SHOUTING slogans.

Usually slogans are used when there is little else to support their agendas.

When politicians become overly involved with things such food production. things can turn brown very quickly. In this country in the dairy we have price supports to help the farmers but they should be monitored and dealt with very conservative. When farmers controlled there production because of an over abundance of butter. to limit supply and drive up prices, our government saw an opportunity to import from other countries butter that was a bargaining tool for another international trade agreement.

Fortunately and unfortunately it works in cycles. Back in 1998 The price that farmers were receiving for milk per hundred weight was the lower than they received in 1978, Today that price is high what the farmers get but because thing are cyclic, I am sure its not going to last long.

The other reason is it can work the other way, it can keep the farmers that aren't producing efficiently in business, then if one would let it go, by having them go out of business it may have an effect on supply. problem is the larger farms, being mainly corporations will buy them up, produce, keeping supply above demand. until the government pays the farmers not to grow crops. Where the larger corporations can make millions not to produce.

Its a terrible situation, damned if the government mettles, and damned if they don't.

And basically depending on the government, being running by these, if not clueless but professional politicians.

I wish I had an answer for this, but what I do know, it won't be an easy one.

We sometimes mistake 'The squeaky wheel getting the oil' for 'Democracy'

The problem with the silent majority is it's silence.

...enough good men doing nothing.

...gotta stop running out of clichés...

Del

Cliche's and some slogans are OK at least they are funny.

A drop of oil in time saves the squeak. I forgot what I wanted to say. What was it about a stitch in time . . . . ?

PS your leg or knee ok now? I also had a bony year, My wifes leg, my radius (fortunately not the diameter) and now she had a shoulder replacement.

Yeah...Poor year health wise...but only little niggles so I shouldn't complain.... still a few twinges but now't that will make the six o'clock news.

Hang on there's a News Flash....

Today, in England there have been report the Del the Cat has been having sinus headaches... a spokesman for the government said...

'This is a good thing as it means we are exceeding our targets for sinus headaches'

Hope Mrs Hendrik gets well soon.

(Me & Mrs Cat were bopping away on the dance floor last night so it aint too bad )

Del

In the US the price for a gallon of milk is higher than a gallon of petrol. For most people that is ok, they use a gallon or so a week, I have 5 teen agers and I go through about 10 gallons a week. It is like filling up another car...

Here in SA the milk price is about 80% of petrol but then again our petrol price is way high.

10 us gal per week (54l if i am correct) is quite a lot - I am a heavy user but not close. As a young one I could down 2l at a time. (ice cold milk from the cooler enriched with Jersey cream (25%))

Did you investigate the reason?

Our milk price also shot up recently due to government policy.

A slight oversupply and the price was low. Subsidised milk imports caused the price to stay low but 80% of the dairy farmers could not survive and closed down. All was well until no milk could be found to import. the price of milk shot up by 40%.

whole milk, 2%, 1% or skim. 10 gallons for 5 teenagers is alot, but not impossible, does that maybe run in streaks?

Good for creating demand thou.

in India a litre of low fat milk is cheaper than a litre of mineral (demineralized??/ treated water. At least successive Indian governmemts have not allowed developed countries to dump subsidized food grains.

in this country, Soda like Pepsi or coke is half the price of bottled water.

Just paid $3.99 for a case (of 24 cans) of diet pepsi. it was a sale but we have these kind of sales often.

There are good arguments for price supports. They began in the US after the crash of 29. Unfortunately they have evolved into welfare for the rich. Cotton is the heaviest subsidized commodity of all with 80% of the payments going to the top 5 producers.

All our grain crops are subsidized. The large surpluses are dumped on third world countries where the World Bank and the IMF have forbade their putting up tarrifs. The grain is dumped on them at below cost of production. It has been estimated that in Mexico alone as many as 25 million small farmers are being driven off the land and into the cities. Our empire has killed far more people with financial manipulation than they ever have with bombs and bullets.

There is nothing wrong with price supports, but it should be limited. Take a look at peanut contracts. As long as you own the quota, you can sell it to a real farmer to grow it.

As far as your comment;

"Our empire has killed far more people with financial manipulation than they ever have with bombs and bullets. "

I think our politicians rather use the word strategic.

Not to mention the empire forged by the United Nations. There policy of banning DDT and other pesticides has resulted in crop failures and close to 1 million deaths per year in Africa. DDT was never proven scientifically to be very damaging to the environment in appropriate doses, but the sloganeering and environmental hysteria after Silent Spring was published had the political types rushing to address the situation. It's sad that our sensibilities and emotions getting the better of due scientific process can cause so much suffering.

My father explained this too me years ago. He was a scientist with the SEATO labs back in the 1960s specializing in infectuous diseases.

David R.

Hugo, Minnesota

DDT may be a bad choice, the eagle populaion is increasing since its ban.

Mainly it was misused.

How's this for a one-size-fits-all slogan for ANY issue at all:

"Ban politicans, for THEY are the problem".

"Slogans are mostly used by clueless people aimed to impress clueless politicians and usually end up in clueless law"

I have to disagree Hendrik:

Slogans are taught to clueless people by manipulating people to motivate politicians who are more worried about re-election, so they can line their pockets, than doing what is right.

The Art of Seduction has some information on political and marketing Machiavellian tactics http://www.seductionbook.com/

Lawyers should never be allowed to hold office. America wrote the original 13th amendment to stop this and lost the war of 1812. (done most of the research).

I am curious to the U.K.'s version of the war of 1812 compared to what is taught here.

The problem is clueless people who won't or can't think for them selves. Heaven forbid they have to do some research and discernment for themselves

2 many cents from

Brad

You actually expect sense from government? There are too many people who are totally ignorant of how things operate deciding how things will be done.

Most farm programs were set up to help balance the overproduction/underproduction cycles that were not good for anyone. If production went up because of good conditions prices would fall until farmers went broke. Then with fewer farmers and some bad conditions prices would rise. The system was supposed to balance that by buying in the good years [supporting prices], storing, then selling in the bad years to lower prices. Then the politicians got their teeth into it, and some farmers worked out ways to milk the system. The program might work if it wasn't run by the government.

To sell their nonsense to the unthinking public politicians need slogans. People don't think about slogans. The latest thing is "Minimum wage should be a living wage!". Work an hour in a restaurant and you earn enough monetary credits to buy a meal, say $5. The politicians may then decide $5 an hour is not a "living wage" so they make minimum wage $10 an hour. The restaurant worker still works one hour to buy a meal, but the $ cost of the meal has doubled. In fact everyone's wages have doubled as have all the prices. Nothing gained and the currency is devalued, so the politicians may then do it again repeatedly and minimum wage is raised to $10,000 and the meal costs $10,000. But everyone has so much money, they can pay off their bills and loans with money that is worth less than the amount originally owed. Screw the economy, they have their pieces of paper called money. It happened in the U. S. recently, pushed by Democrats blaring slogans for the unthinking masses. They raised the minimum wage from $5.15/hr to $7.50/hr then wonder why the $ is losing value and blame everyone but themselves. Bunch of bleeding buttholes!

Most farm programs were set up to help balance the overproduction/underproduction cycles that were not good for anyone.

Thats true, bu like politicians, hey look for ways to help themselves by using programs such as farm subsidies as a guise.

Then the politicians got their teeth into it, and some farmers worked out ways to milk the system. The program might work if it wasn't run by the government.

Some farmers yes, but corporate farms definitely.

The program might work if it wasn't run by the government.

Look at any government structure, be it democracy, communisim, imperialism. There is corruption in all.

The situation in countries differ a lot but politicians and the greedy seems to feature everywhere.

Farm products are required everywhere and each country has to provide for food security.

In SA we had fixed prices, subsidies etc but it was stopped with the change of government. (I actually think it were for the best)

The farmers should be helped to overcome the effect of natural disasters. (That is also done to a large extent in SA)

Because agriculture are almost a free market system the farmers should be allowed to develop markets and exploit any possibility.

The government should also protect the farmers from dumping by other countries,

The government is failing on both.

The decision not to allow the production of biofuel from maize (where additional potential is available) but to allow the biofuel from sugar cane (where almost all suitable land is developed) is questioned.

About the slogans about food prices and biofuel - The poor should be subsidised when buying and not the producer. A pipe dream? Maybe but preventing the rich from abusing farm subsidies is also hard.