Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,449 Year: 6,706/9,624 Month: 46/238 Week: 46/22 Day: 1/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Society without property?
Alexander
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 121 (199241)
04-14-2005 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by contracycle
04-14-2005 10:00 AM


Re: !
No one has told me any lies, contracycle. If you want to make Marx more palatable to a trained economist, prove the LTV. That would be a good start to convincing anyone of the existence of a viable alternative to a mixed economy.
You haven't offered anything but righteous indignation and claims of "but thats not communism" or "you dont understand communism" in response to the logical questions posed by the other skeptical posters on this thread. That's the same tiresome drivel I've gotten from every other socialist.
Have you read Adam Smith? Keynes? Friedman? Markowitz? Schiller? Samuelson? Solow? Pareto optimatlity and strategic theory? Growth theory? Banking and credit systems? Micro econ and prospect theory? Hell, ever flip through a copy of Atlas Shrugged? 85 posts and so far you haven't shown us a goddamned thing. I'm done with this thread.

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by contracycle, posted 04-14-2005 10:00 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by contracycle, posted 04-14-2005 10:51 AM Alexander has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 121 (199254)
04-14-2005 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Alexander
04-14-2005 10:29 AM


Re: !
quote:
No one has told me any lies, contracycle. If you want to make Marx more palatable to a trained economist, prove the LTV. That would be a good start to convincing anyone of the existence of a viable alternative to a mixed economy.
But if I am to make Marx palatable, I must deal with what Marx actually wrote - not claims that he never made, and which are not componments of Marxism. The question of why thhese urban legends are in such common circulation is an interesting one.
quote:
You haven't offered anything but righteous indignation and claims of "but thats not communism" or "you dont understand communism" in response to the logical questions posed by the other skeptical posters on this thread. That's the same tiresome drivel I've gotten from every other socialist.
Ah, so now not accepting responsibility for positions we have never held is "tiresome drivel"? I mean, has it never occurred to you, seeing how consistent and reliable the response is, that it might actually be true? Or do you just presume that you understand our argument better then we do?
Don't you think maybe that those of us who DID read Capital in its entirety, and probably other works by Marx, are in a reasonable position to confidently comment on Marx actual argument?
It seems to me that in this statement you have essentially conceded your own bias. You refuse to deal with the real Marx, and instead prefer attacking a straw Marx. Just like, say, Friedman.
quote:
Have you read Adam Smith? Keynes? Friedman? Markowitz? Schiller? Samuelson? Solow? Pareto optimatlity and strategic theory? Growth theory? Banking and credit systems? Micro econ and prospect theory? Hell, ever flip through a copy of Atlas Shrugged? 85 posts and so far you haven't shown us a goddamned thing. I'm done with this thread.
Yes to Smith, Keynes and Friedman. Atlas Shrugged is a joke.
You say I have not shown you a goddamned thing, and yet I have given you:
- outline of marxist distribution
- brief discussion of spontaneous soviet formation
- debunked several common myths.
And what have you given us? Nothing but incredulity and bombast, from a position that is clearly based on ignorance of Marx, not analysis. You're not even willing to engage in the discussion of value theory you yourself asked for!
As is so often the case, Capitalist theorists simply, and demonstrably, do not have a cogent criticism of Marx. It doesn't have to be malicious, or even stupid. But the FACT of the matter is that Marx' criticisms of capitalism have never been rebutted. Significant features of the modern economy fall exactly as Marx predicted they would - for example, the flight of manufacturing to the third world, a prediction made well before Capitalism even sniffed the idea.
And inexplicably, nobody can explain this. Everyone knows Marx is "discredited", its just that nobody can explain how or why. Everyone knows that Marxism cannot work, bu in order to construct this argument they have to attribute to Marxism things it never claimed.
See, capitalist dogma is just not threatening. It has lots of bark and no bite. Thats precisely why we are so confident.
For enyone else reading, now that Alexander has defaulted, I'm still prepared to engage in a discussion of the LTV or whatever else. It's only science after all, nothing anyone should be afraid of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Alexander, posted 04-14-2005 10:29 AM Alexander has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 120 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 93 of 121 (199271)
04-14-2005 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by contracycle
04-14-2005 10:19 AM


Hey Contra, it would really help for those of us who are reading but not participating this thread if you click on the proper reply button.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by contracycle, posted 04-14-2005 10:19 AM contracycle has not replied

  
StormWolfx2x
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 121 (199387)
04-14-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by contracycle
04-14-2005 6:07 AM


Re: !
quote:
No of course not. The citizens work for their own interests, according to the demand for their services, and rewarded according to their prpoprtional efficiency. Where in this is there any requirement for any one caring for any one else particularly?
if they are rewarded for their proportional efficiency who decides what jobs are worth proportionately more? If a human does it, and that human is working for their own interests as you said, what keeps them from making decisions that unequally benefits themselves or their community more than others?
Either greed and selfishness would have to be eliminated, as in a system where computers make the decisions, or, as in a small society, caring and kinsman ship would have to artificially eliminate them in order to keep the effects of greed and selfishness to a minimum.
I agree that citizens being awarded according to the demand for their services, and rewarded according to their proportional efficiency. Would be an ideal policy, I just don't see how such a system could work without being corrupted by human interests
quote:
Yes of course. So what? I mean, one suitable solution to the alleged problem is simply to provide the good to whoever was willing to pay the most for it, i.e., whoever was willing to carry out the most socially necessary labour(so your from England eh?, ahaha I found out your secret : P) for the rest of us. Thats suitably fair and equitable.
That’s acceptable to me. Id say to a large degree that’s how it works today, but what we can both agree on is that that the system that pays "socially necessary labor" isn't entirely fair today.
I just can't imagine a communist system that could reward labor effectively unless selfishness and greed were eliminated.
The best solution, as I see it, is to reinforce labor unions, and keep them as separate political entities who only purpose is to better the lives of those that they represent, its not perfect, but even labor unions that were notoriously corrupt(like the early teamsters)did a lot to advance the plight of their workers.
quote:
Now, a common resposne to that sort of suggestion is "thats capitalism". But its not, becuase there are no owners of capital involved. The idea that communism depends on some special degree of care, or a special mindset, is completely false. Marx specifically denounces any and all such propositions as Utopian.
but there are owners of capital, as long as greed, selfishness, and transportation problems exist, a fair, large scale, system that rewards "socially necessary labor" cannot be maintained, what your suggesting is that communities own capital instead of individuals and families, and that does sound plausible to me.
quote:
Communism rewards all producers for their production directly and honestly.
Ideally yes, and I agree that that would be the best system, but it’s simply not possible on a large scale with human emotional and technological limitations.
quote:
But they do not need to. I have pointed out already: Communism does not depend on altruism, or caring, or mutual respect, or anything at all of that nature.
Ideally communism would not have to rely on these things, but it must exist in order to keep people that were in positions of power from making selfish decisions. Unless, as I said before, the decisions were not left to man.
quote:
And in point of fact, this altruism stuff is not even relevant to primitive communism, as anyone who ahas experienced the bickbiting, gossip and parochialism of small village communities can attest.
that because people who live in small communities today do not rely on each other in the same way that primitive communist societies did. Say someone from a small community you live in today goes hunting and kills a moose, in a primitive society there would be no reason not to share the meat with all members if you kept it for yourself it would spoil before you were able to eat it, not only that but your favor would be returned the next time another person obtained food that they would then share with you.
Your analogy is a poor one as your trying to compare a self contained primitive communist society with a modern non contained capitalist one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by contracycle, posted 04-14-2005 6:07 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by contracycle, posted 04-15-2005 6:22 AM StormWolfx2x has not replied
 Message 96 by contracycle, posted 04-15-2005 6:31 AM StormWolfx2x has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 121 (199514)
04-15-2005 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by StormWolfx2x
04-14-2005 4:34 PM


Re: !
quote:
if they are rewarded for their proportional efficiency who decides what jobs are worth proportionately more?
No job is inherently worth more than any other - why should they be?
What matters is whether you are average, better than average, or less than average, by comparison to other produces in your field.
Thats a purely technical comparison that can easily be carried out in the accounting systems we use today. A part of the cost of all components and productive steps is assessed to the final unit sale price in capitalism - all the necessary accounting mechanisms are already in place.
quote:
If a human does it, and that human is working for their own interests as you said, what keeps them from making decisions that unequally benefits themselves or their community more than others?
How can they do so? They cannot prevent anyone else from doing the same job.
quote:
Either greed and selfishness would have to be eliminated, as in a system where computers make the decisions, or, as in a small society, caring and kinsman ship would have to artificially eliminate them in order to keep the effects of greed and selfishness to a minimum.
No, not only is that not the case, but I am unabloe to understand how you come to this conclusion. If your argument were remotely true, then Capitalism would only work on the basis of altruism too. Thats manifestly nonsense - your emotional state has no relevance to a formal accounting practice.
quote:
I just can't imagine a communist system that could reward labor effectively unless selfishness and greed were eliminated.
Well OK Stormworlf but thatb is just dogma speaking. The only reason altruism has ever been introdyuced into the argument is as a dishoneste capitalist claim. No communist would ever agree that their system relied on altruism. We deny that there is any such requirement whatsoever, and frankly I have a hard time understanding what role you think it has to play. None of the processes I have outlined has ever mmade any appeal to anyones state of mind.
Why don't you tell me what part of the process requires altruism? I see a process that responds to and meets humanities wuite natural drive for aquisition and wealth; no altruism is required anywhere.
quote:
The best solution, as I see it, is to reinforce labor unions, and keep them as separate political entities who only purpose is to better the lives of those that they represent, its not perfect, but even labor unions that were notoriously corrupt(like the early teamsters)did a lot to advance the plight of their workers.
The model I am proposing is more or less one in which the union is the basic unity of organisation for the entire economy.
quote:
but there are owners of capital, as long as greed, selfishness, and transportation problems exist, a fair, large scale, system that rewards "socially necessary labor" cannot be maintained, what your suggesting is that communities own capital instead of individuals and families, and that does sound plausible to me.
I'm sorry I don't follow - where does this capital materialise from? I think you are confusing capital with mere money.
quote:
Ideally yes, and I agree that that would be the best system, but it’s simply not possible on a large scale with human emotional and technological limitations.
No, its the human emotional input THAT MAKES IT WORK; the desire to work, to acquire, to achieve. And IMO the technical limitations were surpassed wqhen we invented the telegraph. I'm afraid your objection appears to me to continue to impose on this proposal a notion of altruism whaich has no place in the theory at all, and then proceeds to knock down that straw man. Once again, we are getting to a point in which yuou are not asking me to explain - you are telling me what my own position is. Why?
quote:
Ideally communism would not have to rely on these things, but it must exist in order to keep people that were in positions of power from making selfish decisions. Unless, as I said before, the decisions were not left to man.
No, not at all. If for example the boss is skimming off our production for his private interest, then you and I as workers have the power to remove him. Your greed and my greed counteract the bosses greed - and we have more power than the boss. So once again I ask - where is altruism and selflessness involved? Nowhere. They are not required. They are specifically forbidden in the construction of the system. No communist has ever made such an argument. Why do you impose this interpretation on my argument?
We WANT people to make selfish decisions. I want the 90% of people who produce in our econonomy to selfishly demand all the wealth they create, instead of giving it to an entrepreneur for nothing. Whats wrong with that in terms of "human nature"?
quote:
that because people who live in small communities today do not rely on each other in the same way that primitive communist societies did. Say someone from a small community you live in today goes hunting and kills a moose, in a primitive society there would be no reason not to share the meat with all members if you kept it for yourself it would spoil before you were able to eat it, not only that but your favor would be returned the next time another person obtained food that they would then share with you.
Your analogy is a poor one as your trying to compare a self contained primitive communist society with a modern non contained capitalist one.
I sort of accept your point. Your description of the way this exchange works in a primitive communism is quite correct - as you say, there is no point in trying to accumulate capital in the form of meat in a low tech society; you are far better off giving it away and accepting the accolades and gratitude. And as you say, this is becuase this is a mutually dependant society.
But our society is also a mutually dependant society. The model that capitalism applies to all transactions is one derived from the example of a small farmer - an independant producer with a certain degree of capital, trading with others but largely self sufficient.
Unfortunately, real technical life does not work like that - in order for me to produce, the trains must roll, the supermarkets must stock if I am to eat, the power stations must be operational. My existance is utterly dependant on not a few, but thousands of people doing what they do, and doing it effectively.
that is why there is no point for me, any more than the for the primitive hunter, in trying to hold resources back from the system. If I do so, the most likely outcome is a weakening of the system as a whole. That is exactly how we come to the concept of "socially necessary labour" - determining those things which are the minimum requirements for the maintenance of our technical life support apparatus. I'm far better off trading my products and labour with other people, freely, and thus contributing to greasing the whells of the very industries I rely upon to live.
Once again, no altruism is evident. Only enlightened self interest.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-15-2005 05:23 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by StormWolfx2x, posted 04-14-2005 4:34 PM StormWolfx2x has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 121 (199515)
04-15-2005 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by StormWolfx2x
04-14-2005 4:34 PM


Re: !
Part 2
However, kjn order to further assuage your concerns regarding the accoutning process, let me offer you a concept that employs both your ideas and mine - that is, after all, how we are going to build these systems. Lets say, whay the hell not use machines to do as much of the accounting as possible? Saves on labour if nothing else.
A little while ago the US treasury proposed adding an RFID (radio frequency ID) tag to, and I quote, "every product that ships in the USA". We hav the technology to do this, although whether it is cost effective in my mind is an open question. But lets take the proposition and run with it.
If we tag absolutely every product, then we also know everything we need to know about the productive apparatus. Because, every washer and screw which builds a machine is the product of another machine. So in short order, we will have a comprehensive and universal built-in automated system for accounting all the relevant inputs to any given product produced anywhere whatsoever. And with this accumulated data, we will be in an excellent position to do all the necessary calculations to determine whose inputs are worth more than other, or whatever.
What I want to reinforce, though, is that this is not a grand Matrix style abdication of control from humans to machines. It is merely using machines intelligently - like the educated technical workers we are - to solve our problems. It would not render humans mere drones in a hive. Technology can and will be used to facilitate the particular needs of the communist mode of production.
We have the technology. We have the intelligence. And in the present, we work for a reward that is tiny compared to our contributions. In short, we have nothing to lose but our chains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by StormWolfx2x, posted 04-14-2005 4:34 PM StormWolfx2x has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4312 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 97 of 121 (201048)
04-21-2005 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by contracycle
04-12-2005 11:53 AM


Maybe I've missed something that's already been said, but I read a pretty large number of posts, and I don't think the following has been addressed.
That's purely a communications bandwidth problem. The internet solved it.
Do you mean that the internet solved a communications problem, or that it solved the communism problem, which is that it really hasn't ever worked on a large scale?
My question is, has the communism you described ever worked anywhere? Someone said at the beginning that it worked on a small scale, with 40 or 50 people. I think we have some version of communism working extremely well here with 200 people. I doubt it's a Marx version, but I don't know Marxism well enough to answer that.
My question is, has Marxism ever worked? I'm understanding that the goal of Marxism is to produce a society where everyone's needs are met and where people's abilities are used well (give as you're able, take as you need).
Everyone can debate theories and argue why this or that should work. We know the accuracy of theories by how well they work. Are you able to address that?
I don't know the answers to the questions I'm asking. I'm asking them, because they seem to be the right questions to ask concerning your defense of Marxism you're putting forth here, contra.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by contracycle, posted 04-12-2005 11:53 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by coffee_addict, posted 04-22-2005 1:06 AM truthlover has not replied
 Message 100 by contracycle, posted 04-22-2005 9:21 AM truthlover has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 120 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 98 of 121 (201073)
04-22-2005 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by kjsimons
04-12-2005 2:05 PM


kjsimons writes:
While the US does have a surplus capacity, it is not enough to feed the entire planet, certainly not "several times over". Unless of course we started farming all our golf courses and lawns and every square inch of greanspace and put at least half our work force back into farming.
What did you think I mean by capacity?
The power of receiving or containing; extent of room or
space; passive power
; -- used in reference to physical
things.
Unless both my geography and ethics classes lied, the US does have the capacity (potential) to produce enough food for everyone several times over.
However, since we are a developed nation, our people are more worried about what to wear to conform with current fashion or what to do for fun and recreation.
Regardless, unless we start seriously thinking of population control and possibly even reduction, we are going to see serious food shortages in our lifetimes I'm afraid.
Like I said, we will definitely see some serious food shortages in the near future in other parts of the world. However, strictly speaking, the US and other developed countries will not face such disaster for a very very long time.
The other thing is how do you propose we go about controling the population explosions in underdeveloped countries without some kind of millitary intervention? We can't. These countries have very deep rooted traditions that call for 24/7/365 reproduction rate.
I have a cousin in Vietnam that already has 9 kids and another one coming. The irony is all of them are hungry all the time because they live in extreme poverty. Yet, he and his wife keep pumping them out just so they could starve very slowly. It is very sad for me to have to see them like that everytime I go back. Whenever someone says something to him about focusing on making a living rather than pumping out children, his response is always "god's purpose is for us to be fruitful and multiply" bullshit. Now, imagine a whole nation having the same mentality.
Again, my question is how do we make these people aware of the problem that is right in front of their faces? China seems to be doing ok with their 1 child only law (I'm pretty sure many of them are gay if you know what I mean). India ain't doing so well and their pop could very well exceed China's in a couple generations. Africa is a mess. Aside from bombing them, what can we do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by kjsimons, posted 04-12-2005 2:05 PM kjsimons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by kjsimons, posted 04-22-2005 10:51 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 120 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 99 of 121 (201074)
04-22-2005 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by truthlover
04-21-2005 10:40 PM


truthlover writes:
My question is, has the communism you described ever worked anywhere?
Not in the grand scale that he intended it for.
I'm understanding that the goal of Marxism is to produce a society where everyone's needs are met and where people's abilities are used well (give as you're able, take as you need).
Yes, and in order to achieve such a goal, a society must go through a period of industrialism and capitalism where production of goods goes as high as it can. Once the industries, farms, tools, infrastructures, and other necessities are present, then the civilization can take the first steps toward true communism.
Everyone can debate theories and argue why this or that should work. We know the accuracy of theories by how well they work. Are you able to address that?
The problem is noone has ever actually perform the experiment the way Marx intended. Russia jumped from a feudalistic society to communism. It lacked the industries, tools, infrastructure, and other necessities to feed and clothe its people. Stalin tried to compensate for that by having one 5 year plan after another.
China jumped from a feudalistic society to communism. It, too, lacked the infrastructure to support its population. Mao tried to compensate for that with the cultural revolution and the great leap foward, which pretty much starved tens of millions of people.
This is why one cannot simply say communism doesn't work. Noone has ever tried to perform the experiment the right way.
I am one of those that is still confident it can be done. The US is already on its way very slowly. Most of the European countries are also on their way to true communism very slowly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by truthlover, posted 04-21-2005 10:40 PM truthlover has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 121 (201126)
04-22-2005 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by truthlover
04-21-2005 10:40 PM


quote:
Do you mean that the internet solved a communications problem, or that it solved the communism problem, which is that it really hasn't ever worked on a large scale?
Troys answers are good, but I was specifically addressing the communicaiton problems.
You see Athenian democracy worked because Atghens wasa quite small, and the whole voting populace could certainly be inside its walls and probably in the main forum. Thus, they could all be involved in the debate, weigh up options etc.
Rome too had an open forum (although it was not democratic like Athens) in which anyone could participate (even foreigners and non-citizens, interestingly), but Rome reache a million citizens and the forum model simply could not bear the strain.
The advent of the internet allows direct communication between any group in large numbers. Look at this board - like the agora, anyone can attend. Anyone across the whole world. Anyone can contribute their argument. And the contributions can still be organised, streamed, reviewed, and remain on record automatically as if we had a room full of stenographers capturing our every word.
The mechanism by which primitive mass democracy operated in Athens can now be implemented on a global scale. We have the technology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by truthlover, posted 04-21-2005 10:40 PM truthlover has not replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 829
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 101 of 121 (201167)
04-22-2005 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by coffee_addict
04-22-2005 1:05 AM


Troy/Lam/alias of the week!,
Why does everyone think that I think they are lying or that somebody lied to them? I merely think many people are misinformed, misunderstood what they were told, or simply don't accurately remember what they were told.
That said, I couldn't find any data on what the max capacity of the US to product food is but I did find data on grain production. According to one source the US produces ~60-70 Millions Tons (MT) of grain annually. The world consumption of grain in 2003 was 1914 MT (with a 92 MT deficit). That means that the US would have to be able to produce 30 times it's normal amount of grain to meet the worlds annual demand for grain once, forget about multiple times over. Technically it may be possible (not sure we have enough water to do so, it takes a lot of water to grow grain), but it would be at the expense of everything else and would probably not be sustainable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by coffee_addict, posted 04-22-2005 1:05 AM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by contracycle, posted 04-22-2005 11:28 AM kjsimons has not replied
 Message 104 by coffee_addict, posted 04-22-2005 5:20 PM kjsimons has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 121 (201181)
04-22-2005 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by kjsimons
04-22-2005 10:51 AM


KJsimons, what you omitted is that at present the West is subsidizing farmers to NOT grow food. We also destroy large quantities of food each year for "sound" economic reasons (to whit, if we gave it to the hungry the price will fall, then we won't be able to sell anything for real profit, then we will go out of business, then there will be no food production).
Also, grain is much more efficient than, say, beef production on the same land, but as I redall there is quite a lot of beef production in the US - hence this land could be turned over to subsitance production if necessary.
Simply looking at the output figures is not adequate. Consider that the US is actually very under-populated and has a lot of free space for farm expansion, too. And lastly, consider, the developements of technology in their historic scale. In 1000 AD, a hide of land, about 120 acres, sustained at least one family. Britain had at this time a population of about 3 million. Today it only has 60 million; so we only need farming to be 20 times more efficient than it was in the iron age. And our technical production is a hell of a lot more than 20 times as efficient.
The history of mechanised farming in both the EU and America is one of purposeful artificial scarcity in order to maintain prices, and is openly discussed in those terms:
--
By the end of World War II, the farm economy once again faced the challenge of overproduction. Technological advances, such as the introduction of gasoline- and electric-powered machinery and the widespread use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers, meant production per hectare was higher than ever. To help consume surplus crops, which were depressing prices and costing taxpayers money, Congress in 1954 created a Food for Peace program that exported U.S. farm goods to needy countries. Policy-makers reasoned that food shipments could promote the economic growth of developing countries. Humanitarians saw the program as a way for America to share its abundance.
In the 1960s, the government decided to use surplus food to feed America's own poor as well. During President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, the government launched the federal Food Stamp program, giving low-income persons coupons that could be accepted as payment for food by grocery stores. Other programs using surplus goods, such as for school meals for needy children, followed. These food programs helped sustain urban support for farm subsidies for many years, and the programs remain an important form of public welfare -- for the poor and, in a sense, for farmers as well.
But as farm production climbed higher and higher through the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, the cost of the government price support system rose dramatically. Politicians from non-farm states questioned the wisdom of encouraging farmers to produce more when there was already enough -- especially when surpluses were depressing prices and thereby requiring greater government assistance.
The government tried a new tack. In 1973, U.S. farmers began receiving assistance in the form of federal "deficiency" payments, which were designed to work like the parity price system. To receive these payments, farmers had to remove some of their land from production, thereby helping to keep market prices up. A new Payment-in-Kind program, begun in the early 1980s with the goal of reducing costly government stocks of grains, rice, and cotton, and strengthening market prices, idled about 25 percent of cropland.
Price supports and deficiency payments applied only to certain basic commodities such as grains, rice, and cotton. Many other producers were not subsidized. A few crops, such as lemons and oranges, were subject to overt marketing restrictions. Under so-called marketing orders, the amount of a crop that a grower could market as fresh was limited week by week. By restricting sales, such orders were intended to increase the prices that farmers received.
In the 1980s and 1990s
By the 1980s, the cost to the government (and therefore taxpayers) of these programs sometimes exceeded $20,000 million annually. Outside of farm areas, many voters complained about the cost and expressed dismay that the federal government was actually paying farmers NOT to farm. Congress felt it had to change course again.
In 1985, amid President Ronald Reagan's calls for smaller government generally, Congress enacted a new farm law designed to reduce farmers' dependence on government aid and to improve the international competitiveness of U.S. farm products. The law reduced support prices, and it idled 16 to 18 million hectares of environmentally sensitive cropland for 10 to 15 years. Although the 1985 law only modestly affected the government farm-assistance structure, improving economic times helped keep the subsidy totals down.
As federal budget deficits ballooned throughout the late 1980s, however, Congress continued to look for ways to cut federal spending. In 1990, it approved legislation that encouraged farmers to plant crops for which they traditionally had not received deficiency payments, and it reduced the amount of land for which farmers could qualify for deficiency payments. The new law retained high and rigid price supports for certain commodities, and extensive government management of some farm commodity markets continued, however.
That changed dramatically in 1996. A new Republican Congress, elected in 1994, sought to wean farmers from their reliance on government assistance. The Freedom-to-Farm Act dismantled the costliest price- and income-support programs and freed farmers to produce for global markets without restraints on how many crops they planted. Under the law, farmers would get fixed subsidy payments unrelated to market prices. The law also ordered that dairy price supports be phased out.
These changes, a sharp break from the policies of the New Deal era, did not come easily. Congress sought to ease the transition by providing farmers $36,000 million in payments over seven years even though crop prices at the time were at high levels. Price supports for peanuts and sugar were kept, and those for soybeans, cotton, and rice were actually raised. Marketing orders for oranges and some other crops were little changed. Even with these political concessions to farmers, questions remained whether the less controlled system would endure. Under the new law, government supports would revert to the old system in 2002 unless Congress were to act to keep market prices and support payments decoupled.
New dark clouds appeared by 1998, when demand for U.S. farm products slumped in important, financially distressed parts of Asia; farm exports fell sharply, and crop and livestock prices plunged. Farmers continued to try to boost their incomes by producing more, despite lower prices. In 1998 and again in 1999, Congress passed bailout laws that temporarily boosted farm subsidies the 1996 act had tried to phase out. Subsidies of $22,500 million in 1999 actually set a new record.
Farm Policies and World Trade
The growing interdependence of world markets prompted world leaders to attempt a more systematic approach to regulating agricultural trade among nations in the 1980s and 1990s.
Almost every agriculture-producing country provides some form of government support for farmers. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, as world agricultural market conditions became increasingly variable, most nations with sizable farm sectors instituted programs or strengthened existing ones to shield their own farmers from what was often regarded as foreign disruption. These policies helped shrink international markets for agricultural commodities, reduce international commodity prices, and increase surpluses of agricultural commodities in exporting countries.
In a narrow sense, it is understandable why a country might try to solve an agricultural overproduction problem by seeking to export its surplus freely while restricting imports. In practice, however, such a strategy is not possible; other countries are understandably reluctant to allow imports from countries that do not open their markets in turn.
By the mid-1980s, governments began working to reduce subsidies and allow freer trade for farm goods. In July 1986, the United States announced a new plan to reform international agricultural trade as part of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations. The United States asked more than 90 countries that were members of the world's foremost international trade arrangement, known then as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), to negotiate the gradual elimination of all farm subsidies and other policies that distort farm prices, production, and trade. The United States especially wanted a commitment for eventual elimination of European farm subsidies and the end to Japanese bans on rice imports.
Other countries or groups of countries made varying proposals of their own, mostly agreeing on the idea of moving away from trade-distorting subsidies and toward freer markets. But as with previous attempts to get international agreements on trimming farm subsidies, it initially proved extremely difficult to reach any accord. Nevertheless, the heads of the major Western industrialized nations recommitted themselves to achieving the subsidy-reduction and freer-market goals in 1991. The Uruguay Round was finally completed in 1995, with participants pledging to curb their farm and export subsidies and making some other changes designed to move toward freer trade (such as converting import quotas to more easily reduceable tariffs). They also revisited the issue in a new round of talks (the World Trade Organization Seattle Ministerial in late 1999). While these talks were designed to eliminate export subsidies entirely, the delegates could not agree on going that far. The European Community, meanwhile, moved to cut export subsidies, and trade tensions ebbed by the late 1990s.
Farm trade disputes continued, however. From Americans' point of view, the European Community failed to follow through with its commitment to reduce agricultural subsidies. The United States won favorable decisions from the World Trade Organization, which succeeded GATT in 1995, in several complaints about continuing European subsidies, but the EU refused to accept them. Meanwhile, European countries raised barriers to American foods that were produced with artificial hormones or were genetically altered -- a serious challenge to the American farm sector.
In early 1999, U.S. Vice President Al Gore called again for deep cuts in agricultural subsidies and tariffs worldwide. Japan and European nations were likely to resist these proposals, as they had during the Uruguay Round. Meanwhile, efforts to move toward freer world agricultural trade faced an additional obstacle because exports slumped in the late 1990s.
Farming As Big Business
American farmers approached the 21st century with some of the same problems they encountered during the 20th century. The most important of these continued to be overproduction. As has been true since the nation's founding, continuing improvements in farm machinery, better seeds, better fertilizers, more irrigation, and effective pest control have made farmers more and more successful in what they do (except for making money). And while farmers generally have favored holding down overall crop output to shore up prices, they have balked at cutting their own production.
...
The advent of agribusiness in the late 20th century has meant fewer but much larger farms. Sometimes owned by absentee stockholders, these corporate farms use more machinery and far fewer farm hands. In 1940, there were 6 million farms averaging 67 hectares each. By the late 1990s, there were only about 2.2 million farms averaging 190 hectares in size. During roughly this same period, farm employment declined dramatically -- from 12.5 million in 1930 to 1.2 million in the 1990s -- even as the total U.S. population more than doubled. In 1900, half of the labor force were farmers, but by the end of the century only 2 percent worked on farms. And nearly 60 percent of the remaining farmers at the end of the century worked only part-time on farms; they held other, non-farm jobs to supplement their farm income. The high cost of capital investment -- in land and equipment -- makes entry into full-time farming extremely difficult for most persons.
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap8.htm
This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-22-2005 10:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by kjsimons, posted 04-22-2005 10:51 AM kjsimons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by contracycle, posted 04-22-2005 11:30 AM contracycle has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 121 (201184)
04-22-2005 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by contracycle
04-22-2005 11:28 AM


Oh yes, and of course: all these hijinks to create artificial scarcity and shore-up prices against market pressures (indeed, against the tendency for the rate of profit to decline just as Marx predicted) is also what prevents the third world from producing food competitvely and exporting it to the developed world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by contracycle, posted 04-22-2005 11:28 AM contracycle has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 120 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 104 of 121 (201247)
04-22-2005 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by kjsimons
04-22-2005 10:51 AM


What part of my definition of "capacity" don't you understand?
Also, what contra said.
During the great depression, the US government actually went around paying farmers to burn their crops. This helped tremendously with the prices of crops.
Like I said, the US has a very deep rooted tradition of purposely not producing as well as destroying some produced crops in order to keep its economy going strong.
Again, what part of "capacity" don't you understand?
Added by edit.
contra writes:
Also, grain is much more efficient than, say, beef production on the same land, but as I redall there is quite a lot of beef production in the US - hence this land could be turned over to subsitance production if necessary.
This is something I forgot to mention. Instead of producing meat products, we can use the same resources and space to produce grain and the net product would be many times greater. Again, capacity. Capacity. Capacity.
Why does everyone think that I think they are lying or that somebody lied to them? I merely think many people are misinformed, misunderstood what they were told, or simply don't accurately remember what they were told.
Well, you can become famous by coming to my university and literally change what they teach in geography and philosophy. I'm pretty sure the university will welcome you with open arms, that is if you have the figures and studies ready to defend your position. In the mean time, I think I'll trust my school more than you, if you don't mind.
This message has been edited by Troy, 04-22-2005 04:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by kjsimons, posted 04-22-2005 10:51 AM kjsimons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by kjsimons, posted 04-25-2005 9:13 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 829
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 105 of 121 (202146)
04-25-2005 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by coffee_addict
04-22-2005 5:20 PM


No need to be so rude! I notice you didn't supply any links or supply any data to support you assertions. I knew you said capacity and if you read my post it said that I couldn't find any links about the US food generating capacity, so stop being so patronizing. In fact you were rude enough that you owe me an apology for being a jerk. I even admitted that it might be possible, but it wouldn't necessarily be sustainable year after year. Did you actually read my post?!
As far as your university goes, if they taught that the US has the capacity to feed the world (sustainable) and that communism is the best way to live, then I'm not too impressed with them. I'm pretty sure that's not what they are teaching though, so I'll decline to change what they ARE teaching.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by coffee_addict, posted 04-22-2005 5:20 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by coffee_addict, posted 04-25-2005 12:50 PM kjsimons has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024