![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Agricultural subsidy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pcrm.org/search/?cid=2586When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Agricultural subsidy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Agricultural subsidy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
This needs help. It's a very controversial area where NPOV is going to be difficult. Bharshaw 19:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)newbie
I notice that there is next to nothing on the arguments in favor of ag subsidies. JLW777 01:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyone expanding or revising this page should consider improving the history of farm subsidies. It is a complex and long history.
I've noticed that there's a stub at
subsidy farming, as well. Should we just redirect that to this page? If nobody objects I'm going to go ahead and do so tomorrow.
Resonanteye 05:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of adding to the percieved negative tone of this article, I think it is important to discuss the political forces at work that encourage agrecultural subsidies. The dwindling number of people living on farms is noted, but not the effect that comes of it as a large block of rural ridings are controlled by a disproportunately small number of voters who are closely tied to farming industries and therefore biased toward subsidization. Increesing agrecultural subsidies buys votes. Phillip Beynon
I added an NPOV tag so that hopefully, we can get this article to be more neutral. There are several benefits to ag subsidies that aren't even discussed. It's heavily biased against them. -- buckeyes1186 05:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Added a benfits section, hopefully that helps. I don't know how you all feel about removing the NPOV tag. Warhol13 20:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I added three benefits and I think the article as it is now does a good job o explaining the two sides. I'm going to remove the NPOV tag in a few days if there are no objections. Warhol13 04:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone put "Farm subsidies have the effect increasing production and therefore lowering the price of food" probably in response to "Someone with some background in economics really needs to expand on the benefits of subsidizing agriculture". This really is desperately clutching at straws! The price of food PER UNIT BOUGHT likely does, but to deduce further (i.e. state that the savings per unit are greater than the cost of extra needless produce) is, at the very least, not encyclopedic! This then makes the rest of paragraph (though factual and interesting) redundant in this section. Therefore, I propose removing it all. 09:55 GMT - Chris 31 January 2007
Economists strongly rebute the benefits of reduced retail prices derived from subsidising over-production. If the government were to subsidise car manufacturers to produce more cars then this would indeed lower the showroom price but it would be the consumer's own money collected through tax that would be used to fund the over-production. It would be impossible for the lower retail costs to outweigh the addition production costs otherwise the manufacturers could simply implement this technique themselves.
This article is VERY non-neutral. Someone with some background in economics really needs to expand on the benefits of subsidizing agriculture. Currently there is just a basic amount of statistics on it followed by a large block of criticisms. (Unsigned - November 15, 2006)
The reason there is so little mention of benefits is that they are few and far between. Farm subsidies are good for farmers and bad for everyone else, and economic theory shows that the bad should greatly outweigh the good.
The whole page is riddled with errors and inconsistencies starting from the first phrase and continuing to the para immediately above. Subsidies can be from other sources than just government spending. Farm subsidies are not necessarily good for farmers nor bad for everyone else. Farmers may not even benefit from some subsidies (for example where subsidy is capitalised into land values, benefiting land owners (as opposed to farmers - roughly half of farmers own the land they farm in both the U.S. and the EU).
I edited the chart to put all the rows in order from most subsidized crop to the least subsidized crop. I think this makes more sense, because before there was no order to the rows at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.236.144.4 ( talk) 16:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The price has fallen for the product, but taxes would have risen to subsidise the producers. So, it would be the same as paying the higher price for the product… if not more considering its incredibly inefficient.
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 ( talk) 01:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
On a semi-related side note, why is it that prices decrease, if that is in fact what happens? The very definition of Price Support is keeping prices artificially high. 68.181.240.185 ( talk) 07:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This entire article needs to be re-written. There is little neutral point of view. Under benefits, it states that subsidies are unnecessary because they ensure a livable wage for farmers. This is obviously not neutral and "livable wage" is an ambiguous phrase. It also states that demand for food is inelastic which is ambiguous, as elasticity changes depending on short and long run. There is a solid argument that the obesity problem is the result of much cheaper food (i.e. people are eating more because food is cheaper). The article also states that farms are "too" efficient and produce more food than can be eaten. However, the main for of agricultural subsidy (and the most damaging) are price supports. The whole point of a price support is that it encourages production by guaranteeing an artificially high price. If the price were allowed to fall to its market equilibrium, less farmers would find it profitable enough to farm and so production would likely fall. The article states simultaneously that there is over-production and that production needs to be encouraged. Please see the article on price support for a better idea on the effects of these subsidies. Edwardmking 20:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking it might be more informative if there were a column for $/acre added. Just a thought. Brian Pearson ( talk) 16:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I heard from a friend of mine that an unfair practice against farmers is taking place where privately-owned food delivery companies, who deliver farm-produced food to stores, charge farmers very high prices to deliver the food to stores, where the farmer has very little in pay to go on and therefore since the farmer has to pay the delivery companies high prices to deliver the food, this leaves the farmer with little to nothing in payment, and therefore it would be very tough for farmers to purchase products to help crop production, such as natural gas for tractors, etc.
Can anybody let me know if this is true, and does anybody know where i can find a source where i may find this out?
Ожиданиесчастья ( talk) 05:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
"Comparing this number to the revenue obtained from farming (2,1% of 14,91 trillion or 313110000000$), we see that by a small monetary injection from the state, we can attain a export of a value that is 209,7% larger. However, the profits obtained from farming includes everything, thus not solely the value we receive when we would not have given the subsidy. Numbers of this added value alone are not available, as none such research has been conducted."
The EU section is really weird. The first paragraph makes sense, and then it diverts into a dense lecturing monologue, like a copy paste from the middle of a textbook or paper. Can someone fix this? I have the sense that something got accidentally cut or added, and this section needs to be reverted, but I'm not familiar with this page's history.
ManicParroT ( talk) 15:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Similarly, I followed the listed reference for "Agricultural subsidies to European farmers and fisheries make up more than 40 percent of the EU budget" and did not find anything to support that claim. Am I missing something?
(
Ilya12345 (
talk) 18:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC))
I'm going to go and delete the quoted chunk of EU info. It simply doesn't improve the article, because it's totally out of context. The reference on EU subsidies is iffy - it's a pie chart, with vague talk about money going to "our natural resources". I suspect that a large chunk of that actually is subsidies, but it isn't very plain.
ManicParroT ( talk) 08:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
On second thoughts, reading it carefully, I see what they're saying, it's just badly written. I'll edit it for clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManicParroT ( talk • contribs) 08:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I dunno, maybe I'm just stupid. I cut the whole section. If anyone wants to make it legible and put it back in, they're welcome.
ManicParroT ( talk) 08:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is this so hard to make NPOV. Leave the politics, benefits and criticisms out and just say what agricultural subsidies are.
Subsidies and Price Floors are two different phenomena. Under the United States section, it is stated, "The subsidy programs give farmers extra money for their crops and guarantee a price floor." This is not true, as a binding price floor artificially changes the quantity supplied/demanded all the while keeping the price supplied/demanded equal, although higher. A subsidy increases the quantity suppled above equilibrium. This changes the price received by producers and the price paid by consumers with the difference being tax dollars from the government. A price floor benefits the producer at the expense of the consumer. A subsidy benefits both consumers and producers at the expense of tax payers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.146.217.50 ( talk) 21:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)