Guest guest Posted August 15, 2001 Report Share Posted August 15, 2001 Then there is this thought. If more people could buy direct from the farmers the farmers could get more for their crops and the consumer would pay less. Judith Alta Kidder Mission Possible Southwest Michigan jaltak@... -----Original Message----- ..Alan...comments on your quote below " With reasonable, objective measures of quality combined with a sizeable number of *smart* consumers, we ought to be able to convince markets and ultimately farmers to produce food with reasonable (or dare I even wish -- high) nutrients levels. " farmers have been paid on quantity for so long that I don't know if the farmer knows what quality is. nor is he required to know what quality is. a few thoughts on what could start a change in mind set on farming. 1. open markets..farmers being able to sell product without restrictive legislation..example.. pasteurization laws. 2. fair return for the work.. when a farmer opts for quality rather than quantity it takes a great deal more back work and less big machinery.. smaller quantities means the farmer will need a bigger return on what he puts out but i question if the consumers are willing to be paying more for their food..nor will the federal government embrace a rise in food prices. 3. government needs to get out of the subsidy business..this will be painful in the short run but we will all benefit in the long run.. the farmer will not longer be driven by attempting to maximize a government payment...many other debatable topics we can talk on..fun topic for a debate.. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2001 Report Share Posted August 15, 2001 But of the Farmers, the Consumers, and the Mega-Corporate Middlemen and Jobbers, guess which has the biggest and best funded Lobby? (Knows the Government is lying because the Politician's lips are moving) Wittine At 07:59 PM 8/14/01 -0400, you wrote: >>>> Then there is this thought. If more people could buy direct from the farmers the farmers could get more for their crops and the consumer would pay less. Judith Alta Kidder Mission Possible Southwest Michigan <mailto:jaltakvoyager (DOT) net>jaltakvoyager (DOT) net -----Original Message----- ..Alan...comments on your quote below " With reasonable, objective measures of quality combined with a sizeable number of *smart* consumers, we ought to be able to convince markets and ultimately farmers to produce food with reasonable (or dare I even wish -- high) nutrients levels." farmers have been paid on quantity for so long that I don't know if the farmer knows what quality is. nor is he required to know what quality is. a few thoughts on what could start a change in mind set on farming. 1. open markets..farmers being able to sell product without restrictive legislation..example.. pasteurization laws. 2. fair return for the work.. when a farmer opts for quality rather than quantity it takes a great deal more back work and less big machinery.. smaller quantities means the farmer will need a bigger return on what he puts out but i question if the consumers are willing to be paying more for their food..nor will the federal government embrace a rise in food prices. 3. government needs to get out of the subsidy business..this will be painful in the short run but we will all benefit in the long run.. the farmer will not longer be driven by attempting to maximize a government payment...many other debatable topics we can talk on..fun topic for a debate.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2001 Report Share Posted August 15, 2001 It certainly isn’t the first two! From my reading on the internet I see a food war coming. People are getting sick and tired of being sick and tired. They are sick and tired of being told that phony phood will make them whole and healthy and keep the boogey man from their door. And they watch friends, family and themselves sicken and die because they are following the big FAT lie. I also see the possibility that agribusiness may overwhelm the organic farming market and turn it right back into what we have today in over processed, loaded with chemicals phony phood. And I see the possibility, however slight, of the people rising up in arms and refusing to vote for the lawmakers who allowed this mess to happen in the first place. Myself, I seldom vote for incumbents. Just think, wouldn’t it be great if we could elect a third party president? Judith Alta Kidder Mission Possible Southwest Michigan jaltak@... -----Original Message----- But of the Farmers, the Consumers, and the Mega-Corporate Middlemen and Jobbers, guess which has the biggest and best funded Lobby? (Knows the Government is lying because the Politician's lips are moving) Wittine At 07:59 PM 8/14/01 -0400, you wrote: >>>> Then there is this thought. If more people could buy direct from the farmers the farmers could get more for their crops and the consumer would pay less. Judith Alta Kidder Mission Possible Southwest Michigan <mailto:jaltak@...>jaltak@... -----Original Message----- ..Alan...comments on your quote below " With reasonable, objective measures of quality combined with a sizeable number of *smart* consumers, we ought to be able to convince markets and ultimately farmers to produce food with reasonable (or dare I even wish -- high) nutrients levels. " farmers have been paid on quantity for so long that I don't know if the farmer knows what quality is. nor is he required to know what quality is. a few thoughts on what could start a change in mind set on farming. 1. open markets..farmers being able to sell product without restrictive legislation..example.. pasteurization laws. 2. fair return for the work.. when a farmer opts for quality rather than quantity it takes a great deal more back work and less big machinery.. smaller quantities means the farmer will need a bigger return on what he puts out but i question if the consumers are willing to be paying more for their food..nor will the federal government embrace a rise in food prices. 3. government needs to get out of the subsidy business..this will be painful in the short run but we will all benefit in the long run.. the farmer will not longer be driven by attempting to maximize a government payment...many other debatable topics we can talk on..fun topic for a debate.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2001 Report Share Posted August 15, 2001 * Wetzel (wetz@...) [010814 17:52]: * Subject: cheese..alan: > .Alan...comments on your quote below > > " With reasonable, > objective measures of quality combined with a > sizeable number of *smart* consumers, we ought > to be able to convince markets and ultimately > farmers to produce food with reasonable (or > dare I even wish -- high) nutrients levels. " > > farmers have been paid on quantity for so long that I don't know if > the farmer knows what quality is. nor is he required to know what > quality is. The Farmers don't have to know. If they see enough back pressure like a drop in sales, they'll find a way to figure it out. Farmers are just business men and they give their customers what they want. If the customers are poor consumers willing to take any tasteless mush available, the farmer/ business man would be foolish to work extra hard to give the customer something better -- it would just eat into his profits. Ultimately, there is no alternative to each of us being good consumers. Cheap cop-outs like enlisting the government to force farmers to produce better quality food so we can be lazy consumers leads to situations like we are experiencing right now -- worse than before they got involved. > a few thoughts on what could start a change in mind set on > farming. > 1. open markets..farmers being able to sell product without > restrictive legislation..example.. pasteurization laws. Then vote Libertarian -- any other vote will work against free and open markets and choices (despite the rhetoric). > 2. fair > return for the work.. when a farmer opts for quality rather than > quantity it takes a great deal more back work and less big machinery.. > smaller quantities means the farmer will need a bigger return on what > he puts out but i question if the consumers are willing to be paying > more for their food..nor will the federal government embrace a rise in > food prices. Humm... If business is voluntary, it is by definition fair -- both parties of the exchange have agreed on the terms that benefits each the most. Admittedly, things such as regulations, taxes, subsidies, etc. interfere with free and voluntary exchange. All we have to do is insist on high quality food and be willing to pay for it, and farmers will determine a price that they'd be willing to engage in a voluntary, mutually beneficial exchange. That's exactly what some Japanese are doing to get the very best quality food produced in the US. The only way a return isn't fair is if the exchange or its terms are forced rather than voluntary. [i.e., " forcing " a " fair " return will guarantee an unfairness.] I still contend that the root problem here an almost total lack of good, knowledgable consumers. BTW, it looks like farmers don't really need to do much different than they do now to produce higher quality food. Instead of putting down expensive synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, they put down cheap rock dust to remineralize the soil, til the soil much less (to retain the carbon in the soil), weed less (because the ground is now less optimal for the weeds) and for less expense and less work they get equal, or sometimes greater, yield of higher quality, healthier, more drought and insect resistant plants. All they need is a reason to do it (i.e., a market). > 3. government needs to get out of the subsidy > business..this will be painful in the short run but we will all benefit > in the long run.. the farmer will not longer be driven by attempting to > maximize a government payment...many other debatable topics we can talk > on..fun topic for a debate.. I agree. This would unfortunately drive some marginal farmers out of business, but it's the right thing to do. Subsidies virtually always cause a drop in total productive/wealth by forcing less than optimal exchanges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2001 Report Share Posted August 15, 2001 * Judith Alta Kidder (jaltak@...) [010814 17:59]: * Subject: RE: cheese..alan: > Then there is this thought. If more people > could buy direct from the farmers the farmers > could get more for their crops and the > consumer would pay less. I'm lost here. Why can't more people buy direct from the farmers? --alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.