The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Why does the US Government SUBSIDIZE corn?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: May 16th, 2012 7:24 PM Author: Swashbuckling navy knife How is cheap and therefore ubiquitous high fructose corn syrupy subsidized by the taxpayer in the public's best interest. What am I missing? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20706034) |
Date: May 16th, 2012 7:25 PM Author: Exhilarant church building Electoral college, senate, cash money lobbyists (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20706035) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 7:26 PM Author: Light Multi-colored Cruise Ship Toaster Legislative quirk: small, rural states have disproportionate representation in our government. 16% of the population controls half the senate. And of course the dem primary starts in Iowa. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20706042) |
 |
Date: May 16th, 2012 7:28 PM Author: Charismatic pearl step-uncle's house Both GOP and DEM primaries start in Iowa. Being beholden to the shitty corn lobby is bi-partisan. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20706065) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2012 9:21 AM Author: misunderstood mood gas station I think he used dem primaries as ghetto for the primaries (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20709950) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 7:45 PM Author: Mischievous den MFE except for the last sentence. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20706239) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 9:39 PM Author: glittery location (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20707101) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 7:29 PM Author: cordovan tank Why do you hate ARE corn? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20706069) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 7:32 PM Author: sienna godawful theater place of business Because high fructose corn synupt is a prime contributor to this bro:
And 42% of the US may be OBESE my 2030 (new study).
Just seems to odd that we'd subsidize this given that the gov is supposed to act in the best interest of the public. But I'm no policy wonk breh. |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 7:31 PM Author: Glassy provocative nibblets 40% of Americans on food stamps, which they use to buy soda, candy, chips, dessert, high carb foods and other corn-syrup based foods. They then use the food stamps to pay for the subsidized food, continuing the cycle anew. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20706090) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 7:34 PM Author: titillating startled site The food stamps are administered by the Department of Agriculture, not Health and Human Services.
NYC tried to block corn-syrup junk-food purchases by food-stamp recipients, got shot down by department of agriculture. |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 8:01 PM Author: sienna godawful theater place of business This makes me so mad (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20706391) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 9:02 PM Author: Zombie-like faggotry Seems like a good idea in theory, not sure if it would work in practice, but in any case it should not single out HFCS but sugar and unhealthy food in general. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20706820) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 9:12 PM Author: painfully honest shrine Oh it didn't single out HFCS. But 'sugar' and HFCS are pretty much analogous in the modern American food industry.
More precisely it was a ban of all 'sugary drinks' |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 7:35 PM Author: talented judgmental university Really, 40%? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20706130) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 7:41 PM Author: Glassy provocative nibblets 40 million. lolz (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20706211) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2012 1:02 PM Author: Charismatic pearl step-uncle's house This can work out if you are not on food stamps. Quality food will be cheaper than it would be if food stampers were purchasing it, no? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20711143) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2012 1:05 PM Author: Glassy provocative nibblets yea, it's a way to keep quality foods in the tables of the rich. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20711161) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2012 1:11 PM Author: Charismatic pearl step-uncle's house Most lawyers probably don't have much of an issue with that, especially on the prestigious xoxo. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20711193) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2012 1:12 PM Author: Glassy provocative nibblets 'back of the line mentality, I guess. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20711200) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2012 1:16 PM Author: Charismatic pearl step-uncle's house More just realism breh. Most people who have the influence and power to change these things, probably also don't want to pay more every time they go to Whole Foods. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20711240) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 7:33 PM Author: Buff bateful locale Iowa caucus.
/thread |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 7:46 PM Author: Mischievous den Hard to see how the president has any role in this. Its the senate, friendo. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20706246) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 7:48 PM Author: Passionate chest-beating meetinghouse all other countries use real sugar and their people are thinner why (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20706271) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 8:05 PM Author: Gaped Pistol Rigpig i mentioned this to brother :D earlier, but it sucks because the subsidies promote the use of corn in making ethanol. of course, corn is like the worst way to make ethanol. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20706429) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 8:09 PM Author: insecure persian idiot to keep us fat and complacent (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20706453) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 8:58 PM Author: Zombie-like faggotry 1. Because it is extremely volatile and the subsidies only kick in at the low end for stability.
2. Because it is something that we all need in a pretty constant amount so there is little market distortion.
3. To balance out the unfair trade practices of other countries (e.g. subsidizing their crops).
Protip: HFCS isn't any worse than other sugars. While too much sugar is bad, over-consumption is due to the fact that people just like sugar, not really because it's cheap. |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 9:21 PM Author: Spectacular cheese-eating state wrong, HCFS doesn't trigger a satiated feeling like sugar does. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20706941) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 9:24 PM Author: Zombie-like faggotry I think you're talking about sugary drinks, which are typically HFCS. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20706974) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 9:29 PM Author: Deranged bawdyhouse "Because it is extremely volatile and the subsidies only kick in at the low end for stability."
Weak argument. If farmers were worried about volatility they could always hedge and accept lower profits at the high end and lower losses at the low end. Subsidies instead distort the market higher. |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 9:33 PM Author: Zombie-like faggotry Well farmers do contract for some of their product ahead of time, but there are so many variables like weather, cost of fuel and fertilizer, etc. And you can't expect farmers to even do this efficiently, would probably require massive economies of scale. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20707050) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 9:36 PM Author: Deranged bawdyhouse Well worst case scenario the government could require they pay for insurance of sorts (that would cost the most in good years) if they want the option of participating in subsidy program in bad years.
But I think most of this could be handled by the market fairly efficiently, and farmers aren't exactly stupid about money. |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 9:40 PM Author: Zombie-like faggotry Farmers ride a razor thin line, they can and do go years without turning a profit. It's a different sort of business. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20707106) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 9:33 PM Author: massive ticket booth does modern free trade theory even recognize "unfair trade practices"? economically, if some other country is willing to subsidize some product for export, the rational thing to do is to buy it up at that bargain price - not to try and "punish" the people giving you the bargain. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20707052) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 9:36 PM Author: Zombie-like faggotry Transportation costs, etc.
Also I think there is some value in stability for stability's sake, because of structural issues.
Also this is kind of a shaky point but I think a modicum of protectionism generally is OK if it can counterbalance the welfare state. |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 9:43 PM Author: massive ticket booth economic nationalists and economic leftists would be okay with a bit of protectionism. libertarians certainly are not, generally speaking. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20707128) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2012 9:17 AM Author: Zombie-like faggotry I just think that it's better than the welfare state. So when a bit of protectionism can be directed at helping laborers a little bit, I'm ok with it if the cost/benefit seems to be there. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20709937) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 9:19 PM Author: translucent scourge upon the earth kitty What kind of insane lib talk is this: "in the public's best interest"? Real life is like the olympics for corporations where each countries' companies are competing against one another. The government's job is to give the corporations domiciled in their country a leg up on the competition. Obviously there are some exceptions like Halliburton now being based in Dubai but the historical connections suffice. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20706923) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 9:20 PM Author: Zombie-like faggotry What do you think about my post right above yours breh (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20706932) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 9:31 PM Author: translucent scourge upon the earth kitty I disagree with 1, 2 and your pro-tip. And 3 should be changed to Europe instead of 'other countries'. Developing countries that would actually have a competitive advantage in growing crops get boned by our subsidies and subsequent dumping that we call aid. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20707035) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 9:34 PM Author: Zombie-like faggotry Are you saying that countries other than Europe don't subsidize, or that we should altruistically let them have an advantage so they can develop? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20707060) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 9:37 PM Author: translucent scourge upon the earth kitty No. I mean afaik the US and the EU are the primary subsidizers and exporters of subsidized crops. I don't think any other countries do so on a scale that would materially affect international trade but I could be wrong. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20707084) |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 9:38 PM Author: Zombie-like faggotry So like China doesn't do this? I don't think they produce much corn but don't they typically subsidize all their industries?
Pretty sure South American countries do as well. |
|
Date: May 16th, 2012 9:42 PM Author: translucent scourge upon the earth kitty A little dated but I think supports my point. http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-agricultural-exporters-map.html |
|
Date: May 17th, 2012 9:19 AM Author: Wild aphrodisiac police squad CREATES JOBS (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20709947) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2012 9:23 AM Author: Fear-inspiring adventurous temple MidwesTTTTerners
then they take this money to send their stupid fucking hipster children to live in Williamsburg |
|
Date: May 17th, 2012 9:24 AM Author: Wild aphrodisiac police squad lol, no. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20709958) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2012 9:24 AM Author: misunderstood mood gas station sugar = sucrose = 50% fructos and 50% glucose
HFCS ~ 50/50 fructose and glucose
I don't dispute that there is evidence that fructose is bad in excess, but it's wrong to think cane sugar is any better for you than HFCS |
|
Date: May 17th, 2012 9:25 AM Author: Wild aphrodisiac police squad http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20709962) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2012 9:45 AM Author: Lascivious Casino Pocket Flask Depends on which HFCS you're talking about. There has been a push to higher levels of fructose because it tastes sweeter per calorie. But fructose cannot be used by muscles or the brain directly and is generally shit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1950197&forum_id=2#20710016) |