You just forgot to mention how the growers themselves want it, providing a means to stabilise prices. But hey, put it right. Get collecting the cherries and get baking! You can hand them out for free to immigants as a welcoming dish.
If the majority of the cherry farmers want it, and the government is willing to use force on the few cherry farmers who may dissent, to keep the supply of cherries down, then why is the government at the same time allowing imports of cherries from Turkey??? Why doesn't the Snopes article bother actually addressing that question?
Because they assumed you would be able to work out aspects such as the difference between sweet and sour varieties? https://www.agmrc.org/commodities-products/fruits/cherries
Do some research...this whole OP is a moot point. https://modernfarmer.com/2016/08/cherry-dumping-farmer/
You don't bother to say why anything in that link would make the issue in the OP a moot point. We are specifically referring to tart cherries. What exactly is your point? Are you trying to say imports of tart cherries are not that high so it doesn't really matter? Doing a quick calculation from the numbers provided in that link, it seems like the foreign imports of tart cherries from foreign countries are about equal to the amount of tart cherries domestic growers are ordered to let drop on the ground. Doesn't that mean if farmers weren't ordered to waste their cherries, the country wouldn't have to import them?
It doesn't matter! You've gone off on one. The US exports more than it imports. What it imports will reflect numerous factors (from variation in processing to good ole greater choice)
That link didn't really specifically refer to exports and imports of tart cherries (unless we assume all processed cherries are tart cherries?)
First, the farmers in these government subsidy cases are begging for these subsidies. If a farmer knows in advance that he can't sell (x) amount pounds of produce then why does the farmer create this produce? The government does not 'require' anything from these farmers. If a farmer has excess produce due to no domestic demand, then export the produce or donate it to the food banks. So many times when people/business ask the government to get involved, the end result will be winners and losers. The reason the OP is a moot point is because the farmers themselves sign up for these policies...
The farmer can't predict exactly what crop yields will be. It takes 5 years for a Cherry tree to mature. He can predict his yield perhaps only weeks or months ahead of cropping. So he plants his orchards according to his best guess and available resources and from then on is at the mercy of the elements and the markets.
I've already explained to you repeatedly why it's not realistically possible for these farmers to donate these tart cherries to food banks. They are still being forced to dump cherries. Those dumped cherries cannot be exported.
This is the same for all business, how much inventory to have, how much product to produce, how much produce to grow, etc. All of it has variable outcomes but there are educated and calculated outcomes. A farmer is not much different from Apple Inc. in this regard in the sense that both must carefully monitor the sales potential. IMO the only difference is in the USA how much of our food production do we wish to import? It's my opinion the USA should produce all the food that we require. But when Americans demand fresh fruit and vegetables, and cherries during our winters, this supply must come from imports. Once we're importing and exporting small issues like with these cherries will occur. The US is the largest exporter of food products in the world so why aren't cherries being exported instead of dropped on the ground?
Not the same for my business mate. Apple has a pretty clear idea of the numbers a factory can produce. Year on year. It does not depend on the weather. Farming is an inherently unpredictable business. It depends on the weather. It is completely random what yield you will get. Beyond your ability to predict or control.
No one is being FORCED to dump cherries? https://www.wsjm.com/2016/09/09/huge-crop-means-tart-cherries-for-food-banks/ I guess I need some more explaining. I suggest they export the cherries before they dump them...
In bold above this applies to both Apple and to farmers. While farming depends some on the weather farming also depends on the marketplace and politics and unknowns. If you think Apple is so constant and predictable then explain to Tim Cook that when he gets lambasted because his company did not perform to expectations that it's no big deal...
No. It doesn't Sorry. Not even close. Compared to the vagaries of the weather every single part of Apple's production is entirely predictable. The weather you can predict 4 days ahead. And those 4 day predictions are way less reliable than Tim Cooks five year production estimates!!! Totally wrong league. Not just wrong ball park, seperate planets in separate galaxies.
There's also land (which is typically a rather valuable asset). Due to sunk costs, the non-farmer can find that their assets actually have naff all value.
These are tart cherries, not sweet cherries. Very few people buy fresh unprocessed tart cherries. Before they can be sold the cherries must be canned or frozen wih sugar. A grower must pay for the packaging and processing before they can be donated, this adds more dollars to the growers loss, and most growers do not have the facilities for processing. They must rely on the marketing order and the processors agreement to buy the cherries. I don't know but i highly suspect the processors must also adhere to the marketing order. The marketing order was voted on and agreed to by the majority but not by all growers.
Sorry...but I'm both a business person and a farmer...both have their risks but both are manageable...
Arable land where I live is a minimum of $100K per acre. So the entry costs to become a farmer are significant, but once in operation, weather is not the only issue for farmers...also the marketplace and labor and politics, etc...
If the marketplace for a particular product demands that it will only purchase from you 500 pieces, then why would a company produce more than 500 pieces? In this same scenario, if the marketplace guaranteed that the producer will receive a higher income, and in return, the producer must limit their output, why would a producer create more than they can sell? The point is those cherries can be sold anywhere in the world outside of where the farmer has the government agreement, or they can be donated. The government agreement is what farmers asked for in order to falsely increase the market prices. It would be stupid to have such an agreement if there was no cap on production...
How exhausting. Tart cherries... Like that's even a thing... Ok, well, I like my cherry pie now and again. But honestly, the idea that collectivism from the 1930s is still in effect today, and is being artificially effected by our trade agreements with folks like Turkey.. Why? How about this then, let the agriculture boards limit the incoming supply from our import partners before we artificially expose our own growers to growth penalties and destruction of large portions of crops? Why not make US growers our priority instead of artificially imposing burdens on them? Oh, wait.. democrats... nevermind...
Me too. Subsidies to farms are a normative part of farm management. Unsubsidised farms going bust is common. Entire countries worth of farms run out of business by food dumping causing famines. Entire countries farms going without produce in droughts causing famine. It all happens. Cherries left to rot. Grain mountains. Butter mountains. Over supply happens. Sometimes you get bumper yields. I don't like cherries, I'm not buying them from you. If you've got too many. You've got too many. Tough ****. You eat them.
I'm a non-subsidized farmer and I like doing business without government nonsense...we compete with others around the world straight up...