''''
Again, I agree completely. I was not trying to make a case for the less efficient unit. But what does the bankrupt small farmer do? He may not have the opportunity to stay in the more efficient farming situation---for example, be hired by an agribusiness. Do we treat him as a lazy dolt because he now can't earn a living or does he deserve an honorable way to get back into production of some sort?

Rice: I had not heard that China was going to buy more rice--really good news. But here again, we have a human problem. Most dry land soybean farmers in the US cannot change their next crop to rice because of geography, temperature, equipment, water kinds of issues. I'm not sure the issue here is the same as the factory worker and the bankrupt farmer above, but a real problem exists.

Thank you, but not trying to accumulate points. It bothers me that folks can't seem to come to a firm or at least workable definition of socialism because it will be on all our minds in the coming year. My standard definition is that socialism is a form of government that is based on the principle of 'Production according to ability; consumption according to need.'

This definition is quite general and allows one to easily skim by the situation that some farmers are in where they do produce something, but they cannot sell at a market value that supports their farming. (As exemplified by a previous responder above who said 'At least they (farmers who receive subsidies) produce something'). In my mind making up the difference between selling price and 'stay in business' price economically supports a business that the free market says is not efficient enough and should be removed from the market place. So receiving that kind of subsidy support payment is just as socialistic as being paid to not produce anything.

One historical answer to this is that we (the country) need the small farmer. But pure free market economics does not allow choice of certain exceptions to the efficiency rule: compete or leave. When small farmers don't compete, but government supports them with subsidies to increase their income, I do not see how that is anything but socialism. So let's call it what it is. If there is a reason to support inefficient small farms, OK; just be honest and call that support what it is--socialism.

The problem then becomes what special socialistic exemptions will be made and which ones should be rejected. And that is a political decision that is out of the realm of free markets. At that point the tax payer pays for the socialism and competing receivers like farmers, food stamps, auto companies, insurance companies, housing, etc. all vie for the socialistic largess for a variety of rationals.

While I am no fan of Bernie and his socialistic philosophy, I find it hypocritical to set the problem up in a way that implies that we are a free market society when in fact there is a lot of socialism in our political culture.

...
I heartily agree that trump needs the rural vote. So if he uses the socialistic tactic to keep them in his tent, I would suggest that its use is not an economic argument but a political one. My only objection in this thread is that trump's people will not admit that his gift to the farm community is a form of socialism. I appreciate your agreeing to it; most will not.
He is not the first leader to use farm subsidies as a political tool. You and I both hope that
'the freebies are not permanent.'
In fact, maybe we both can agree to hope that all farm subsidies are on the decline no matter who is in charge?

...
I heartily agree that trump needs the rural vote. So if he uses the socialistic tactic to keep them in his tent, I would suggest that its use is not an economic argument but a political one. My only objection in this thread is that trump's people will not admit that his gift to the farm community is a form of socialism. I appreciate your agreeing to it; most will not.
He is not the first leader to use farm subsidies as a political tool. You and I both hope that
'the freebies are not permanent.'
In fact, maybe we both can agree to hope that all farm subsidies are on the decline no matter who is in charge?