Re: POLITICS - Supporting WAPF or Not

February 24, 2005

>>> think it was about 20% for US.

>> ()

>> I'd still like to see some documentation on that. It just seems

>> ludicrously high.

> ____

>

> Unfortunately I don't have any. The editorial was discussing NAFTA and

> Mexican agriculture, how the Mexican government views small family

> farms as

> " inefficient " and deserving of economic death, so they open up to more

> " efficient " US

> companies that outcompete them. It pointed out that Mexican farmers

> receive

> about 2% of income from subsidies, Americans about 20%, and Europeans

> about

> 30%. Therefore, outcompetition couldn't be any guage of efficiency.

> It

> advocated the Mexican government doing more to help its farmers,

> including increasing

> subsidies to match American levels.

>

> Chris

I subscribe to Farm and Dairy (ag paper for E. OH/W. PA), and in an

editorial page whine in this week's issue about Bush's ag policy, I

find this:

" Missouri Republican Jo Ann Emerson, whose district will be impacted

due to its high number of cotton and rice growers, said the cotton

industry estimates that income could drop by 10% for smaller farms and

by 23% for farms of 1000 acres. "

Now, cotton isn't food, but it does suggest that the 20% figure is in

the ballpark of reality, especially as there are probably crops more

highly subsidized than cotton (beet sugar?).

www.users.en.com/jaquick

Evolution's a real bitch...and she's back in heat.

--Mike Schneider

February 25, 2005

> Re: POLITICS - Supporting WAPF or Not

>

>In a message dated 2/24/05 7:30:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,

>Idol@... writes:

>

>> OK, but there's a humungaloid difference between farm subsidies

>and overall

>> agribusiness subsidies. Among other things, General Foods buys cheap

>grain

>> and turns it into high-margin products. Yes, the grain is

>cheaper because

>> of farm subsidies (and IIRC, it was Nixon who really screwed up our

>> agricultural system's finances) but they're not getting 20% of their

>> revenue in the form of tax dollars. That's a huge error.

>___

While I didn't see any mention of % of revenue from subsidies, this site

gives absolute amounts and gives % of farms by state that receive subsidies:

Environmental Working Group Farm Subsidy Database http://www.ewg.org/farm

Apparently, in terms of absolute amounts, as of 2003, " taxpayers have spent

more than $131 billion on federal farm programs over the past nine years " .

Also " Sixty percent of all farmers and ranchers do not collect government

subsidy payments, according to USDA, mostly because the crops and livestock

they produce do not qualify for subsidy programs (see state breakdown).

Among subsidy recipients, large farms collect almost all the money.

Nationwide, ten percent of the biggest (and often most profitable)

subsidized crop producers collected 72 percent of all subsidies, averaging

$34,424 in annual payments between 1995 and 2003. The bottom 80 percent of

the recipients saw only $768 on average per year. "

FWIW.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

February 25, 2005

In a message dated 2/25/2005 6:53:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

>Anyway, let's look at what happens in the real world. I don't see any

>evidence that public hospitals are practicing health care over disease

>care any more

>than private hospitals, or that Medicare is more liberal towards health care

>practicies versus disease care than are private insurances. Do you? I do,

>however, see many private practitioners that are part of a growing

>movement of

>health care rather than disease care practitioners, and they will become a

>significant private force (arguably are already) long before they will

>ever be

>able to influence the layers of public bureacracy to adopt their views.

Well, like I said, today's " public " sphere is anything but. It's massively

corrupted, and inasmuch as public institutions have more inertia than

private ones (not always the case, but a workable rule of thumb here) it's

true that reform will tend to come from elsewhere.

______

Yes, but what you seem to be avoiding is the fact that public institutions

MUST, inherently, be captive, to some degree or another, by private interests.

There is no such thing as a " public, " except as an abstraction. This is

true of all groups. That doesn't mean that they aren't real; they are. But

they are only real in any practical sense insofar as the individuals that

compose them act in concert. All groups, the public, or private groups within

it,

are composed of individuals, and their meaning as groups are derived from the

meaning that the individuals within them attach to their individual actions.

Because the public, if defined as a people within some spatial limitations,

will always be composed of sub-groups with varying and often conflicting

interests, " the public " is essentially meaningless as a group, because it never

acts in concert.

On the other hand, groups that are defined not by their geographical

locations but by their members' voluntary participation due to their perceived

common interests, are much more real in a practical sense, because by virtue of

their perceived common interests they DO act in concert. And all these groups

are private.

Therefore, any public institution will be influenced by private individuals

and groups, because those are the only individuals and groups that DO engage

in any (unified) action whatsoever.

The only public action that can truly benefit all parties of the public is

one that increases and protects the voluntary exchanges among its members and

decreases intereference in the same. (Or any action that interferes with

fraud and dishonesty, or increases knowledge and transparency, thereby

decreasing error.)

Insofar as there ARE private groups and individuals that are allowed to

exist and act, those who are more organized and have greater resources will hold

greater sway over public institutions. So yes, " we " could change things for

the better by increasing our organization and resources. However, " we " are

yet another subgroup of the public that have particular interests of our own,

or particular views about what is in the interest of others. Are " we " right?

Well, yes, to the extent that you agree with me, I think so, and to the

extent I agree with you, you think so, and yet others disagree entirely.

However, as I pointed out above, there are certain limited actions in the

public sphere that do benefit the public as a whole, according to everyone's

perceived interest (and all interests are perceived, and any that are objective

are merely perceived as objective, so perceived interests is simply, while

imperfect, the best we can do.) Those are actions that increase voluntary

exchange and decrease involuntary exchange, and prevent fraud, dishonesty, and

increase knowledge.

When the public sphere steps beyond these bounds, it necessarily acts in the

interests of certain private groups over others. Therefore, the only true

" public interest " is the libertarian approach. Now, whether this means that

those who call themselves " libertarians " are right about all their

conclusions-- such as that pollution laws should not be legislated, is up for

debate.

Clearly pollution is an involuntary exchange and as such the public is

justified in preventing it. Preventing it in a way that optimizes the freedom

to

exchange voluntarily is a difficult matter, a horrible conundrum in fact, that

needs much more debate and thinking through.

But a government that is truly free of private interests is one that is

limited. One that subsidizes an industry is one that takes money from

businesses

and individuals that have succeeded in providing value to others and gives

it to businesses and individuals that have failed to do so. Worse, it ruins

the idea of a public-favoring government that applies the same rule of law to

everyone and biases it in favor of some private interests over others. And

the more the public allows this to be considered legitimate, the more that

private interests will clamor to have the gov't biased in *their* favor, and

the

more those who are rich and powerful, organized and resourceful, will have

greater sway. Worse, those who need government to protect them are the ones

who are serving others the least.

Chris

February 25, 2005

In a message dated 2/25/2005 7:00:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

The number you cited turned out to be a farm subsidy number. IOW, why

should we believe it has ANYTHING to do with companies like General Foods?

_____

Umm, I don't remember saying anything about such companies. I thought I

said agribusiness. I thought " agribusiness " means big farms. On the other

hand, I made the comparison to Sally's statement that the junk food industry is

ridden with large debt, and would probably go under if 5% of their customers

switched to getting whole foods from local farms. Her statement might turn

out to be true. It appears that some large junk food companies are going

under, perhaps because of the success of low-carb diets. (IIRC the company

that

makes Twinkies is going out of business, at least from what I heard a couple

months ago.)

My, different, thought, was that if farms receive 20% of their revenue as

subsidies, and that most of this goes to big business farms, the big business

farms might go under if they were stopped. I don't know, but I imagine that

their profit is a smaller portion than 20%, but perhaps not. If it isn't, it

would cut out a huge chunk of their profits. Shutting off the subsidies to

agribusiness grain farms would send shock waves through the agribusiness meat

industry as well. Subsidies for corn are so great that corn is sold to meat

farms at something crazy like 50% below *cost*. This means that agribusiness

is essentially a ward of the state that couldn't survive in a free market.

Chris

February 25, 2005

-

>Well, yeah...and will people of non-dairying genetic stock do as well

>on milk?

Very possibly not.

>It seems to me that if you're trying to establish a mass movement (and

>that's really what the original post is about), one needs a public face

>that is as inclusive as possible.

Obviously there have to be some limits -- surely you wouldn't advocate

embracing sugar, refined foods, etc., right?

>And cyanide is generally

>recognized as poison, whereas soy is not (if it were, nobody would buy

>the stuff, and this would be a moot issue). If we're going to ban

>things that are developmentally bad but not actively dangerous (and

>nothing I've seen from WAPF or anywhere else shows me that " Soy will

>kill you " in any immediate sense), where do we draw the line?

How is something that's developmentally bad not dangerous? And why do you

think soy isn't dangerous?

-

February 25, 2005

>>And cyanide is generally

>>recognized as poison, whereas soy is not (if it were, nobody would buy

>>the stuff, and this would be a moot issue). If we're going to ban

>>things that are developmentally bad but not actively dangerous (and

>>nothing I've seen from WAPF or anywhere else shows me that " Soy will

>>kill you " in any immediate sense), where do we draw the line?

>>

>

>How is something that's developmentally bad not dangerous? And why do you

>think soy isn't dangerous?

>

>-

>

Hi Guys,

Maybe is unaware of soy's bad reputation in the Weston A. Price

Foundation community. I admit that I do eat soy occasionally - miso and

tofu mainly. I think it is just one of those things about which

information swings so far to either side. Soy is touted as a panacea

for everything now from the veg and low fat crowd, yet disparaged by

WAPF. It may be a case of who do we believe? Here's the WAPF

introductory schpeel on soy:

http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.html

Deanna

Local Chapter Webmistress

http://www.salvonix.com/WAP/

Texas Ambassador

Organic Wine Company

http://www.theorganicwinecompany.com

February 25, 2005

In a message dated 2/25/2005 8:20:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaq@... writes:

> Obviously there have to be some limits -- surely you wouldn't advocate

> embracing sugar, refined foods, etc., right?

>

Of course not. But if you're going to go around saying that the stuff

that's been " the staff of life " for the entire history of civilization

(and that is " traditional diet " ) is " bad food " , people are going to

think you're kooks. Once people are " into " this stuff, then they can

figure for themselves that grain might be bad food FOR THEM.

_____

Experience seems to prove otherwise. Millions of people have embraced

Atkins and other low-carb programs and have been open to the idea that grains

are

an obstacle to their health, while people are much more loathe to accept the

idea that it is healthy to consume as much saturated fat one wants to

satiety, or even that saturated fat is healthier than other fats, or healthy at

all.

Saturated fat has been the staff of life for far, far longer than have

grains, and, unlike grains, there's no evidence that populations that ate more

saturated fat got lots shorter, had poorer bones, and thinner skulls (all

disparagement of thick-headedness aside.)

That said I do think grains can be part of a healthy diet, but I certainly

wouldn't advocate eating saturated fat and withold from criticizing grains on

the basis that someone would think I'm a kook!

Chris

February 25, 2005

Chris-

>Anyway, let's look at what happens in the real world. I don't see any

>evidence that public hospitals are practicing health care over disease

>care any more

>than private hospitals, or that Medicare is more liberal towards health care

>practicies versus disease care than are private insurances. Do you? I do,

>however, see many private practitioners that are part of a growing

>movement of

>health care rather than disease care practitioners, and they will become a

>significant private force (arguably are already) long before they will

>ever be

>able to influence the layers of public bureacracy to adopt their views.

Well, like I said, today's " public " sphere is anything but. It's massively

corrupted, and inasmuch as public institutions have more inertia than

private ones (not always the case, but a workable rule of thumb here) it's

true that reform will tend to come from elsewhere.

-

February 25, 2005

-

>Now, cotton isn't food, but it does suggest that the 20% figure is in

>the ballpark of reality, especially as there are probably crops more

>highly subsidized than cotton (beet sugar?).

Do you and not see the distinction between a company like General

Foods and a farm?

-

February 25, 2005

Chris-

> > OK, but there's a humungaloid difference between farm subsidies and

> overall

> > agribusiness subsidies. Among other things, General Foods buys cheap

>grain

> > and turns it into high-margin products. Yes, the grain is cheaper

> because

> > of farm subsidies (and IIRC, it was Nixon who really screwed up our

> > agricultural system's finances) but they're not getting 20% of their

> > revenue in the form of tax dollars. That's a huge error.

>___

>

>Could it be that 20% of their *costs* are paid for by subsidies?

The number you cited turned out to be a farm subsidy number. IOW, why

should we believe it has ANYTHING to do with companies like General Foods?

-

February 25, 2005

> Chris-

>

>> > OK, but there's a humungaloid difference between farm subsidies and

>> overall

>> > agribusiness subsidies. Among other things, General Foods buys cheap

>>grain

>> > and turns it into high-margin products. Yes, the grain is cheaper

>> because

>> > of farm subsidies (and IIRC, it was Nixon who really screwed up our

>> > agricultural system's finances) but they're not getting 20% of their

>> > revenue in the form of tax dollars. That's a huge error.

>>___

>>

>>Could it be that 20% of their *costs* are paid for by subsidies?

,

> The number you cited turned out to be a farm subsidy number. IOW, why

> should we believe it has ANYTHING to do with companies like General Foods?

Don't the subsidies support the mega growers, suppliers to big food

corporations which gives them a lower cost for the not man made ingredients

anyway? More profit margin is in the value adding, making a natural, grown

product into a refined product. This is an interesting grain subsidy Farm

Bill editorial http://www.inhf.org/farmbill.htm

Wanita

--

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.2.0 - Release Date: 2/21/2005

February 25, 2005

> Message: 5

> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:00:18 -0500

> From: Idol <Idol@...>

> Subject: Re: Re: POLITICS - Supporting WAPF or Not

>

> -

>

>> It seems to me that if you're trying to establish a mass movement (and

>> that's really what the original post is about), one needs a public

>> face

>> that is as inclusive as possible.

>

> Obviously there have to be some limits -- surely you wouldn't advocate

> embracing sugar, refined foods, etc., right?

>

Of course not. But if you're going to go around saying that the stuff

that's been " the staff of life " for the entire history of civilization

(and that is " traditional diet " ) is " bad food " , people are going to

think you're kooks. Once people are " into " this stuff, then they can

figure for themselves that grain might be bad food FOR THEM.

>> And cyanide is generally

>> recognized as poison, whereas soy is not (if it were, nobody would buy

>> the stuff, and this would be a moot issue). If we're going to ban

>> things that are developmentally bad but not actively dangerous (and

>> nothing I've seen from WAPF or anywhere else shows me that " Soy will

>> kill you " in any immediate sense), where do we draw the line?

>

> How is something that's developmentally bad not dangerous? And why do

> you

> think soy isn't dangerous?

>

I think you have a more hairtrigger definition of danger than I do.

Based on what I've read of WAPF stuff, I wouldn't raise a kid on soy,

or even feed it as anything but emergency ration. Nor am I interested

in more than the occasional chunk of tofu or tempeh; I have no need of

phytoestrogens. But it's not " dangerous " ; I see no evidence that people

are dropping like flies from soyfoods. They aren't dying from eating

sugar either. Now, if you eat sugar day-in day-out like I did, you WILL

roach your health, and if you feed soy formula, you WILL

developmentally disadvantage the child over feeding breast milk/whole

cow's milk/etc. Do I think either sugar or soy formula should be

banned? No. Of course, I'm the guy who applauded the recent FDA

decision about Celebrex (in which at least a third of the panel was in

the pocket of the drug companies). Ya pay your money and take ya risks.

I only want to know why it's OK to poison thousands with Celebrex, but

if you poison 150 with ephedra, it's so banned that you can't even buy

the herb.

From a Realpolitik POV, if we had enough of a constituency to ban soy

formula, HFCS or whatever, we'd have enough of a constituency to

support real market alternatives. I want people to THINK about what

they pour down their kids. I want the gov't not to shill for agribiz.

But if Mom thinks soy is best, and she won't listen to me...oh well...

February 25, 2005

> -----Original Message-----

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

>

> Umm, I don't remember saying anything about such companies.

> I thought I

> said agribusiness. I thought " agribusiness " means big

> farms. On the other

> hand, I made the comparison to Sally's statement that the

> junk food industry is ridden with large debt, and would

> probably go under if 5% of their customers switched to

> getting whole foods from local farms. Her statement might

> turn out to be true. It appears that some large junk food

> companies are going under, perhaps because of the success of

> low-carb diets. (IIRC the company that makes Twinkies is

> going out of business, at least from what I heard a couple

> months ago.)

This is all a moot point, because the market just doesn't work that way.

Whole industries do not go under when five percent of their customers stop

buying their products. It's possible that certain individual companies may

be in positions so precarious that they can't afford to lose 5% of their

customers, but as long as there's demand for processed convenience foods,

some company will move in to fill the void and meet that demand. In theory,

if the demand for convenience foods were elastic enough, a substantial

segment of the market could balk at the higher prices resulting from reduced

subsidies, but I don't think this is the case. People like their junk food.

Economics has never been the WAPF's strong suit.

February 25, 2005

>Saturated fat has been the staff of life for far, far longer than have

>grains, and, unlike grains, there's no evidence that populations that ate more

>saturated fat got lots shorter, had poorer bones, and thinner skulls (all

>disparagement of thick-headedness aside.)

From a statistical point of view, though, the problem with saturated fat NOW is

that it is from animals, and animals store a lot of their toxins in their fats.

Which, I think, throws the numbers off. How many Americans get their saturated

fat from *healthy* animals?

Heidi Jean

February 26, 2005

-

>Of course not. But if you're going to go around saying that the stuff

>that's been " the staff of life " for the entire history of civilization

>(and that is " traditional diet " ) is " bad food " , people are going to

>think you're kooks. Once people are " into " this stuff, then they can

>figure for themselves that grain might be bad food FOR THEM.

Most people -- I'd venture to say the vast, overwhelming majority -- have

little historical perspective. Animal fat used to be prized. Now it's

widely demonized. Do you think the people who pulled off that shift in

perception worried about coming off like kooks?

Besides, truth is truth. I'm not about to advocate lying.

>I only want to know why it's OK to poison thousands with Celebrex, but

>if you poison 150 with ephedra, it's so banned that you can't even buy

>the herb.

Because the FDA is terminally corrupted. That's why pretty much all

dietary supplements are in danger: Big Pharma doesn't want the competition.

-

February 26, 2005

Wanita-

>Don't the subsidies support the mega growers, suppliers to big food

>corporations which gives them a lower cost for the not man made ingredients

>anyway?

Oh, of course, but it's simple math to realize that if I subsidize farms to

the tune of, say, 20% of their revenues, and those provide some of the

ingredients for big food corporations, I'm not magically providing 20% of

the revenues of those big food companies. The numbers are related (I guess

I accidentally implied they're not, so I misspoke) but they're not the same.

-

February 26, 2005

In a message dated 2/26/2005 12:26:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,

bberg@... writes: