While a mega merger between two of America’s largest grocery chains is snarled in regulatory red tape, a smaller European entrant is eyeing a major expansion in the US.
Do you like famines? Cause that’s how you get famines…all governments have their farmers run a surplus, so when a year is bad…we don’t all starve to death.
I dont know what the other poster was arguing at all, but the dustbowl was not caused by a shortage of farming. The dust bowl was a result of overfarming: native grasslands with incredibly deep roots hold down topsoil, crops like corn and wheat, which we very heavily subisidze, have much much much shorter roots which dont compact the topsoil. If we are to prevent another dustbowl, it will be by reviving the American prairie, not by planting more useless crops.
The other poster is basically saying we shouldn’t pay farmers to not grow crops. When the reality is we pay farmers not to grow to allow the soil to regenerate. The dust bowl was because farmers weren’t subsidized to not grow, so instead of allowing the land to rest and the farmer not go bankrupt, they kept growing crops. So now the government pays them when they let plots rest, so they aren’t forced to keep growing or eat and pay bills.
Yes I am clearly suggesting that I would like farmers to starve. Any honest person would conclude that from what I wrote. Are there any other views you have magically determined that I hold?
I bet your strawman could survive a dust bowl.
But hey I am 100% sure you have researched this topic in depth and know for a fact that literally every politician who demands farm subsidies is only doing it for the pure altruistic avoidance of a dust bowl. Never mind that all the progress that has been made in agriculture the past 100 years.
Do you like famines? Cause that’s how you get famines…all governments have their farmers run a surplus, so when a year is bad…we don’t all starve to death.
I wasn’t aware paying people not to grow was the same as paying them to grow too much.
You like the dust bowl?
Soil conservation is a thing, when a farmer cannot grow, do you just let them starve?
Cause that’s what you’re suggesting.
I dont know what the other poster was arguing at all, but the dustbowl was not caused by a shortage of farming. The dust bowl was a result of overfarming: native grasslands with incredibly deep roots hold down topsoil, crops like corn and wheat, which we very heavily subisidze, have much much much shorter roots which dont compact the topsoil. If we are to prevent another dustbowl, it will be by reviving the American prairie, not by planting more useless crops.
The other poster is basically saying we shouldn’t pay farmers to not grow crops. When the reality is we pay farmers not to grow to allow the soil to regenerate. The dust bowl was because farmers weren’t subsidized to not grow, so instead of allowing the land to rest and the farmer not go bankrupt, they kept growing crops. So now the government pays them when they let plots rest, so they aren’t forced to keep growing or eat and pay bills.
Yes I am clearly suggesting that I would like farmers to starve. Any honest person would conclude that from what I wrote. Are there any other views you have magically determined that I hold?
I bet your strawman could survive a dust bowl.
But hey I am 100% sure you have researched this topic in depth and know for a fact that literally every politician who demands farm subsidies is only doing it for the pure altruistic avoidance of a dust bowl. Never mind that all the progress that has been made in agriculture the past 100 years.