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

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

TnT, I also think it would be interesting to find his opinion of the
large corporate farms (perhaps not in MN, I don't know) that do get
subsidies in any number of ways (water being just one of them). How
does he feel about his hard-earned money going into the pockets of the
corporate types? And, further, ensuring that guys like me, in Canada,
get to eat cheap oranges that don't come anywhere close to reflecting
the "real" cost of production (if the real cost of water where factored
into the equation). If he's upset, he deserves to be.

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
TnT, I also think it would be interesting to find his opinion of the
large corporate farms (perhaps not in MN, I don't know) that do get
subsidies in any number of ways (water being just one of them). How
does he feel about his hard-earned money going into the pockets of
the
corporate types? And, further, ensuring that guys like me, in Canada,
get to eat cheap oranges that don't come anywhere close to reflecting
the "real" cost of production (if the real cost of water where
factored
into the equation). If he's upset, he deserves to be.

frtzw906

Frtzw, in Mn, there is usually not a problem with too little water,
more likely to much. I doubt whether the Corp farm gets much subsidy
that way. As I understand, he gets to put his hard earned money in his
own pocket, less taxes, so I am not sure that the Corps. get any of
that either. He actually seems to be rather happy with the arrangement
where by he works on their farms, and lives on his free and clear in
the country. As to you eating Ca. oranges that I suppose are being
subsidized by US taxpayers through our Gov. and its water policy,
hopefully they taste good. I know we enjoy them also. TnT