Which is it? Either the agriculture stays here, or it moves to Mexico. If you want to argue that some but not all of it would fail, fine, but your desired outcome here is for some of it to fail.

Nobody can corner the market on food, but a single country can certainly allow itself to be excluded from the industry.

How can you possibly back this up? How do you know how many domestic farms will go bankrupt when faced with farms using cheaper labor in Mexico? I would love to believe that fierce competition would somehow encourage innovation and leave our farms more productive than they are now, but I think the reality is simply that the majority of them would shut down.

Stop thinking in extremes. There is no ‘black or white’ answer. All farmers don't stay or move as your post asks. The obvious answer is 'both'. Agriculture both stays and goes - as I had posted previously. There was no contradiction. That post all but begged you to think farther - discover how 'both' are the correct answer.

Just as in the titanium example - if you think the logic is irrelevant or flawed, then more likely there are underlying facts that you have overlooked. BTW, every 'red' sentence was relevant. But it implied what you did and did not grasp - that my post was woefully too short.

Some farming will expand elsewhere. Since we are not exporting crops with massive government subsidizes, then some unproductive farms will move, or be purchased by foreigners, or other changes that make America more productive. But those changes will be small. Again, where does most all corporate welfare go? It was posted previously - which is why those changes would be small.

As proven by history repeatedly, when corporate welfare is removed, the productive parts of that industry make that industry stronger, larger, more productive, and more profitable. But if corporate welfare gets too large and is applied too long, then the industry is destroyed - must be owned by foreigners or other solutions to save it.

You are also still confusing farmers with others - where most corporate welfare goes. Why do you assume ADM will go bankrupt without corporate welfare? And why do you assume an ADM that actually must compete in a free market rather than buy politicians is a bad thing? Why do you assume making ADM compete would harm farmers?

We saw same thing only a few years ago when George Jr protected anti-American big steel - and harmed a productive American industry - steel reprocessors. Did you assume both were the same industry as you have done with farming? Why?


Where is this "single country can certainly allow itself to be excluded from the industry"? Please, an example because I have no idea what you mean. No country excludes itself from an industry when the industry operates in free markets. But let's put this in the context of where this comes from. You claimed free markets would mean all American farming would end. Then you said without American farmers, America could be excluded from buying food on international markets. Well neither is reality separately or combined. Do you claim that the world can conspire to deny America food? That is sheer nonsense - not possible in a free market especially when the product is so fungible.

Notice how the Arab world with all region oil has denied israel oil.

I know many left and right extremists use such reasoning to promote fear. I certainly hope you have learned to ignore such nonsenical rationalizations. Free markets work - there is no exclusion.


Countries lose industries when industries are protected by corporate welfare. Why did America lose most of its tire industry? Because government protected that industry - all but banned all foreign tires for spin doctor reasons. American tire industry conspired to keep the radial tire out of America for 27 years - then conspired further to hide truths even using a Supreme Court ruling.

They kept the radial out because American wages are too high, yada yada yada? Nonsense. They kept the radial tire out because anti-Americans feared to innovate for 27 years. If tires that only lasted 10,000 miles suddenly lasted 40,000 miles, then profits will be lost making less tires, yada yada yada... Due to government protection, all major tire companies (except Goodyear) were lost. Was the country excluded from the tire industry? No. If anything, America excluded itself from the industry by using corporate welfare to protect a diseased industry. If free markets had fixed problems, then the thing that destroyed a tire industry would have been eliminated. But we protected the disease - and destroyed the industry.

Why was Chrysler saved? Government refused to save Chrysler. With bankruptcy looming, Chrysler was forced to fix the problem. Within four years and without any government money, Chrysler went from near bankruptcy to record profits. Threat of bankruptcy - free market forces - fixed Chrysler.

What saved NYC? When NYC went begging to the Federal government for protection, Gerald Ford said (according to the NY Post), "Drop Dead". As a result, NYC fixed its problems.

What does corporate welfare do? Applied too large and too long means foreigners may even have to buy it to save it. The nation is still not excluded from that industry. But protecting the unproductive only means bankruptcy does not eliminate the only problem and save workers jobs.

You have assumed classic myths that Americans cannot compete in free markets. It is a lie to say free markets would end all American farming. Archer Daniels Midland, et al would say that. Propaganda that is only true when Americans refuse to learn, refuse to innovate, are stifle by anti-innovation management, or become lazy due to corporate welfare. History of America is that every industry competes successfully and routinely when that industry must compete in a free market and when that industry therefore innovates.


A Wall Street Journal front page article demonstrated fallacies in your low wage assumptions. Quality Coil in CT looked at Mexican wages after NAFTA was approved. Mexicans would work for 1/5th wage. He moved operations to Mexico salivating over the profits proven by his spread sheets. Two years later, he was back in CT desperately trying to save his company; seeking his old employees. As is repeatedly demonstrated in Economic papers, the reason why wages were so much lower in Mexico were factors such as people and an infrastructure; those workers less than 1/5th as productive. Quality Coil needed workers in CT who were paid five times more money to become profitable again.

What you call fierce competition is simply normal everyday competition that routinely creates innovation. Tell me something about agriculture. What has so massively changed in agriculture in only ten years? A change so significant that the answer should be obvious. What in the past ten years is the biggest change in agriculture? Just another example of why American agriculture can easily compete and why the so rich and profitable middle men do not need government subsidies. What has changed?

C'mon man Are you serious? Can't you get your point across in 50 words or less - try not repeating yourself repeatedly. Geez

Yeah. I have to admit it, but even though I find quite a lot of what tw says interesting (in amongst the bizarre stuff are some real gems at times), but faced with a screen of tightly packed text I just swtch off. I can handle a bunch of text if what I am reading is a story (if one of you post a lengthy anecdote or something that utilises language stylishly) but when it's a technical argument of some kind I just switch off. It'd be different if it was on paper I suspect, but on the screen my eyes just glaze and I start skim reading for pertinent points.

That, my good man, is the funniest thing I've read all day.

You yourself have pointed out many times how there is no such thing as a television made in America anymore.

I know the whole competition-drives-innovation spiel. And I agree with it--for every industry except food. All of your examples from the auto industry and the paint industry are irrelevant, no matter how many times you repeat them. Unless you start to examine genetically-modified foods, which have not found much enthusiasm in the markets, there is not a lot of room left for innovation in agriculture. We've pretty much got it figured out. All that remains is to make the process cheaper through labor and transportation costs.

Then why is it you believe that ending farm subsidies will send all these Mexican agricultural workers back to Mexico, or in any way encourage them to stay there in the first place?

Clodfobble failed to grasp the statement. I drank coffee one night with a guy from the Labs who installed medium power transistors in RCA production plants after RCA Semiconductors refused to participate. Production made possible the first 'all solid state' television - XL-100. When the Semiconductor group realized their stupidity, they complained to RCA Corporate. Bottom line, the guy ended up suffering the wrath of corporate and was denied a raise that year. So you tell me why TVs are now made overseas where, for example, Akio Morita of Sony was an electrical engineer; not a business school graduate. Just one in a long list of examples for why America lost the television industry.

America was not excluded from the industry by other nations. Companies like Zenith and RCA replaced innovation with cost controls; then ran to government for protection. One legacy of that government protection is inferior technology in American HDTVs. The better technology is used everywhere in the world - but not in America where we implemented a technology to protect Zenith. Only exclusion of
America from the television industry was by American bean counter mentalities that stifled innovation by running to government for protection.

Every one of those examples completely applies also to agriculture. Same problems in other industries demonstrate why American agriculture might be unable to complete. What perverts the productivity of every American industry? Corporate welfare.

And then we add facts. Room for and future possible innovation in agriculture is massive. Whereas you somehow have assumed "not ... much enthusiasm in the markets" for genetically-modified foods, the reality is completely different.

The US and Canada grow the bulk of transgenic crops - 60 percent by area cultivated. That is no enthusiasm? Also enthusiastic for transgenic crops and trying to play catchup are Argentina, Brazil, India, and China.

Golden rice is perhaps the best-known transgenic crop developed specifically to meet the needs of undernourished people. Then along came Golden Rice 2 that increased the amount of beta-carotene by about 20 fold. All this being instituted by parts of the agricultural industry less dependent on corporate welfare (many phrases stolen from Scientific American of Sept 2007).

Meanwhile, innovators are researching even better genetic crops that become perennials. Therefore destructive deep till plowing can be eliminated. Another innovation that American farmers should be expected to pioneer. Just another example of why enthusiasm is rabid for genetically modified crops - in direct contradiction to popular spin and myths.

What are the profit increases due to transgenic crops? For cotton: 31% in Agentina. 12% in Mexico. 69% in India. 299% in S Africa. 340% in China. We have hardly begun to innovate in agriculture; in direct contradiction to myths that would also protect agriculture with coprorate welfare.

I don't. Again expolating in extremes. One problem is that American (and French) corporate welfare means Mexicans cannot grow those same crops in Mexico. For example, Mexicans are dependent on American corn for tortillas when that corn is best grown in Mexico by Mexicans - who then need not flee to America for jobs. Does that say all corn production would halt in America? Only if expolating in extremes. In reality, that means some production best performed in Mexico moves to Mexico. Labor stays in Mexico to become business owners. More corn is consumed when the undernourished have jobs and can afford many foodstuffs (including crops best grown in the US). Everyone prospers.

Why are crops not being grown where they are needed most, where they are grown best, and where the labor is available? (In part) because American and France so massively subsidized agriculture. So massive is that corporate welfare that the entire world walked out of Cancun three days early. So entrenched is that anti-free market attitude in US and France that the Doha Round will be the first international trade conference to ever fail.

Again, this does not eliminate all 1.8 million illegals. But we are so in denial as to even believe agriculture needs corporate welfare AND that little enthusiasm exists for genetically-modified foods. Same myths that also foolishly claim foreigners stole the television industry. Erroneous beliefs claim innovation is not possible in agriculture and spin myths about illegal immigration; rather than grasp the realities.

Best thing we can do is eliminate agricultural corporate welfare; make possible for Mexicans to competitively grow crops best grown in Mexico instead of the US.

This is simply a repost of your last novel - nothing has changed. You keep regurgitating the same thing. You are the one who is not grasping the reality.
Much of the difficulty that America faced and faces in many industries are wage differentials. Simply put, our workers make much more than other countries workers - what is the average compensation of a union worker versus that of a worker in China or Japan, or any other significant country for that matter? Please include all benefits like health, dental, vision, disability and life insurance as well as investments & retirement plans. Most, if not all of the "competing nations offer this to their employees. Our labor costs per unit produced is significantly higher and this drives many of those industries overseas. These examples have nothing to do with farm labor.