A Centrally Planned Food Supply

NEVERRR

There's two ways that could end up. It could end up with huge food shortages and us having to import our food, or it could end up with the government deciding who gets food and who doesn't based on perhaps BMI or weight or something like that.

Either way it is an absolutely terrible idea.

 

Interesting. Perhaps you should move to North Korea.

 

5 major corporate agriculture farms and 3 corporate distribution entities (owned primarily by those corporate farms), handle almost every food item purchased over the counter in every supermarket in the nation by contractual obligation (why most of the local farms that existed 20 years ago no longer exist), and set not only the costs those food items will be sold for but purchased for by any farmers who are not owned by them. IOW, even when the going rate on a particular food item, like strawberries for instance, costs X amount of dollars to grow and are regularly sold at X amount of dollars as a fair market value, the corporate farms can force the little farmers to sell them their product at a lower rate.
　
This practice has all but eliminated the small farmer, and assured a monopoly for the top 5 corporate farms in the USA, and allows them to dictate who stays in business. These top 5 entities absorb over 65% of the farmers subsidies that are supposed to be helping small farmers stay in business even when they cannot sell their crop (to the corporate farms who are manipulating the market prices by controlling the supply with government approval) or lose crops due to weather.
　
　
Agriculture in this country is controlled by a hand full of corporate entities that have a government approved monopoly. If that isn't government controlled WHAT IS???

 

No can do, your ridiculously subjective definition of "credible evidence" isn't in any real dictionary.

 

Well, I can assure you that no rational definition of "credible evidence" would include unsubstantiated claims made by random individuals on the internet.

 

If the corporations are monopolized, and those corporations back certain candidates, whom are elected....that's kind of controlly just like a centralized government.

People in private coprorations are every bit as corruptable as government bureaucrats

 

Agreed however, lots of smaller farms sell to those big corporations and (as you said) those large corporations are controlled by the Feds. Now, legislation (as I referred to in my former post) could stop those small farmers from even being able to sell their products to those corporations and, at the same time, preclude them from selling it privately.

 

If the corporations are "monopolized" by the government, they are no longer private entities.

 

Yes and it's all due to government intervention in the market.

 

Please allow me to re-phrase what I said previously - I'm tired of being held hostage by the private monopolizers who owe their existance to grain subsidies and free grazing land and believe themselves to be big capitalists.

 

Can't say I disagree.

 

A small number of centrally-planned organizations, apparently.

 

Those with 'deep pockets' are more likely to not only be able to absorb the cost of government intervention into their market but, also have money to lobby for legislation giving them special advantage.

These 'monopolies' are not caused by capitalism and free-market competition, they are caused by a huge government footprint into our free markets.

 

The fact they are "allowed" to sell exclusively to the corporate farms is evidence of their dominate control of the market. The government not only allows it they support it, and the sock puppets in the government, benefit directly from the monopoly they have helped create to assure it is maintained.
　
　
You are right though a farmer can open a stand and sell his product, as long as he obtains the appropriate government licenses (AKA government approved), and their land is zoned appropriately by the government allowing them to have a stand, or get a booth at the local farmers market (if the government allows it) but they cannot go to say a supermarket in their area and sell their merchandise. If the supermarket purchases their merchandise they would be in jeopardy of losing their distributor, under black mail of losing their other much needed merchandise. That contract is leal and binding to the point of government imposition.
　
How can anybody honestly say these few corporations and the government are not in cahoots together with all the back scratching and blatant payola going on???

 

I'm not sure it matters what caused the monopolies, it's the ability to shut down the country's food supply or to hold back supply to raise prices (ala OPEC) that concerns me.

 

No....I was saying that if corprorations are monopolized, and then those corporate board members play play golf, smoke cigars, and eat steaks with politicians, who's campaigns they contributed to at the next CPAC conference....and they collude regarding anything those monopolized businesses do....that's pretty central control freaky sounding to me, even though the controlling isn't offically recognized.

To me...it doesn't matter what we call something...if it's powerful people having unchallenged authority, and they screw the average law abiding tax payer in doing so, it all sucks.

 

I agree but my point is that these large corporate 'monopolies' are created by government intervention through socialist policies under the guise of so-called 'safety' of food.

I have yet to get poisoned by food from the local farmer's market or any other fruit or vegetable stand selling its products. I know how to handle and cook meat, and have 'canned' my own produce etc.

If government got out of draconian food regulation, food would be cheaper and the free-market would regulate itself.

 

Are you denying this is an example of big business influencing government in order to gain a favorable competitive advantage?

 

What about when the government is monopolized by the corporations?

 

The only reason for that is the expectation of the government to intervene which it has been more than willing to do historically.

 

The missing piece of your assertion is that government is involved in food regulation at the behest of and at advantage to the big business interests that control the government. The government doesn't regulate food because it is in the interest of the people for it to do so. It regulates food because the big industry players can use such regulatory agencies to stifle competition and gain favorable advantages.

 

Government intervenes when government officials are paid to do so.

 

My point is that it should be illegal for government intervention in the first place. The Market is more than capable of regulating itself. Like I said, I have yet to be poisoned by any farmer's market or food stand, or private live-stock meat I have purchased.

 

Well the government has no business regulating foods in the first place. It should be illegal for them to do so.

 

There is no Constitutional basis for the federal government to regulate food through the FDA. It is the influence of money on the electoral and legislative processes which leads to the government stepping into things like the FDA. We have big government for big business in this country. The notion that big government and big business are opposing forces is merely a myth fostered and spread by the main stream media. Big government benefits those that control the government, and in this country, big business has been in power for a very long time.