I’m with Robert Love: end those damned agricultural subsidies, and lower the prices of food. After all, it’s not like the U.S. has a tragic history with over-farming and both economic and ecolological destruction, all following the one-two punch of “market-oriented” economic policies and a hitherto unprecedented heat wave.
In that vein, here’s Mr. Sowell (II, III) explaining how climate change is a farce invented by commie scientists, Democrat(ic) politicians, and the liberal media to enable socialism — a farce which they are now unable to control.
And here he is explaining how the media will stab the undefeatable American military in the back—and how that’s the only possible way the U.S. could “lose” in Iraq.
And here he is being called out for assuming that anything less than total domination by conservative sources is proof of a “liberal bias”.
And here he is suggesting that we must destroy our liberty to save it.
I am not sure what you are trying to point out. You think that Thomas Sowell is wrong some of the time, or that he is wrong all of the time? Or, you just want the damn the guy because you disagree with his articles?
The Dust Bowl happened a long time ago, and the history of why it actually happened is usually simplified to be “over-farming”. You know that isn’t true.
The Dust Bowl was caused by improper (though in the short-term, more productive) farming techniques, which ended up leaving topsoil exposed. Which was workable in normal years, but disastrous when a six-year drought rolled through. The improper farming techniques were undertaken because they yielded more produce per-acre than sustainable techniques. The decision in favor of short-term over-production was part of the downward spiral of global agricultural overproduction. Overproduction led to greater supply, which drove the prices on produce down, leading farmers to grow more in an attempt to keep up with their debts.
Government intervention into the agricultural industry, via subsidies for using sustainable farming practices and protectionist tarrifs, were part of the solution to the problem. The other part was the end of the drought.
Essentially the government organized American agriculture into a giant cartel so as to prevent it’s complete collapse (and a resulting mass starvation) following a temporary change in regional climate. Thomas Sowell is suggesting we break that cartel, and need not worry about permanent global climate change effects, because it’s all a commie plot.
The man is either deranged or a shill, the other articles are offered in evidence of those options.
One would also assume that part of the point of blogging it would be to soothe pgo after another round of rlove’s reaganomics.
— Chris
I think that the subsidy money would be much better spent as equipment and operating capital grants, but farming is already not a high-profit industry. Be careful what you wish for the American farmer; their way of life is already pretty tenuous. It would be nice if just killing subsidies would lower food prices… which it might, but it could also lead to the complete collapse of the small farming sectors.
I’m inclined to think that the man is both deranged *and* a shill.
Chris C:
That’s (unfortunately) the charitable interpretation of my post. Mostly it’s simply not letting crazy socioeconomic shit slide, even if it’s coming from someone I respect tremendously in other areas. So, not a balm so much as (ironically enough) a big-assed wall with floodlights.
Rev.:
Killing subsidies would kill American agriculture outright, because American agriculture is vastly more expensive to operate than “third-world” agriculture. The FTAA treaty is stalled over this exact issue, as Brazilian President Lula made a point in Miami of not supporting the FTAA unless the U.S. and Canada eliminated their protectionist stances on agriculture.