Society without property?

To try and bring this back to a discussion that will be supported by the admins, let me just say this, as some one who works as a professional biologist in support of agricultural production in this country, particularly in the 'grain basket'.If it wasn't for all the distorted subsidies provided by the USDA and other government agencies, wheat production (or even cotton production) wouldn't even be economically viable in this country.If we really wanted to follow conservative ideals and let the free market reign, we'd buy most of our wheat from Canada and other countries where production costs are MUCH lower.If it wasn't for the fact that the midwestern agricultural states comprise low-density population regions that are relatively cheap votes to buy for the right-wing interests, we wouldn't see such illogical, anti-free market pandering to agricultural interests.

You have put your finger on exactly the *original* justification for Ag-subsidies.
Not just in the US, but everywhere in the developed world.
Self-sufficiency in food production.Unfortunately, it has gone way beyond that.
In the industrialized world, we have succeeded so eminently in food production that we are no longer subsidizing production for our *consumers*, but rather for our *producers* so they can chase export markets.This drives down the price of commodities worldwide and diminishes the ability of subsistence farmers in poor countries (that can't afford subsidies) to get a fair price for their crops. That's a good question, and not being an economist I am not sure I have the full answer.
The wheat farmers in Montana will tell you that Canadian wheat is more heavily subsidized than theirs is
...but that depends how you define a 'subsidy'.American wheat has a lot of indirect subsidies too, but a lot of what you mention factors in as well.
A favorable currency exchange rate, probably some lower costs of production, but it would be a very complicated calculation to figure out all the factors and how they add up to the final price.

That kind of story is reiterated all over the world.It is the same with cotton production in Africa,
something that could raise the standard of living for more than 100 million farmers in sub-Saharan regions.(American farmers received almost $ 5 billion in subsidies in 2003 !)The best form of foreign aid we can provide the developing world is not welfare food aid, but fair prices for their own local products.

They are also considered very 'cheap' votes by demographers because agricultural areas typically have low population density.
You have a lot fewer votes to 'buy' to win a seat.But the real 'tragedy of the commons' is this.Everyone (internationally) agrees that Ag. subsidies are bad, but no one is willing to do anything about them.This is because the first country to phase them out is going to disadvantage their own farmers relative to everyone else.The only way to prevent this would be for all countries to do the same thing all at once. And what would you think the chance of that is, when they the WTO can't even arrive at a universally accepted definition of what a subsidy is ?

Pretty much. I am anything BUT right wing but I would still concede that simple welfare programs beget increased dependence on welfare.The supposedly humanitarian goal of providing 'food' to impoverished countries is superficially gratifying to donors, but economically and socially misguided in the larger analysis, *unless* it is linked to stratagies for population control in these regions.We need to be providing 'self-sufficiency' for people through sustainable agriculture and sensible family planning programs, not simply a meal for today.Religious charities don't help matters because they NEVER counsel for reproductive restraint, which is a critical factor when societies need to stabilize population growth in collapsing ecosystems.Religious groups tend to bask in the publicity of charitable efforts that are bandaid solutions and actually contribute to exacerbating the problem in the larger picture.(expanded somewhat on the edit- EZ)This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-12-2005 10:38 PM