural dwellers. Any I have met have been genuine and decent. I take issue with a system of subsidization which makes no sense, not with the people at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you are being simplistic. No where did I say that individuals should produce their own food. I did say it is not wise to turn such a capability over to foreign nations. Yes I have seen food used as a weapon, many times over, that happens when you spend extensive amounts of time in countries where they do not adhere to a standard similar to ours. Would you not say food is used as a weapon when the threat of with holding food is used to force compliance?

If you destroy the capacity to produce food in a country then you give ultimate control of that country to the nation that provides the food. Seems like a very simple concept to understand. I still remember the emphasis placed on food supplies by a lecturer on military strategy when I was still in the forces. A siege worked not because people were cut off, at least not in total. Thats just part of the equation. If you cut of someone you control the supply of food, why is this so hard for you to understand? Do you think the people under siege just went to the grocery store for more food? I guess you'll make me waste my time digging up links when you could just as easily find them yourself, it's not like theres a parcity of such examples. Well, be patient, I do have other things to do, other than indulge you that is.

As for raising the beef, did I not tell you that my friend and I just butchered one? Of course we raised it, as I said, he has an acreage we raised it on, amongst certain other animals. You set em out to graze (except pigs and chickens) and provide feed when the season does not allow grazing. What do you want us to do? Go and cut the feed up and spoon feed it? Do you have any idea about how to raise livestock? I don't think you do or you wouldn't be making such asinine comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a quick one for you, don't have time to check it out but I'm sure it'll be interesting.

Food As A Weapon

The only amount you quantify is high speed. You may be glad to know you do not pay "more". The cost of Rogers High-Speed in GTA is $47.95 ($44.95+$3 modem rental). Rogers High-Speed

Actually I am paying more now, I was paying 38.00 (give or take a few cents) when I lived in the Barrie area. As for the rest of the services I don't have a bill with me to check, I'm lazy that way, just plunk down money every month using my online banking. Last time I checked I had about a 500.00 credit with Telus.

Edited by AngusThermopyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As you may have noticed I take real exception to the designation of "hicks". As I said, show me the city dweller who is half as usefull or capable as these "hicks". If you can I'll declare it a genuine miracle.

(waving hand furiously) ME ME ME !

But I am no miracle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WHEN THEIR ECONOMY GOES IN THE TANK? IN ONE YEAR?

how about try justifying the way it is now and has been for the last while instead of pulling all that . Country hicks aint pulling their weight and that's simple enough to see. And do you make the prediction in your last sentence that cities produce more deadwight than rural communities in a year.

Canadian farming shouldn't be subsidized ever but forced to compete.

I suppose Dalton McGuinty and Jean Charest are pulling a big hoax on everyone then in bitching about the manufacturing sector, and where does that occur...

Here's a deadweight, BOMBARDIER anyone?

Basically all Canadian industries are subsidized in one way or another, that's how our country works.

Oh and that new tractor I bought, put in 5 grand of GST into the government coffers, but I'm not pulling my weight :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another one, easy to find, I really don't know why you couldn't have done this yourself.

More Food As A Weapon

Only read the first few sentences but it does appear to bear out what I was saying. You know, that which you refute and refuse to believe. As I said earlier, food as a weapon is so basic and obvious that its a no-brainer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now you are being simplistic. No where did I say that individuals should produce their own food.

You didn't. That is why I ask but yet you have not yet answered. Do you think each individual should produce their own food. Why or why not?

I did say it is not wise to turn such a capability over to foreign nations. Yes I have seen food used as a weapon, many times over, that happens when you spend extensive amounts of time in countries where they do not adhere to a standard similar to ours. Would you not say food is used as a weapon when the threat of with holding food is used to force compliance?

Yes I agree it is being used as a weapon when the threat of withholding food is used to force compliance. What I'm saying is such a threat is not a credible threat in Canada. (Nor the US, nor some others as well which also subsidize their farmers).

If you destroy the capacity to produce food in a country then you give ultimate control of that country to the nation that provides the food. Seems like a very simple concept to understand. I still remember the emphasis placed on food supplies by a lecturer on military strategy when I was still in the forces.

Surely your lecturer in military strategy pointed out the difference in being able to cut off the food supply of an army or encampment and that of a country. Do you think that in the specific circumstances we are talking about (ie cutting off the food supply to Canada) that any military strategist would think that is a credible strategy?

A siege worked not because people were cut off, at least not in total. Thats just part of the equation. If you cut of someone you control the supply of food, why is this so hard for you to understand? Do you think the people under siege just went to the grocery store for more food? I guess you'll make me waste my time digging up links when you could just as easily find them yourself, it's not like theres a parcity of such examples. Well, be patient, I do have other things to do, other than indulge you that is.

Show come credible examples where countries have had their food supplies cut off and have been forced to cave as a result, whereas they otherwise would not have caved if they grew their own food.

As for raising the beef, did I not tell you that my friend and I just butchered one? Of course we raised it, as I said, he has an acreage we raised it on, amongst certain other animals. You set em out to graze (except pigs and chickens) and provide feed when the season does not allow grazing. What do you want us to do? Go and cut the feed up and spoon feed it? Do you have any idea about how to raise livestock? I don't think you do or you wouldn't be making such asinine comments.

Yes, you did say "butchered", but unless my comphrension of English is faulty, "butchered" is not the same as "raised". I can buy a cow and butcher it but have had nothing to do with raising it.

I don't claim to have knowledge on how to raise livestock, raise wheat, raise corn, raise chickens. I don't see how that is relevant.

Maybe you can try and answer the straightforward question of if everyone must be self-sufficient in growing ALL their own food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's another one, easy to find, I really don't know why you couldn't have done this yourself.

More Food As A Weapon

Only read the first few sentences but it does appear to bear out what I was saying. You know, that which you refute and refuse to believe. As I said earlier, food as a weapon is so basic and obvious that its a no-brainer.

Oops! Here's another one.

Even More Food As A Weapon

Must I continue or is this sufficient to prove that food is, has been used and will be used as a weapon?

Apparently you are not spending any time actually reading what you are posting. None of the links show that cutting off the external supply of food to a country can is actually a credible threat.

Much of the articles talks about how conquering armies destroyed the ability of the conquered to grow their own food. None of this is prevented by having a domestic supply.

Maybe you can be more specifc on which example you think is relevant, and APPLIES to Canada being cut off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Basically all Canadian industries are subsidized in one way or another, that's how our country works.

And how retarded is that? Each industry fights for its own subsidization to the point that they are all subsidized (some more than others). Consumers and tax-payers by everyones admissiion is cross-subsidizing each other.

The only sane thing to do is to get rid of all subsidization completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only sane thing to do is to get rid of all subsidization completely.

Gonna get right on it, as soon as all the other world industries do.

....and you know that isnt going to happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh here we go with more simplistic ways of viewing things. Are you merely trying to be argumentative?

First, since you're obviously a city guy and just don't know I'll explain. When we say we butchered a beef it is generally acknowledged that it is our beef. I happen to think you already knew that and are just trying to find basic arguments.

No, everyone should not raise their own food, that wouldn't work. Once again I think you already know that, you're just being argumentative.

Next point, of course no one has ever denied food to an entire country before. With the trend being to allow other countries to grow more and more of our food for us this is a new and very valid possibility that has reared it's ugly head. Did I state that this had been done before? No, I said food has been used as a weapon throughout history. It appears you suffer from comprehension problems. I don't mean that as an insult, you just don't appear to be able to grasp obvious and simple concepts. Is it your contention that if we basically contract our food supplies to other countries they will never contemplate with holding said food in the event of conflict. Just in case you wish to deny that any such conflict could ever arise let me point out that mankind is fighting more wars globally now than at any other time in our recorded history. I also believe it is a very bad idea to give control of the most basic necessities of life to others, do you think thats a good idea?

Next, more comprehension problems. I clearly stated I did not have time to read those links, did you miss that? I was merely showing that food is actually a very common form of weapon, which it is. Why do you think all else will evolve to new forms yet the use of food as a weapon will not follow the same trend? The fact is that analysts have been saying for quite some time now that an evolution is underway regarding food and warfare. This is simple logic, mankind is never more adept than when he is finding ways to subjugate and control his fellow man. Thats our thing as a species, what we do best. You can try to deny that, but you'd be wrong.

Now, I have other things to do so if you wish to dredge up simplistic arguments then fill yer boots man. Just don't expect Johnnie on the spot answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, everyone should not raise their own food, that wouldn't work.

Please explain why not. That would get to the heart of the issue.

Next point, of course no one has ever denied food to an entire country before. With the trend being to allow other countries to grow more and more of our food for us this is a new and very valid possibility that has reared it's ugly head. Did I state that this had been done before? No, I said food has been used as a weapon throughout history.

Then your whole point of "food as a weapon" is irrelevant. It is meaningless to chant "food as a weapon" as a justification of why we need a protected agricultural industry when there is no threat of the use of "food as a weapon" toward Canada. By your own admission you have no such example.

The analogy would be if I said "air supply is a weapon" and I pointed to countless cases of indivdiuals being choked because their air supply was cut off. Such an analogy is meaningless because it doesn't apply at a country level, just as your "food as a weapon" analogy is meaningless.

It appears you suffer from comprehension problems. I don't mean that as an insult, you just don't appear to be able to grasp obvious and simple concepts. Is it your contention that if we basically contract our food supplies to other countries they will never contemplate with holding said food in the event of conflict. Just in case you wish to deny that any such conflict could ever arise let me point out that mankind is fighting more wars globally now than at any other time in our recorded history.

It is quite possible that ONE country will contemplate withtholding food shipments to us, but it stretches credulity to believe that ALL countries would simultaneously do so, because that is what needs to happen for the threat to materalize. Furthermore, all countries would need to collude to do so suddenly, so that Canada has no opportunity to stockpile food. To believe that all this could happen as a real threat, would be grasping at straws.

I also believe it is a very bad idea to give control of the most basic necessities of life to others, do you think thats a good idea?

Sure I do, if those necessities can be produced more efficiently than I can and I was assured of safety of supply. Both those conditions are met for food.

Next, more comprehension problems. I clearly stated I did not have time to read those links, did you miss that? I was merely showing that food is actually a very common form of weapon, which it is.

I guess I'm surprised that anyone would post links which are irrelevant and so peripherial to the issue.

I will have to decline your offer to post more irrelevant links.

Why do you think all else will evolve to new forms yet the use of food as a weapon will not follow the same trend? The fact is that analysts have been saying for quite some time now that an evolution is underway regarding food and warfare. This is simple logic, mankind is never more adept than when he is finding ways to subjugate and control his fellow man. Thats our thing as a species, what we do best. You can try to deny that, but you'd be wrong.

So you are trying to mitigate aginst a threat which has never happened, is unlikely to happen, and has a remote possibility of ever happening? It would seem to me that taxpayer dollars are better invested in the many other real threats and needs we face.

Based upon your positioning of "food as a weapon" I'm surprised the US didn't think of it and starve Afganstan and Iraq into submission.

Now, I have other things to do so if you wish to dredge up simplistic arguments then fill yer boots man. Just don't expect Johnnie on the spot answers.

When simple questions can't be answered it generally show me that the poster has no answers.

Not to worry, I have low expections of your answers, and I haven't been disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...