US soybean farmers hurting after China cancels contracts

  • Thread starter Thread starter HCTC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridgerunner said:
40.png
ThinkingSapien:
Amazon has their toes in lots of market areas and is expanding. They have competitors. Who those competitors are depends on which offerings of Amazon are in focus. Walmart, Google, Microsoft, Grocery store chains. And they’ve been developing their logistics and delivery capabilities potentially making another area in which they compete.
Click to expand...
All the same, those companies make me nervous. Lots of empty main streets and malls because of them.
Click to expand...
It was not too long ago that the malls were blamed for the death of the main street stores. Yet many main street stores survive. Those that do survive, and even prosper, are doing so because they offer something that the malls and Amazon cannot. What that is varies from store to store. Sometimes it is sheer convenience. If you need a 2" #8x32 bolt right away, it is nice to go to the hardware store around the corner. Sometimes it is for expertise and someone you know. I often buy my bicycle products from Jonny Rock’s bicycle shop a block from where I live rather than go a few miles away to one of the big bicycle chain stores like Performance Bicycle because I trust the owner to do good work, even if his prices are a little higher. Sometimes it is just an appeal to patriotism. There are many people who still prefer to buy American made, or better yet, locally made products, and do pay a little more for it. That too is the free market at work. But if a small US shop is not willing to offer something beyond what a customer can get at Amazon or Walmart, then that shop may go out of business. Not all of them will go out of business, though, and that is as it should be.
 
Annie said:
??.

What do you mean?
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you meant in the first place. I guess what you are saying is that most people are greedy and have like to have other people’s money redistributed to them. If someone argues against the redistribution then we need government oversight of business.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.
 
We have government oversight of business to make sure the people involved are fair and keep to their word, so if you order something from a company, they send it to you or give you back your money. The department of weights and measures is an example of that: they test scales and other measuring devices to make sure they have not been adjusted to measure out less.

Another reason we have government oversight of business is to ensure that different businesses play by the same rules, so all businesses are required to clean up after themselves to the same extent, all fishermen adhere to the same restrictions in the matter of size and amount, etc.

I’m not saying government can’t be too intrusive, only that the government can’t just leave businesses to do their own thing.
 
Annie said:
We have government oversight of business to make sure the people involved are fair and keep to their word, so if you order something from a company, they send it to you or give you back your money. The department of weights and measures is an example of that: they test scales and other measuring devices to make sure they have not been adjusted to measure out less.

Another reason we have government oversight of business is to ensure that different businesses play by the same rules, so all businesses are required to clean up after themselves to the same extent, all fishermen adhere to the same restrictions in the matter of size and amount, etc.

I’m not saying government can’t be too intrusive, only that the government can’t just leave businesses to do their own thing.
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with social security? You were the one who raised the issue of social security but I fail to see the connection.
 
The issue of redistribution of money is a different matter from government oversight.

In the issue we were originally discussing, payouts to farmers for losses they incur as a result of a change in government policy, I would say that is fair and just. The government does not always act correctly on these matters but it ought to.

I think one could argue against the change itself (the imposition of tariffs) bit that is a separate issue altogether.
 
It might “work,” in that the farmers might not then suffer the losses, but it might interfere with the reason the policies were instituted in the first place.

Also, simple reversal might not work in that the damage may already be done.
 
I am not currently advocating for or gainst the policies themselves. I am advocating for compensating farmers hurt by a sudden change in the rules.
 
In one of the very few instances on this forum in which you are not the one to bring up the issue of Social Security, I brought up your desire to eliminate it as an example of unfair dealing showing why government oversight is needed for businesses.

Because people want to back out of their promises and agreements all the time.
 
Annie said:
In one of the very few instances on this forum in which you are not the one to bring up the issue of Social Security, I brought up your desire to eliminate it as an example of unfair dealing showing why government oversight is needed for businesses.
Click to expand...
So what exactly are people entitled to under social security? Are they entitled to $1000 a month? $2000, $10,000? If benefits were cut in half, would that be unfair? Who determines what fair is?
 
The question is, what was the deal when money was being taken out of people’s paychecks?
 
Last edited:
Annie said:
The question is, what was the deal when money was being taken out of people’s paychecks?
Click to expand...
That was given to somebody else. That is the nature of welfare programs. They take from those who work and give to those who won’t work.
 
But that was not what people were told. The agreement was if you put in now, when you are old you will be given money.

This is why Bush was talking about privatization: so that it would become an investment deal rather than a Ponzi scheme with a decreasing pool of people putting in.

It was not described as a welfare program.
 
Last edited:
FWIW, according to the Libertarian Party, the only functions of government are protections of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and protections against fraud. I believe you have shown some examples of fraud which the government could guard against.
 
Aside from their lack of protections for the lives of those who are not yet born, I think the government has a role as an umpire for businesses in ensuring they are all playing by the same rules.
 
You’re always free to “invest” in an annuity which would probably give you a larger return than SS given the same amount of withholding. Over some 40 years it can be substantially higher.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top