Patriotism and crop subsidies

A For decades, US farmers have been required to provide the government with reams of reports, verifying everything from crop yields, conservation plans, and crop plans. The USDA tells them where, what, and when to plant. In some cases, the USDA tells them when they are allowed to harvest. All those fancy projections, crop surveys, etc, that The Economist and planners review come from those. Vi sack won't say it, but that is the real incentive for the small amount of subsidies that actually make it to farmers who farm, as opposed to the cash shoveled at Cargill, et al.

Honestly, sometimes I wonder if any of the commentators have a clue about what goes on in the real world. Go into any FSA office, and then the SCS office, and ask to read their manuals on the regulations applying to crop production in that area. It would take you days even to read it. Most honest employees will admit that nobody understands all of it.

Many farmers would love not to participate, but lenders require as a loan condition that participation. And most farmers never accumulate enough capital that they can forgo credit. Back in the days when I farmed, one of my neighbors refused subsidies, and the Local office was beside itself, complaining they would no be able to provide accurate stats. That level of control is what subsidies pay for, in a desperate attempt to maintain a cheap and unending food supply to urban residents.

Former Californian,

You sound much better now.

In general - yes, subsidies do help a lot, but each case deserves an individual approach to assess costs and benefits. Education is a different realm with its own problems, yet, definitely, greater long-term returns than agriculture.

I'm not really a teacher/prof, but a recent grad. student (from unsubsidized private school) and was about to start another grad program at the 'West coast Ivy league school', but someone decided that I'm not eligible for a Fed funding for this (looks like I'm personally involved with these subsidies issues :)), so I'm entering the private sector - need to blow off the academic dust and just make money without relying on subsidies. It's a time to utilize research skills to gain something tangible. Maybe in a few years I will return to academia.

What you said about academia is true to some extent - I've studied in the US and Europe and met only a handful of truly brilliant, devoted and talented professors and researchers. Many of them are technocrats and others are poseurs who utilize technical knowledge to produce some useless, boring researches they are not really interested in. Academia is an industry and trade, which not only rewards financially (though much less than private sector), but socially and psychologically in form of statuses and acknowledgements and, hence, the unqualified demand. However, it is easy to spot these voodoo professors no matter how hard they try to demonstrate their interest and 'charisma' - they are usually surprisingly insecure and simply can't take criticism, which shows lack of philosophical/analytical streak. A genuine academic must be a bit of a philosopher no matter what is her area of specialty.

However, it is still a great place to be and it's not only about knowledge, but broadening one's vision about the world, in general, and learning how and where to look for solutions and answers, in particular. It may not sound very convincing, but good education makes one happier too - 'being in a good mood is a sign of a philosophical thinking'. So, in skilled hands academic knowledge can justify it's overrated-ness :).

Joy1- I am well chilled. I never lived in New York. But, I did grow up in Iowa, and lived in California over 20 years. I sometimes get perturbed because academic knowledge is over-rated, and real life experience is undervalued in this country; or worse, an Eastern reporter from the Washington Post goes to Iowa City for a few days and becomes an overnight expert on agricultural subsidies. All subsidies are bad, but who doesn't get them? It is hard to think of any major enterprise that the Feds don't help or hinder through taxes, regulations, programs, or grants. As a teacher or professor, are you not subsidized through state and federal programs?

We are all for subsidies to industry and agriculture but only for the purposes of making those industries viable players in the global market place. When subsidies develop into long term needs obviously the business is broken. A viable business model with future prospects and open books should be the rule when receiving this financial help.
It is a known fact that long term subsidies create industries that are unhealthy competitors. The public are getting outraged when they see large corporations receiving subsidies when they do not need this financial help.
Using good land/crops to create fuel when food is scarce is ludicrous!

heated

Former Californian!

Chill out - you don't really sound as a former Californian or Iowan, but as an impatient and nervous New Yorker. It is only a blog, where nobody knows you - so you can have this luxury to just allow it flow.

On my views regarding small town people I can refer you to another Russian expression - 'I'm not a hundred-dollar bill to be loved by everyone'. They are quite pragmatic these Russians.

You remind me one of those students, who try very hard to understand everything and sound smart, but in reality do not get the core of things.

What you 'analyzed' in your previous post does not refute what I said already about generalizations - simply adds some technical details on how it should happen. No matter how theories are created, they remain to be generalizations, and, as such, are not flawless. Who said that empirical data may not include personal observations of a researcher? In fact, many studies were initiated because she had a certain belief or bias. And then, in order to understand the world our brain needs to systematize, organize and structurize things NO MATTER how imperfect (and it certainly is!) it could be. Roughly speaking, this systematization is a creation of a multitude of biases. So, it's not that bad to be biased - it means that our brains are functioning. But then again, it's not quite healthy when these biases perpetuate themselves as defense mechanisms (or emotional responses) even when the reality is outrageously different. That's why we also should have a well developed critical judgement. In academia, relatively objective research methods exist in order to validate or disprove these biases.

So, it's absolutely normal to be biased about something even in campuses.

Finally, it was you who equated the process of generalization to bigotry and, in a quite amusing way, mocked it. But unlike you I am fine with whatever you call me - the life is just to good to be bothered by these nothings.

Joy1- Generalizations/theories are supposed to be based upon some empirical data, not upon the biases/prejudices of "educated idiots." I agree that SOME intellectuals/academics are cultural bigots; they develop theories based upon the environment of liberal elitist campuses, not real data. However, it doesn't logically follow that ALL do it. Your last comment implies another prejudice from you. Academia=Generalizations=Theories= Bigotry? How neat.

LexHumana,

Thanks for the comparison - I may even create a new username 'Marie Antoinette' to justify my character on this blog.

Former Californian,

I didn't say that Ivy league graduates are intellectually superior - don't speculate! Higher education credentials, for that matter, do not make one more intelligent if there is no innate intellectual curiosity, open-mindedness and other cognitive skills. There is an expression in Russian, which says, 'It wouldn't hurt to have an average perception in addition to higher education'.

My reference to the article about Ivy League schools and southerners was meant to show that these people are so terrified about being exposed to the world and progressive ideas that they don't even consider applying to the best schools in the world. That surely tells a lot about one's narrow-mindedness.

I may be a bigot in my own sense, but, in this case, your logic suggests that quite a wide range of people can be labelled as such for their love to generalize. All academics are bigots then because all they do is develop theories, which, in essence, are generalizations.

Furthermore, we didn't talk about Iowans specifically and I didn't say that they were southerns (don't speculate again!), but about small rural towns in America, which have this commonality of being backward. Yes, Iowa is largely agricultural, but so are many southern states.

More importantly, we are not discussing here someone's moral standards, work ethic, beliefs, etc. Thus, all these wonderful qualities of small town people, which you listed so passionately, are useless and irrelevant here.

Finally, it is not as much about political philosophy (enough of groundless speculations) as about one's capacity for critical judgement and decision-making devoid of emotions. With all my tolerance to stupidity I still cannot understand how one can be as insensitive and ignorant as to digest things that Beck, Palin and, overall, Republicans communicate to poor, gullible people of small towns. I also understand that people fall prey to propaganda, but in this case it is such an utter nonsense that a high school graduate with some knowledge of the world and critical capacity wouldn't believe in. How should I call these people after that?

- Marie Antoinette in liberal disguise

@ Former Californian,

Don't take it personally. This Joy1 character strikes me as the modern day equivalent to Marie Antoinette, lost in her own little sequestered world, marveling at all of the quaint "rustics" from a distance like they were safari animals, and wondering if they can actually speak amongst themselves or merely gunt their communications.

Joy1- If you are so "progressive," how can you pick out a group of people and say that they are intellectually inferior. This is bigotry.

I don't automatically feel that Ivy League graduates are intellectually superior to all other graduates. You get into these schools because of nepotism, cronyism, and money. I worked with Ivy League graduates who felt so privileged that they didn't have to do any work. They thought we have a Limey style class system and they should be the bosses without doing anything to deserve it. The Ivy Leaguers have run this country into the ground with their version of Fabian socialism.

Iowans are not southerners. Secondly, the Iowa political culture is very populist. Thirdly, the Religious Right is prominent in Iowa because of its activism and publicity. Most Iowans are Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists, not Fundamentalists. The largest single denomination is actually Catholic. Fourthly,
Iowans have filled the highest ranks of all American professions.

The typical Iowan has a better work ethic, more self-discipline, and is a team player. The majority believe in individual responsibility and judging others individually. In the old days, the FBI used to recruit guys from the midwest because they were more loyal and less corrupt than the big city guys.

How can you equate a political philosophy with intelligence. or equate a geographical area with superiority or inferiority.? I might have reservations about New Yorkers, Bostonians and Californians, but I wouldn't say that they are less intelligent or politically inferior. How many persons living in coastal urban areas
originated from the Heartland?

More complex, but really just a modern form of 'bread and circuses' (with Mr. Vilsac and Fox News supplying the circus entertainment.)

LexHumana,

I don't see reasons to be humble about something one should be proud of. I have actually never suffered from modesty.

Yes, I do think that progressives tend to be intellectually superior (note, a general tendency does not imply that it applies to all - statistical outliers exist on both sides of the pond). I don't think that deeply intellectual and rational things can be discussed with Fox viewers or Glen Beck/Palin listeners - reason simply has got nothing to do here. Southern people (generally!) have demonstrated their mediocrity and lack of critical thinking for so many times that it almost became a common sense knowledge that liberals are more intellectual.

Former Californian,

Intellectual capacity is so much more than a good performance on some standardized tests, which, in a quite limited way, measure only some aspects of intelligence.

There was an interesting article in New York Times on why so few students from southern states get into Ivy league schools. One of the suggestions was that these young people do not apply to overly liberal schools in the first place. Their parents feel so threatened that their kids will get intellectually corrupt with liberal/socialist ideas that they prefer to keep them locked in their small Christian schools.

A simple argument against subsidized agriculture is that it is no longer economically/financially viable and does not support farmers as much as it supports major corporations.

Where are all those hypocritical deficit peacocks when you need them?

And who needs to listen to facts and arguments when we all owe socially/psychologically/politically to small towns?

There never was any "democracy" in america. Bourgeoise democracy yes, a democracy of financial terrorists. The decision made in winsconsin by the heinous scott walker and his cronies, should leave no more doubt in the working peoples mind, THAT THEY LIVE IN A FASCIST POLICE STATE, ONE WHO IS LOOKING BACK TO THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND SLAVERY, WITH SOME LONGING...
WORKERS OF AMERICA! ARE YOU PREPARED TO WORK FOR A WAGE WHICH WILL BE IMPOSED BY THE GANGSTER CAPITALISTS? A WAGE WHICH WILL FOREVER CONDEMN YOU TO POVERTY?
WORKERS OF AMERICA! YOU HAVE FOUGHT AND DIED FOR EVERY "REFORM" FOR EVERY TRADE UNION RECOGNITION AND FOR YOUR RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS... WHAT WE ARE SEEING IN WISCONSIN IS AKIN TO THE GERMAN NAZI PARTY, YOU MUST NOT ALLOW THIS FASCISM IN THE 21ST CENTURY!!! YOU MUST FIGHT BACK!
WORKERS OF AMERICA! ARISE!,ARISE! YOU HAVE A PROUD RECORD OF STRUGGLE, OF DEFEATING THE NAZIES AND OTHER OPPRESSORS. LET THE TEAMSTER REBELLIONS AND THE PROUD RECORD OF THE IWW, THE INTERNATIONAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD, LIGHT YOUR PATH IN YOUR STRUGGLE WITH THE GANGSTER FASCISTS IN WISCONSIN AND ELSEWHERE.
WORKERS OF AMERICA, UNITE!!!

Joy1--Your contention that so-called "progressive" cities or states are intellectually superior is hilarious. If so, why do midwestern states like North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, etc., score higher on standardized tests. When I was in high school, Iowa was first in the nation in achievement tests and percentage of graduates. In recent years, Iowa has slipped to the top ten of 50 states. Do you have any idea about the educational levels of typical h.s. graduates from New York or California. I do because I scored their standardized tests.

In the bygone days, the armed services used to group recruit companies by state or region. Whenever there were competitions, the midwesterners or southerners always won. It had little to do with intelligence, but how they worked together, and their regional pride.

I am sure you can find "progressives" who favor agricultural subsidies, if they come from farming areas. How many billions do "progressives" get for their urban cities on both coasts?

@ Joy1, who wrote:

"Progressive American states/cities will always have to pay a heavy price for being educationally privileged and 'elitist'; otherwise these wonderful small towns will feel threatened. That's why intellectual debates are impossible here - it's simply unpatriotic and insensitive to appeal to reason."

Interesting. You are essentially arguing "we (progressives) cannot have intellectual discussions with non-progressives, because we are intellectually superior to non-progressives." Your conclusion is based on the pressumption that progressive cities and states are automatically educationally privileged compared to non-progressive localities.

Your truly humble and modest self-appraisal is an inspiration to all, I'm sure...

The quote about status anxieties is brilliant.

Progressive American states/cities will always have to pay a heavy price for being educationally privileged and 'elitist'; otherwise these wonderful small towns will feel threatened. That's why intellectual debates are impossible here - it's simply unpatriotic and insensitive to appeal to reason.

It is an irrational, indivisible issue in American policy-making, which will always suppress dangerous, luxurious, unaffordable and alien rationality.

Stendhal has a good quote on this: "Nothing is more hateful to mediocre people than intellectual superiority in others; it is, in our society, the very fountain-head of hatred. If this principle does not breed atrocious hatreds it is only because the people divided thereby are not obliged to live together. But consider what happens in love where natural behaviour is not masked and where the superior partner, in particular, does not conceal his superiority behind social wariness... If the passion is to survive, the inferior must ill-treat the other, who will otherwise be unable even to close a window without giving offence".

In 1774 Samuel Johnson printed The Patriot, a critique of what he viewed as false patriotism.
The following year he made the famous statement, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."
This line was not about patriotism in general, but the false use of the term "patriotism" by John Stuart and his supporters; Johnson opposed "self-professed Patriots" in general, but valued what he considered "true" patriotism.

We see here Vilsack using a similar 'false patriotism,' praising the 'little man' of rural USA to justify the continued high-level tax-support of big agro-business.

Shame on him and his forked-tongue.

The majority of these subsidies go to major corporations that own hugh farms from everything from wheat to milk. They even go to people who don't actually farm on their land. This guy is pandering to a group that does not need subsidies but are major campaign contributors.

Military recruitment is regional, more highly concentrated in the South and the corn growing states, but it has nothing to do with "social status."
The mean 1999 income for 2003 recruits was $42,822 (in 1999 dollars). In 2003 only 14.6 percent of military recruits came from the poorest quintile, whereas the wealth­iest quintile provided 22.0 percent. Zip code analysis shows that military recruits are more educated-education is usually a requirement- than the general population and are recruited at a rate proportional to the education level of the area they live in.
In other words the social status of military families is roughly the same as the general population.

Vilsacks argument is stupid, but I think you completely missed the point and just insulted a lot of people by basically calling everyone who serves in the military a poor bumpkin. Oh wait, I'm not surprised, WW wrote this.

There is nothing about the "culture" that is responsible for the high rates of military enlistment. It can easily be explained by the high rates of White poverty, the low graduation standards and lack of alternatives to high school. In order to enlist you need a high school diploma and the ability to pass the culturally-specific ASVAB (that is, speaking culturally-White English makes it easier to enlist), so rural America that offers few alternatives and churns out graduates is the ideal place to recruit.

If we cut rural subsidies, I would predict military enlistment would increase as poverty rose, rather than drop.

Energy Enthusiast wrote: Mar 10th 2011 3:27 GMT
"@LexHumana
So you are basically advocating a continuation of an ecnonmically inefficient, rent-seeking, regressive policy, which by the way contributes to deepen the federal deficit, in the name of a $29 billion balance of payments gain? Do you really think it's worth the cost?"

I'm not advocating anything. I'm merely pointing out that our Secretary of Agriculture was making some pretty pathetic justifications for continuing subsidies, and was completely ignoring the one main argument for them that holds water. As a lawyer, I am trained to come up with the strongest argument possible for either side, and it galls me when the man in charge of U.S. agriculture policy cannot do his own job. You can still question whether supporting our exports is worth the costs, but that is a different debate from whether agriculture subsidies have a value. They do. Vilsack should have made that point, then left it up to the democratic process to decide whether the benefits outweigh the costs.