Random8145
Registered User
I didn't say it was a good thing, I said it made meat cheaper from what I had read. How would it make corn itself more expensive?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
The SHOW: Airlines still a "good gig"??
- Thread starter A4sForever
- Start date
1. Through the taxes that subsidize the corn, so now people who aren't corn consumers are paying for corn they don't want.
2. By encouraging corn to be used in places it wouldn't without the subsidy (ethanol, feed as you're suggesting, etc.) when the would be a less expensive alternative.
The actual sticker price of the corn might be lower, but that's because the remainder of its true price has already been paid by the taxpayer.
Random8145
Registered User
Yes, the taxpayer always pays one way or the other, but smartly done, subsidies and/or government programs reduce the price of a particular good or service while spreading the tax burden out enough to be fairly minimal for people. If you have to tax people $2,000 a year to reduce their annual meat consumption bill by $2000 then the subsidy is pointless. Obviously there's a limit to all of this, and much of our government is already funded by debt. I've read that the corn subsidies also are part of why corn syrup is used in so much. Lots of people consume corn indirectly in this way.
Also through the tariffs on the import of corn substitutes. We put huge (I think it's >200%) tariffs on imported Brazilian and Dominican sugar cane in order to keep American sugar beet farmers happy. This drives up the cost of sugar (and sugar substitutes), which means that things that would otherwise not be competitive -- like corn -- can actually be turned into sugar products. And thus high fructose corn syrup was born...
I'm not sure I can name what the positive market outcomes are of our corn subsidies.
I'm not an agronomist, but: the positive outcomes of agricultural subsidies fall into two buckets. One is "legitimate programs designed to maintain food security in America", and "things we can do to make farmers vote for us". It's more bucket B than bucket A, sadly.
The federal government has paid farmers and farms almost half a trillion dollars in half a decade via subsidies, insurance, and other benefits: source.
I totally didn't mean to derail a discussion of airlines into one about...crop subsidies?
My only point is that government has a role in the market, despite what Ayn Rand fan-bois might fantasize about (quick tip--you can spot the asshole in any crowd by asking them what book most influenced them. If it's Atlas Shrugged, back away slowly and GTFO). In the real world, there is a role for minimum standards and national policy. Their type and scope can be debated, but they have to exist in some form. Sometimes it's negative and sometimes positive. Sometimes people are hard over on "government is always the problem." Sometimes it actually is the problem, but if you think it's always the problem, I'd rather have a little paperwork over Somalia, 1996.
I have no idea if the new airline rules are all good, but it's clear the travelling public is dissatisfied with the airlines, and the market isn't fixing it on its own accord, so politicians are going to respond to public opinion. Industry should take notes--sometimes if you don't fix yourself, someone else will try to fix it for you, and you won't like how they do it.
I was specifically referring to positive market outcomes.
Are there other desirable or undesirable outcomes from subsidies, price floors, price ceilings, tariffs, and other ways the government can and does interfere with the free market? Yes.
Ex: Many economists on principle oppose tariffs. In reality, many are also changing their mind on those imposed on China as there are positive social and strategic outcomes for the United States, despite the negative market outcomes for consumers.
That was my point - the positive one is food security. The rest are (negative to the taxpayer) giveaways to farms and farmers... just don't call it socialism or big government.
I was making a distinction between market outcomes and otherwise. In the end subsidies result in a net inefficient outcome.
I believe the Dukes of Hazard also dealt with corn products, although more indirectly.
Random8145
Registered User
Government has actually played a huge role in the development of our economy, as far back as the 19th century. In 1765, A French general demanded interchangeability in the production of muskets. The U.S. Army, heavily influenced by French military thinking, founded two armories to work on this, the Springfield Armory in 1794 in Springfield, Massachusetts, and the Harper's Ferry Armory in 1798 at Harper's Ferry, Virginia. Development of interchangeable parts required a lot of research and development and many years. The goal was to be able to take ten muskets, disassemble them, mix all the parts together, then reassemble them and have them all work. This required development of special purpose machines, tools, jigs, and fixtures. Many of the workers who came out of these armories then took the knowledge they had learned to other industries. And of course then everyone knows of the government's role in terms of R&D of many industries during the 20th century with WWII, the Cold War, and the Space Program.
Also the banking system. We tried a wholly free banking system back in the latter 1900s but the result was lots of insecurity, fraud, constant localized bubbles and busts, and then culminating with the system almost blowing up. So we have a quasi-socialist (?) banking system today which is much more secure. On the other hand, the Federal Reserve flubbed it in response to the 1929 crash and caused the Great Depression and there are lots of examples of bad or excessive government regulation.
There is a saying I've seen attributed often to George Washington, although from what I understand that might be fake, but it is a good quote nonetheless IMO: "Government is like fire---a dangerous servant and a fearsome master." Fire has tremendous uses, but the larger it gets, the more difficult it is to control and the more closely it must be watched. It has an insatiable appetite and will consume and destroy everything if allowed.
Indeed. The hiring environment right now is more due to Boeing’s current ineptitude and the industry steadily going back to “normal,” if there is such a thing.
2022 was insane, as was the ability for people with 1,500 hours to go straight from the military to the big 3 legacy airlines. It’s understandably frustrating if you’re like 2 of my former squadron-mates EASing in 2024 with 1,500 total time, 1 an NSI and 1 a WTI, both ASOs…and hearing CRICKETS from everyone except NetJets, Allegiant, and Envoy.
But let’s not forget it wasn’t that long ago you needed 3-4,000+ total time and 2,000 TPIC just for the desirable majors (big 3, Southwest, Alaska, Hawaiian) to even call, let alone hire.