Consumer Electronics Show 2021 - John Deere gets a couple of "Worst in Show" awards

[ovrszd]

And you’d whine even louder if those subsidies didn’t exist.
Your milk, food, gas and quite a few hundred other items you need in your gated community would cost more.

46 billion isn’t even a rounding error in the American fiscal budget

Agreed. Should have read down before I posted my reply.

 

[ovrszd]

The US government has had a cheap food policy in place for over 100 years. You're welcome.

Absolutely.

 

[California]

... We as a society wouldn't want to live in this Country without farm subsidies. Our individual food costs would quadruple. That cost increase would cost the individual taxpayer twice as much as it costs that taxpayer to subsidize.

Could we apply that model to health care too?

 

[PuffyC]

Could we apply that model to health care too?

That's crazy talk.

Current food prices + taxes to pay for subsidies is less than what we would pay in a free market.
Current health prices + taxes to pay for subsidies is more than we would pay in a free market.

See how that works?

 

[ovrszd]

That's crazy talk.

Current food prices + taxes to pay for subsidies is less than what we would pay in a free market.
Current health prices + taxes to pay for subsidies is more than we would pay in a free market.

See how that works?

Glad I looked down to this post before replying. You nailed it.

 

[Steppenwolfe]

If I did my math right, it's $135 per person in our population. So for you and your wife, farm subsidies cost you $270 last year. How much money did you spend on food last year? Now multiply that by, going low here intentionally, two. Should more likely be multiplied by four. But my point can be made using a smaller number.

It's still a 40% benefit to the farmers bottom line. I don't see the gubment supplementing my income at all...

 

[Steppenwolfe]

Could we apply that model to health care too?

Just got a rate increase today from BC / BS... for me and wifey, our health insurance is now a hefty $3,091.38 PER MONTH. I'd be thrilled if Uncle Sam would pay 40% of that.

 

[ovrszd]

It's still a 40% benefit to the farmers bottom line. I don't see the gubment supplementing my income at all...

Not sure what percentage, but a LOT of that money is for programs such as CRP. I have 70 acres in CRP. Doing that decreased my bottom line. But it removed potential grain from the market. Which increases demand and holds the grain price above the guarantied price so it isn't subsidized. So price is stabilized. This helps stabilize food prices. This supplements your income. And you didn't even know it. You're welcome.

 

[California]

That's crazy talk.

Current food prices + taxes to pay for subsidies is less than what we would pay in a free market.
Current health prices + taxes to pay for subsidies is more than we would pay in a free market.

See how that works?

Uh - think that one through.

You said Current food prices + taxes to pay for subsidies is less than what we would pay in a free market.

A better description would be:

Current food prices after 40% subsidy to the producers and the taxes to pay for this, are less cost to the customer than free market food prices. Let that sink in. After.

Then-current health cost to the individual after government paid some of the cost to the producer and after the individual pays increased taxes to cover this, similar to the extra taxes he now pays for the farm subsidy, might help get health care cost to the individual down closer to what the other developed nations' citizens pay for health care. We're down in what - 30th rank? in quality of care. And far above those comparable nations in cost.

It works for food and every American benefits. Farm subsidies and price supports have become the American way of life. Seems to me that examining if this model would work for health care, might be a net positive for all Americans. One thing it would help, is the issue of medical crises causing something like half of all personal bankruptcies. Lessening those would be an advantage to the merchants and lenders who get stiffed as well as the individual.

This is something to think about, not a prescription or 'should be'. Maybe there are better ways to bring the quality of health care up and the costs down, to at least the average of comparable nations. Any ideas?

 

[ovrszd]

Uh - think that one through.

You said Current food prices + taxes to pay for subsidies is less than what we would pay in a free market.

A better description would be:

Current food prices after 40% subsidy to the producers and the taxes to pay for this, are less cost to the customer than free market food prices. Let that sink in. After.

Then-current health cost to the individual after government paid some of the cost to the producer and after the individual pays increased taxes to cover this, similar to the extra taxes he now pays for the farm subsidy, might help get health care cost to the individual down closer to what the other developed nations' citizens pay for health care. We're down in what - 30th rank? in quality of care. And far above those comparable nations in cost.

It works for food and every American benefits. Farm subsidies and price supports have become the American way of life. Seems to me that examining if this model would work for health care, might be a net positive for all Americans. One thing it would help, is the issue of medical crises causing something like half of all personal bankruptcies. Lessening those would be an advantage to the merchants and lenders who get stiffed as well as the individual.

This is something to think about, not a prescription or 'should be'. Maybe there are better ways to bring the quality of health care up and the costs down, to at least the average of comparable nations. Any ideas?

You deployed a very common tactic in discussion today. Change the subject. Clever......

 

[PuffyC]

Uh - think that one through.

You said Current food prices + taxes to pay for subsidies is less than what we would pay in a free market.

A better description would be:

Current food prices after 40% subsidy to the producers and the taxes to pay for this, are less cost to the customer than free market food prices. Let that sink in. After.

Then-current health cost to the individual after government paid some of the cost to the producer and after the individual pays increased taxes to cover this, similar to the extra taxes he now pays for the farm subsidy, might help get health care cost to the individual down closer to what the other developed nations' citizens pay for health care. We're down in what - 30th rank? in quality of care. And far above those comparable nations in cost.

It works for food and every American benefits. Farm subsidies and price supports have become the American way of life. Seems to me that examining if this model would work for health care, might be a net positive for all Americans. One thing it would help, is the issue of medical crises causing something like half of all personal bankruptcies. Lessening those would be an advantage to the merchants and lenders who get stiffed as well as the individual.

This is something to think about, not a prescription or 'should be'. Maybe there are better ways to bring the quality of health care up and the costs down, to at least the average of comparable nations. Any ideas?

I was trying to make a joke and apparently failed. My bad. I was simply commenting on the faulty logic where someone was arguing that paying extra in taxes just so that the money could be spent on subsidies for food would somehow magically make that food cheaper for everyone. That's not really how economics works. All subsidies do is artificially shuffle around who pays and how much, but the net is the same because in the end there's no free lunch (pun intended) and the money has to come from somewhere. In this case, as with virtually all subsidies, it's simply a way to make something cheaper for the poor while making it more expensive for the wealthy, only because the poor don't pay federal income tax and the wealthy do. Subsidies aren't necessarily good or bad but with that in mind, I don't think subsidizing healthcare would fix why we pay so much more and get significantly worse healthcare compared to every other industrialized nation on Earth.

 

[ovrszd]

I was trying to make a joke and apparently failed. My bad. I was simply commenting on the faulty logic where someone was arguing that paying extra in taxes just so that the money could be spent on subsidies for food would somehow magically make that food cheaper for everyone. That's not really how economics works. All subsidies do is artificially shuffle around who pays and how much, but the net is the same because in the end there's no free lunch (pun intended) and the money has to come from somewhere. In this case, as with virtually all subsidies, it's simply a way to make something cheaper for the poor while making it more expensive for the wealthy, only because the poor don't pay federal income tax and the wealthy do. Subsidies aren't necessarily good or bad but with that in mind, I don't think subsidizing healthcare would fix why we pay so much more and get significantly worse healthcare compared to every other industrialized nation on Earth.

Great commentary.

 

[Steppenwolfe]

Not sure what percentage, but a LOT of that money is for programs such as CRP. I have 70 acres in CRP. Doing that decreased my bottom line. But it removed potential grain from the market. Which increases demand and holds the grain price above the guarantied price so it isn't subsidized. So price is stabilized. This helps stabilize food prices. This supplements your income. And you didn't even know it. You're welcome.

Show me the money... And quit trying to sweet talk a socialist program...

 

[California]

I was simply commenting on the faulty logic where someone was arguing that paying extra in taxes just so that the money could be spent on subsidies for food would somehow magically make that food cheaper for everyone. That's not really how economics works. All subsidies do is artificially shuffle around who pays and how much, but the net is the same ... it's simply a way to make something cheaper for the poor while making it more expensive for the wealthy, only because the poor don't pay federal income tax and the wealthy do. Subsidies aren't necessarily good or bad but with that in mind, I don't think subsidizing healthcare would fix why we pay so much more and get significantly worse healthcare compared to every other industrialized nation on Earth.

Ok, I was just thinking out loud and wondering if the present entitlement for 'free' (subsidized) Covid treatment might be studied as a basis for treating - or preventing - other health issues, more broadly. I thought the farm entitlements - that obviously work well - might be sort of a parallel model for subsidizing health producers, that we could learn from.

(I've read that hospitals can bill the government for Covid treatment, anybody know more about this?)

Overszd it wasn't my intention to employ a 'discussion tactic', rather, to apply what we already know (food) to a related subject (health). I don't think anything I said contradicts the food topic, it should go on also, in this thread titled Consumer Electronics Show that has drifted from the issue of dealer-only repairs.

​

 

[Hay Dude]

It's still a 40% benefit to the farmers bottom line. I don't see the gubment supplementing my income at all...

No stim checks for Steppy?

Farmers being subsidized lowers the cost of food and fuel. Therefore, you are receiving an indirect supplement to your income. You keep more of your money because you pay less for food and fuel. Don’t believe me? Remove it and see what you pay for food and gasoline.

 

[ovrszd]

Show me the money... And quit trying to sweet talk a socialist program...

Show you what money? Not sweet talking anything. Just sharing information.

Are you okay? You have seriously declined mentally over the past year. Hope all is well.7

 

[priberc]

And now the facts...

How much subsidy does the US give to farmers?


Direct government aid, accounting for 39% of net farm income, rose to a record $46.5 billion from $22.4 billion last year. … Yes, you read that right. This year, farmers (on net) will derive almost 40 percent of their income directly from the U.S. government. Forty percent.Dec 18, 2020

Surely you don't believe total farm receipts in the US for all crops [wheat corn soy cotton etc etc] all animals [beef dairy pork and poultry etc etc] only add up to one hundred billion dollars do you. Don't you need to at least add the annual farm bill [another 42 billion annually] to that 40 billon?

 

[BubbaSam]

What I really want to know is do the larger family farms operate debt free at all? I mean $800k for a tractor here, $200k for an implement there….do they actually make that much farming to offset these super high costs for equipment?

Amen Brother... AMEN!

 

[RickB]

Surely you don't believe total farm receipts in the US for all crops [wheat corn soy cotton etc etc] all animals [beef dairy pork and poultry etc etc] only add up to one hundred billion dollars do you. Don't you need to at least add the annual farm bill [another 42 billion annually] to that 40 billon?

The vast majority of the US Farm Bill appropriation goes directly to the non-farm public in the form of EBT, SNAP and other nutritional assistance. Surely you don't believe the value of the entire bill is $42 Billion?

 

[Torvy]

Ok, I was just thinking out loud and wondering if the present entitlement for 'free' (subsidized) Covid treatment might be studied as a basis for treating - or preventing - other health issues, more broadly. I thought the farm entitlements - that obviously work well - might be sort of a parallel model for subsidizing health producers, that we could learn from.

(I've read that hospitals can bill the government for Covid treatment, anybody know more about this?)

Overszd it wasn't my intention to employ a 'discussion tactic', rather, to apply what we already know (food) to a related subject (health). I don't think anything I said contradicts the food topic, it should go on also, in this thread titled Consumer Electronics Show that has drifted from the issue of dealer-only repairs.

​

Let me help you finish that thought. By providing "free" testing and shots, they have run out more than once. People who don't have a cost to something will use considerably more of it. Think about an all you can eat buffet. Most people eat way more food than they would in a typical restaurant.

If anything, this little experiment only shows how badly the public sector provides services, especially at the national level.

Back to the CES show...in one of my previous roles, I worked bon the floor of CES as a vendor/presenter (90s). Hard to imagine how that show now has tractor companies presenting.

Also amazing to hear how JD spins their fully autonomous tractor as some cutting edge concept when self-driving has been out for years and has been used in agriculture before. This is really a tiny and unnecessary 'improvement' where JD once again proves, that it is really a marketing company.