BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says:
==============
I suspect that it has nothing to do
with economics or subsidies, but rather you are using those arguments
as
stalking horses for your real agenda, which is "environmental costs."
I
translate that, in the context of RBP, to mean that you want the
water
to
remain in the river and not be diverted for agricultural (or any
other)
use
so that YOU can use it for recreation.
===============

Did you read where I've said that? I have no real "agenda". As I
said,
I pulled agri-business out of a hat -- any firm that is the recipient
of subsidies would have done just as well.

frtzw906

On the topic of subsidies, I chatted with my sugar-beet farmer
relative, in Mn, and ask about the price of sugar beets being
subsidized by US Gov. He said in agreement with you that there is no
subsidy, the price of sugar depends on world market price. That is part
of the problem for the small farmer, it is hard to compete unless you
have a very large operation, ie. Corporate farm, that can operate on a
very small margin.

He can take out a low interest loan, to buy fuel and seed, but if he
has to rent land, it kills what profit margin is left. Then if you have
a bad year, you can literally lose the farm. He has chosen to keep is
operation small, and out of debt, not rent land. Even at that, last
year he invested $35,000 for an annual return of $3,500 profit, and
says it is hardly worth the effort if you figure your time in to the
equation at all. More of a hobby income than anything. He ends up
working for one of the large farm operations with side jobs for income.


Anyway, I stand corrected, but I knew the farm life is a hard way to
make a living. TnT