Bumper Sticker Mayhem: No Farms, No Food?

I recently saw another questionable bumper sticker: “No farms, no food.”

Well, yeah, I guess that’s right.  But really, this bumper sticker isn’t trying to state the obvious.  More than likely, this is a bumper sticker supporting government intervention for farmers (especially considering all of the other pro-big government stickers on this person’s tailgate).  So the question is this: Do we need the government involved in farms to keep food on our tables?

First, let me tackle the most obvious part.  Like my article about government keeping the water clean, does anyone actually think that if left to our own devices we’d starve ourselves to death?  (I’m honestly having a little bit of trouble writing anything more at this point because is there really anything else to say?)  No, there’s good money involved in the products and services that everyone needs because no matter what, they’re going to be items that are consumed for as long as there are people around.

There have been a few times in my conversations with people that I have heard “We have to protect our farmers.  They’re the backbone of the country.”  Okay, so buy food.  If you keep your cupboards stocked, that should keep the farmers in business pretty well.

I know, these people mean that we need to provide subsidies and other protections for farmers to keep them in business.  If the government didn’t put price floors on agricultural products, send subsidies to farmers, and flat out pay some farmers not to farm, there might be some farmers that go out of business.  If that’s the case, then that means that the market is trying to tell us that there are too many farmers out there!  Why is it that farming is the holy grail of occupations?  As an engineer, if I couldn’t find a job in the engineering field, should the government pay me not to engineer or subsidize my job?  After all, good luck living in a world without engineers.

But that’s preposterous.  If I can’t get a job as an engineer, it’s because we don’t need me to work as one.  The same goes with farming.  If you can’t produce enough to pay your bills without the help of the government taking money out of the market that could be used for other businesses and technology, then maybe you might want to try another line of work.

Government’s involvement in farming also harms anyone who buys food (everyone).  By putting price floors on crops, the government artificially keeps the prices of food high.  This is presented as a way of keeping farmers in business, but this does not allow for potentially cheaper prices—it hurts the consumer’s ability to get the most out of their money.  The ethanol mandate requires a certain ratio of biofuels to be blended with the gasoline you buy to fill up your car.  By requiring this blend to be used, it drives up demand and, all else equal, raises the price of the corn you eat (and all of the corn by-products that you may or may not realize you eat).  Since many stock animals are fed with corn, it also raises the prices on various meats.

Another argument I’ve gotten is the “If we don’t keep the small farmers in business, we’ll lose all of our farmland and will never get it back.”

If companies did start to purchase farmland and turn it into whatever else, what would happen?  If it went to the extreme and all farms ceased to exist, we would be forced to once again be hunter-gatherers and engage in subsistence farming.  Our lives would be spent just trying to keep from starving.  But over the years, we’ve added technological advancements to agriculture.   We were willing to pay money for other people to grow food for us because we wanted to use our time to do other things.  There would be no overall benefits to subsistence farming and one of the only ways for humans to progress as a society is to eliminate subsistence farming, so I’m going to reject the idea that we’d return to it in a free market.

Maybe we would lose a little bit of farmland though.  And that’s fine because all throughout human history, we’ve gotten better at harvesting more produce on smaller parcels of land.  Anyway, as farmland became scarcer, its value would increase, so companies that wanted to farm would be willing to pay prime dollar for the land over someone who might want to construct something like a housing development.

What are these big businesses that are out to get your money doing during all of this by buying farmland?  Well, they’re out to get your money, of course!  As mentioned before, there’s a ton of money to be made in the food industry, so why would people just give up the chance at it?

It’s in everyone’s best interest to support farms, but that’s doesn’t mean it can’t be done voluntarily.  We need to eat, but we don’t want to spend 12 hours a day five or six or seven days a week putting food on our tables, so we pay others to do it for us.  We desire to increase our wealth, so we pursue work that will help us achieve that goal while we strive to keep the things that sustain our lives simple, cheap, and easy.  As long as this remains the case, I don’t think we have to worry about the farms.




'Bumper Sticker Mayhem: No Farms, No Food?' have 5 comments

  1. December 4, 2012 @ 5:05 am Steve

    What drives me crazy is how these big-government, “protect our farms” people cheer when subsidies are doled out, but turn a blind eye to regulations that cripple small farms. For instance, last year it became illegal for minors to operate heavy farm machinery. This only hurts the small family farm in which mom and dad rely on the kids for help with daily chores. I’m sure this regulation was aimed to force fams to hire outside help (creating jobs) but small farms cannot afford to take on additional salaries. Another example is the sky-rocketing estate tax. Children who inherit a farm from a deceased parent will never be able to afford a 55% tax bill. In both of these situations, the government’s policies will most likely force small farmers to sell to “big greedy corporate farms.” And at that point, the bumper sticker people will open their eyes and assign blame to the capitalist system instead of the true culprit- big government.

    Reply

  2. December 10, 2012 @ 12:45 pm lance

    The Canadian Wheat Pool was started in the 1950’s (ish, I think). By fixing the price of wheat, they allowed small farmers to sell their grain to China. Without the wheat board, the big buyers would only buy from the big farmers, aka the ones able to fill a train, and the little guys were forced to find small / local buyers. Since Canada produces significantly more than it consumes, there would be no chance for most of the small grain farmers to find any buyer at all. Since the cabbage demand in Saskatchewan could be filled on about 4 square miles, that crop had no chance either, just like broccoli and squash and all other options for local markets.

    So lets say that Beechnut, Cargill, ADM or Unilever then bought up the land for pennies on the dollar, and converted it all to Monsanto’s GM crops. What choice would be left for the consumer?

    The Wheat Pool just got disbanded. Last I heard the average age of a farmer in Saskatchewan is 63. Anyone want to bet on what happens next?

    In Egypt currently people pay about 40% of their income for food. In Turkey the plebs pay about 75% of their income to rent. Both represent free markets without all that inconvenient government regulation. You’re probably good enough at math to see where this is going.

    Who needs butterflies anyway?

    Reply

  3. December 10, 2012 @ 12:47 pm lance

    And this says nothing about crop failures. If Monsanto and Beechnut together experienced a massive disaster, then the next year had a bumper crop, anyone really believe the price would both go up and then back down?

    Reply

  4. December 10, 2012 @ 1:05 pm lance

    The solution to the issues you raise that I see starts with campaign finance reform. The #1 issue we face, imo, is to get the money out of the congress. Once the big businesses cannot buy votes, the people in power will be free to vote on what they really believe compared to the dictations of the party whip.

    With the advent of the Al Gore, each candidate can now make their case for election with no money down. Or, each candidate could be allowed to spend $10 000 (or some random number with open accounting) so creativity and wise use would become obvious. The party system would become irrelevant, or could easily be abolished, and suddenly people would be free to vote according to the will of the constituents (as compared to the will of their contributors).

    Beyond that, the reintroduction of Glass Stegall, the abolition of the IRS followed by a supply side tax, the decentralization of government through community leagues, paper ballots, and open books (online) for all courthouses and government institutions are all easily possible under the current system.

    No revolution required. Just 1% of the people acting together to achieve predetermined goals.

    Reply

  5. December 10, 2012 @ 10:52 pm In Defense of Liberty: Responding to Comments | Inside McFloogle's Mind

    […] next few comments are from the “No Farms, No Food?” […]

    Reply


Would you like to share your thoughts?

Your email address will not be published.

Images are for demo purposes only and are properties of their respective owners. Old Paper by ThunderThemes.net

%d bloggers like this: