[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Which is it? Either the agriculture stays here, or it moves to Mexico. If you want to argue that some but not all of it would fail, fine, but your desired outcome here is for some of it to fail.
Nobody can corner the market on food, but a single country can certainly allow itself to be excluded from the industry.

Stop thinking in extremes. There is no ‘black or white’ answer. All farmers don't stay or move as your post asks. The obvious answer is 'both'. Agriculture both stays and goes - as I had posted previously. There was no contradiction. That post all but begged you to think farther - discover how 'both' are the correct answer.

Just as in the titanium example - if you think the logic is irrelevant or flawed, then more likely there are underlying facts that you have overlooked. BTW, every 'red' sentence was relevant. But it implied what you did and did not grasp - that my post was woefully too short.

Some farming will expand elsewhere. Since we are not exporting crops with massive government subsidizes, then some unproductive farms will move, or be purchased by foreigners, or other changes that make America more productive. But those changes will be small. Again, where does most all corporate welfare go? It was posted previously - which is why those changes would be small.

As proven by history repeatedly, when corporate welfare is removed, the productive parts of that industry make that industry stronger, larger, more productive, and more profitable. But if corporate welfare gets too large and is applied too long, then the industry is destroyed - must be owned by foreigners or other solutions to save it.

You are also still confusing farmers with others - where most corporate welfare goes. Why do you assume ADM will go bankrupt without corporate welfare? And why do you assume an ADM that actually must compete in a free market rather than buy politicians is a bad thing? Why do you assume making ADM compete would harm farmers?

We saw same thing only a few years ago when George Jr protected anti-American big steel - and harmed a productive American industry - steel reprocessors. Did you assume both were the same industry as you have done with farming? Why?


Where is this "single country can certainly allow itself to be excluded from the industry"? Please, an example because I have no idea what you mean. No country excludes itself from an industry when the industry operates in free markets. But let's put this in the context of where this comes from. You claimed free markets would mean all American farming would end. Then you said without American farmers, America could be excluded from buying food on international markets. Well neither is reality separately or combined. Do you claim that the world can conspire to deny America food? That is sheer nonsense - not possible in a free market especially when the product is so fungible.

Notice how the Arab world with all region oil has denied israel oil.

I know many left and right extremists use such reasoning to promote fear. I certainly hope you have learned to ignore such nonsenical rationalizations. Free markets work - there is no exclusion.


Countries lose industries when industries are protected by corporate welfare. Why did America lose most of its tire industry? Because government protected that industry - all but banned all foreign tires for spin doctor reasons. American tire industry conspired to keep the radial tire out of America for 27 years - then conspired further to hide truths even using a Supreme Court ruling.

They kept the radial out because American wages are too high, yada yada yada? Nonsense. They kept the radial tire out because anti-Americans feared to innovate for 27 years. If tires that only lasted 10,000 miles suddenly lasted 40,000 miles, then profits will be lost making less tires, yada yada yada... Due to government protection, all major tire companies (except Goodyear) were lost. Was the country excluded from the tire industry? No. If anything, America excluded itself from the industry by using corporate welfare to protect a diseased industry. If free markets had fixed problems, then the thing that destroyed a tire industry would have been eliminated. But we protected the disease - and destroyed the industry.

Why was Chrysler saved? Government refused to save Chrysler. With bankruptcy looming, Chrysler was forced to fix the problem. Within four years and without any government money, Chrysler went from near bankruptcy to record profits. Threat of bankruptcy - free market forces - fixed Chrysler.

What saved NYC? When NYC went begging to the Federal government for protection, Gerald Ford said (according to the NY Post), "Drop Dead". As a result, NYC fixed its problems.

What does corporate welfare do? Applied too large and too long means foreigners may even have to buy it to save it. The nation is still not excluded from that industry. But protecting the unproductive only means bankruptcy does not eliminate the only problem and save workers jobs.

You have assumed classic myths that Americans cannot compete in free markets. It is a lie to say free markets would end all American farming. Archer Daniels Midland, et al would say that. Propaganda that is only true when Americans refuse to learn, refuse to innovate, are stifle by anti-innovation management, or become lazy due to corporate welfare. History of America is that every industry competes successfully and routinely when that industry must compete in a free market and when that industry therefore innovates.


A Wall Street Journal front page article demonstrated fallacies in your low wage assumptions. Quality Coil in CT looked at Mexican wages after NAFTA was approved. Mexicans would work for 1/5th wage. He moved operations to Mexico salivating over the profits proven by his spread sheets. Two years later, he was back in CT desperately trying to save his company; seeking his old employees. As is repeatedly demonstrated in Economic papers, the reason why wages were so much lower in Mexico were factors such as people and an infrastructure; those workers less than 1/5th as productive. Quality Coil needed workers in CT who were paid five times more money to become profitable again.

What you call fierce competition is simply normal everyday competition that routinely creates innovation. Tell me something about agriculture. What has so massively changed in agriculture in only ten years? A change so significant that the answer should be obvious. What in the past ten years is the biggest change in agriculture? Just another example of why American agriculture can easily compete and why the so rich and profitable middle men do not need government subsidies. What has changed?