If it keeps the price of meat low..
Poll
Do you agree with the gay marriage approval in California?
| Yes | 67% | 67% - 112 | ||||
| No | 27% | 27% - 45 | ||||
| I don't know | 0% | 0% - 0 | ||||
| Plead the fifth | 3% | 3% - 5 | ||||
| Other? (Please State) | 1% | 1% - 3 | ||||
| Total: 165 | ||||||
Of the 2 subsidies I mentioned earlier, the one designed to keep meat cheaper is actually less relevant than the other subsidy that is used to reduce the supply of cheaper goods in order to raise their prices.Macbeth wrote:
If it keeps the price of meat low..
Because most farming is corporate, it's very efficient. The biggest suppliers of meat don't really need any subsidies, and the ones currently in place have less of an effect than current consumer preferences.
For example, if the subsidies were removed today, the price of beef wouldn't change that much in the short run. Meat suppliers make a lot of profit as it is, and they wouldn't want to jack up prices significantly, because it would result in a major drop in demand.
Over time, beef would probably go up in price, but it would eventually normalize at a point where most people would be willing to still purchase it regularly.
On an individual level, this wouldn't be that much of a change for our consumption, but it would be a considerable collective change for the market and for the government's budgeting.
Beef might be a little more pricey, but we'd have one less thing to worry about with government spending, and the market would be more efficient. The agricultural sector would likely spend less money on lobbying as well, which is a good thing.
Subsidies keep food prices high by forcing scarcity. All food prices would crash if the subsidies were removed, but they'd eventually find their equilibrium after half the farmers went out of business
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
If there is a meat subsidy, it's only to offset the corn subsidies that force scarcity.Turquoise wrote:
Of the 2 subsidies I mentioned earlier, the one designed to keep meat cheaper is actually less relevant than the other subsidy that is used to reduce the supply of cheaper goods in order to raise their prices.Macbeth wrote:
If it keeps the price of meat low..
Because most farming is corporate, it's very efficient. The biggest suppliers of meat don't really need any subsidies, and the ones currently in place have less of an effect than current consumer preferences.
For example, if the subsidies were removed today, the price of beef wouldn't change that much in the short run. Meat suppliers make a lot of profit as it is, and they wouldn't want to jack up prices significantly, because it would result in a major drop in demand.
Over time, beef would probably go up in price, but it would eventually normalize at a point where most people would be willing to still purchase it regularly.
On an individual level, this wouldn't be that much of a change for our consumption, but it would be a considerable collective change for the market and for the government's budgeting.
Beef might be a little more pricey, but we'd have one less thing to worry about with government spending, and the market would be more efficient. The agricultural sector would likely spend less money on lobbying as well, which is a good thing.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
"On my watch, we fought hard and prevented Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage," Romney said.
Money offshore would typically be loaned to people offshore - improving their economy, not yours.Jay wrote:
Rich people put their money into securities, bonds, and yes, gold (also a security). Even moving money offshore into a foreign bank account spurs the economy as that bank lends money out in turn. It's all circular, and the return is targeted. Money generally ends up where it's needed. If an idea is bad it will have a difficult time attracting capital for investment. If an idea is good, it will have an easier time. Survival of the fittest idea.
Luxury cars, watches etc are typically imported, thats money lost from your economy also.
Profit is less important than productivity when it comes to govt investments, not that govt investments are invariably productive.When the government invests, the money ignores the validity of the idea because the governments goal is not to make a profit. Money is squandered on politically connected projects like Roads to Nowhere. It is dumped into companies like Solyndra that have no real business model and no way of ever becoming profitable. It's amazing how quickly the costs rise when the government is the buyer. Compare costs between private and public projects sometime. Labor costs magically double and so does the estimated length of the build (so said labor can milk it).
People are harping on about Solyndra because that money 'belonged' to the defence industry to develop the next hypersonic underwater laser guided whatever which would then sit in a warehouse until the next excuse for a war could be found - and then not used because the next war would be in a desert against tribesmen on camels.
Subsidising development of a solar panel industry - which produce useful stuff like electricity - is more productive than many things the govt 'should' spend money on.
Private industry is just never going to find a profit motive for energy security over the next few decades.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
You still have this infantile worldview where if you pile up a bunch of money inside one country that the country is inherently more wealthy than everyone else; like balances of trade matter. If money leaves one country and goes to another it simply drives up their cost of living, not their quality. You still believe in an economic fallacy which predates Adam Smith (and which he thoroughly trashed)!Dilbert_X wrote:
Money offshore would typically be loaned to people offshore - improving their economy, not yours.
Luxury cars, watches etc are typically imported, thats money lost from your economy also.
You sound like this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MercantilismThe Austrian lawyer and scholar Philipp Wilhelm von Hornick, in his Austria Over All, If She Only Will of 1684, detailed a nine-point program of what he deemed effective national economy, which sums up the tenets of mercantilism comprehensively:[9]
That every inch of a country's soil be utilized for agriculture, mining or manufacturing.
That all raw materials found in a country be used in domestic manufacture, since finished goods have a higher value than raw materials.
That a large, working population be encouraged.
That all export of gold and silver be prohibited and all domestic money be kept in circulation.
That all imports of foreign goods be discouraged as much as possible.
That where certain imports are indispensable they be obtained at first hand, in exchange for other domestic goods instead of gold and silver.
That as much as possible, imports be confined to raw materials that can be finished [in the home country].
That opportunities be constantly sought for selling a country's surplus manufactures to foreigners, so far as necessary, for gold and silver.
That no importation be allowed if such goods are sufficiently and suitably supplied at home.
There's a reason that only news reporters still push the topic: it's puerile enough that it can be digested by even the most childlike of viewers, even if it is misleading. Congratulations, you are the lowest common denominator.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
This thread was interesting... And then it turned gay.
Its less infantile than your cognitive dissonance, and maybe look at the state of your own economy and the failed theories its based on before trashing everything else - not that I really said what you claim I said.Jay wrote:
You still have this infantile worldview where if you pile up a bunch of money inside one country that the country is inherently more wealthy than everyone else; like balances of trade matter. If money leaves one country and goes to another it simply drives up their cost of living, not their quality. You still believe in an economic fallacy which predates Adam Smith (and which he thoroughly trashed)!Dilbert_X wrote:
Money offshore would typically be loaned to people offshore - improving their economy, not yours.
Luxury cars, watches etc are typically imported, thats money lost from your economy also.
- Rich people spending = Good
- Govt spending = Bad
Still, whenever you start with the insults we know you know you've lost the argument.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Just a well placed bitchslap. You're boring, and becoming more boring on a daily basis. You need a lowing. Even FEOS doesn't want to play with you anymore.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its less infantile than your cognitive dissonance, and maybe look at the state of your own economy and the failed theories its based on before trashing everything else - not that I really said what you claim I said.Jay wrote:
You still have this infantile worldview where if you pile up a bunch of money inside one country that the country is inherently more wealthy than everyone else; like balances of trade matter. If money leaves one country and goes to another it simply drives up their cost of living, not their quality. You still believe in an economic fallacy which predates Adam Smith (and which he thoroughly trashed)!Dilbert_X wrote:
Money offshore would typically be loaned to people offshore - improving their economy, not yours.
Luxury cars, watches etc are typically imported, thats money lost from your economy also.
- Rich people spending = Good
- Govt spending = Bad
Still, whenever you start with the insults we know you know you've lost the argument.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It's not like we're talking millions of people. Thousands, maybe. With severance packages.Dilbert_X wrote:
Such as?FEOS wrote:
Not really. The government can cut quite a bit of spending without impacting employment.Pretty hard for the private sector to just absorb those people.However, there are plenty of jobs that need to go away in the government.Which takes time, in the meantime you have 8-10% unemployment.Besides, the job of the government isn't to employ people. It's to ensure the private sector has the right environment to do so.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Pure communism has no private sector. All employees are employed by the state.Shahter wrote:
these are the same people who keep reminding me communism is an utopia and doesn't work.FEOS wrote:
<...> the job of the government isn't to employ people. It's to ensure the private sector has the right environment to do so.
/facepalm
And reality/real world results say it doesn't work, not just people on this site.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
OK, Cindy Williams. We all get free food at the commissary and free TVs at the BX, too.Turquoise wrote:
Well, let's see. I'd say we could cut about half of the military budget -- primarily with regard to making the military more efficient.Dilbert_X wrote:
Just let us know who you think should lose their job - thats the immediate consequence of cutting spending.Turquoise wrote:
No argument here, although, in order to reduce taxes significantly, we'll have to cut spending first. It's always harder to get Congress to cut spending than it is to get them to cut taxes.
Cutting infantry doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but there is quite a lot of bureaucracy that could be removed from the military. We should change the pay scale into a system based on skill level and responsibility rather than seniority (with some considerable cuts to what some officers get just because they've been there forever). The upper echelon of our military is definitely overpaid in particular.
Some of these savings could be used to reverse the trend of having soldiers with families on welfare. No soldier or his/her family should have to be on welfare -- it's a disgrace that it's even a problem, but it happens partly because we don't treat our lower level soldiers well enough. So, some of the lower level soldiers would see a pay raise.
We should also restructure our contracting process in terms of who our suppliers are. Instead of having suppliers that overcharge due to deals that are made via backscratching among our higher level bureaucrats, lower prices should be stressed. Also, soldiers or officers that find new ways to operate more efficiently should be rewarded rather than punished just because they go against protocol.
Also, we don't always need to redesign equipment, because the more we keep buying newer things, we end up having to mothball a bunch of stuff that still gets the job done. We should still replace equipment that's worn out, but if it isn't worn out -- keep using it.
A related issue that doesn't have to do specifically with cost but would still need to be done is to hold armor manufacturers more accountable. We've had a few scandals where some supplier gave our soldiers faulty armor that ended up getting some of our people killed. So far as I've seen, the companies involved didn't suffer many consequences for that.
But this is just one side of where the budget could be reformed. Some of it will cost jobs, but it won't cost any jobs we actually needed to keep.
One of your more uninformed posts, Turq.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
i never understood how a soldier would have a family on welfare. the military pays more than twice as much for people with dependants. if a soldiers pay including all the extra money is not enough to raise a family of several members then its because that soldier had previous financial issues
Tu Stultus Es
People always talked about it like it was an issue that pre-dated our time in service anyway. I know they raised pay a lot in the late 90s which removed the whole soldier on welfare thing. I know some people still collected food stamps, but like you said, that had more to do with shit like trying to raise six kids on an E-2's salary.eleven bravo wrote:
i never understood how a soldier would have a family on welfare. the military pays more than twice as much for people with dependants. if a soldiers pay including all the extra money is not enough to raise a family of several members then its because that soldier had previous financial issues
I can't believe I read turq's post. I felt dumber when I finished it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
soldiers in my grade who were married with children made 3 times my monthly wage
Tu Stultus Es
We had a lot of guys in my unit getting married for the extra BAH. Find some friend back home that wants free health coverage and half the BAH, get married, profit. I almost did it myself.eleven bravo wrote:
soldiers in my grade who were married with children made 3 times my monthly wage
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Well it missed so I'm not sure what you think you're achieving - repeating failed theories over and over as if it makes you look smart.Jay wrote:
Just a well placed bitchslap. You're boring, and becoming more boring on a daily basis. You need a lowing. Even FEOS doesn't want to play with you anymore.
Even Greenspan has realised its BS
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
If people could spell out what they mean by 'cut govt spending' it would make for a better debate.FEOS wrote:
It's not like we're talking millions of people. Thousands, maybe. With severance packages.
How much?
Which sectors?
What are the knock-on effects?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
HITNRUNXX wrote:
This thread was interesting... And then it turned gay.
The benefit system seems to be a significant motivator in the gay marriage debate.Jaekus wrote:
HITNRUNXX wrote:
This thread was interesting... And then it turned gay.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Government has no right to tell us who we can and can't marry. That has nothing to do with government. I'm against homosexuality but if they want to marry that's their deal and we're to have no say in it.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
you, apparently, are not a Republican. g t f o of my country.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Government has no right to tell us who we can and can't marry. That has nothing to do with government. I'm against homosexuality but if they want to marry that's their deal and we're to have no say in it.
As long as they don't ask for tax subsidies for their weird game of house I don't give a shit either.
Problem is thats exactly what they want.
Problem is thats exactly what they want.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!