General Texas Governor Greg Abbott makes Declaration of Invasion at southern border
- Thread starter Wild
- Start date
An unrelenting influx of border crossings with zero assistance at the federal level is a social problem?
if people are starving on the other side of the river, and our solution is "Fuck You, starve"...the result is less an immigration problem and more a social problem (IMAO)
That would be more of a humanitarian problem imo.
Maybe we're just arguing semantics.
But back to 'Zona - I don't blame him for trying to do what he can to get some sort of control over the situation. Lord knows the Feds don't give 2 fucks about it.
Prolly should have made that move prior to the midterms
They need to bring in thousands of SLAP CHOPS.
but we subsidize the creation of poverty in Mexico/Central America with agricultural subsidies and The Drug War.
if it's a humanitarian problem, it's one that we are directly responsible for creating.
How do agricultural subsidies in America create poverty in Mexico?
The drug war is stupid. They should all be legal.
We use tax dollars to pay $7/bushel to mega farms, then sell that grain on the international market at $3/bushel. Mexican family farms can't compete, so they grow meth instead.
Subsidies are to keep supply low.
If they didn't exist, grain would be even cheaper than it is.
If Mexico needs to keep their prices in line with what their technology and farmers can produce, they need to do so with a tariff.
Grain is going to cost more at the grocery for the Mexican people though.
Both of those wars are wildly successful. That's why there no more drug use or homelessness in America. Ditto for the war on terrorism.
Last edited:
subsidies to keep supply low in the US, not in the world. US grain without subsidies would have to compete with labor and climate in Mexico on the international market. If we sold our grain on the international market at the price we pay domestically, no one would buy it.
@Hauler "Economists have criticized farm subsidies on several counts. First, farm subsidies typically transfer income from consumers and taxpayers to relatively wealthy farmland owners and farm operators. Second, they impose net losses on society, often called deadweight losses, and have no clear broad social benefit (Alston and James 2002). Third, they impede movements toward more open international trade in commodities and thus impose net costs on the global economy (Johnson 1991; Sumner 2003).
Supporters of farm subsidies have argued that such programs stabilize agricultural commodity markets, aid low-income farmers, raise unduly low returns to farm investments, aid rural development, compensate for monopoly in farm input supply and farm marketing industries, help ensure national food security, offset farm subsidies provided by other countries, and provide various other services. However, economists who have tried to substantiate any of these benefits have been unable to do so (Gardner 1992; Johnson 1991; Wright 1995).
...
Among the most controversial aspects of farm subsidy programs in recent decades have been their impacts on international trade. D. Gale Johnson (1950) raised the issue more than fifty years ago. As globalization has increased, farm trade barriers and subsidies that block pursuit of agricultural comparative advantage have become more disruptive to normal trade relations and trade negotiations.
Farm subsidy programs, which are used by most wealthy countries, have made multilateral trade negotiations more complex and have threatened broad-based market opening. In the early years of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (the 1940s and early 1950s), the U.S. government placed its farm subsidy programs out of reach of trade negotiations and thereby thwarted liberalization in agriculture for three decades."
Agricultural Subsidy Programs - Econlib
Government intervention in food and fiber commodity markets began long ago. The classic case of farm subsidy through trade barriers is the English Corn Laws, which for centuries regulated the import and export of grain in Great Britain and Ireland. They were repealed in 1846. Modern agricultural...
www.econlib.org
So...eliminate the subsidies and Big Ag ups production and makes up for financial shortcomings with volume? That pinches out the small farmers because they can't survive on the commodity pricing that's been submarined due to Big Ag's production.
"Economists have criticized farm subsidies on several counts. First, farm subsidies typically transfer income from consumers and taxpayers to relatively wealthy farmland owners and farm operators. Second, they impose net losses on society, often called deadweight losses, and have no clear broad social benefit (Alston and James 2002). Third, they impede movements toward more open international trade in commodities and thus impose net costs on the global economy (Johnson 1991; Sumner 2003).
Supporters of farm subsidies have argued that such programs stabilize agricultural commodity markets, aid low-income farmers, raise unduly low returns to farm investments, aid rural development, compensate for monopoly in farm input supply and farm marketing industries, help ensure national food security, offset farm subsidies provided by other countries, and provide various other services. However, economists who have tried to substantiate any of these benefits have been unable to do so (Gardner 1992; Johnson 1991; Wright 1995).
...
Among the most controversial aspects of farm subsidy programs in recent decades have been their impacts on international trade. D. Gale Johnson (1950) raised the issue more than fifty years ago. As globalization has increased, farm trade barriers and subsidies that block pursuit of agricultural comparative advantage have become more disruptive to normal trade relations and trade negotiations.
Farm subsidy programs, which are used by most wealthy countries, have made multilateral trade negotiations more complex and have threatened broad-based market opening. In the early years of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (the 1940s and early 1950s), the U.S. government placed its farm subsidy programs out of reach of trade negotiations and thereby thwarted liberalization in agriculture for three decades."
Agricultural Subsidy Programs - Econlib
Government intervention in food and fiber commodity markets began long ago. The classic case of farm subsidy through trade barriers is the English Corn Laws, which for centuries regulated the import and export of grain in Great Britain and Ireland. They were repealed in 1846. Modern agricultural...www.econlib.org
Or maybe you only subsidize the small farmers? Not to idle their lands, but maybe to get them to a livable wage. I don't know the answer. It's tricky. Big Ag isn't great for the land or the animals, but I don't know that smaller farmers can feed the nation on their own.
Mexico can control their own agricultural economy with domestic production and /or import tarrifs.
Denver receiving new residents by the bus loads...
www.wsj.com
Far From the U.S.-Mexico Border, a Migrant Surge Strains Denver
Amid a recent wave of asylum seekers, some cities aren’t prepared to receive a large number of new arrivals at once.
www.wsj.com
If 2 world wars has taught us anything there are a few things we should be completely independent on. Food and energy being the at the very top of that list.
Shit the supply chain issues we are still suffering right now should make us weary of being completely dependable on any unreliable country for our essentials. No matter how cheap it is in the short term.
just legalize hunting illegal aliens, the rednecks will keep em out for free
*Laughs in American Indian*