I want everyone to notice how hard it is for Lucky to admit even a basic truth if in anyway he thinks it points to an institutional advantage that benefits via prior race based rules.

Look at his reply above to this question by me

"...and make it almost impossible for any competitors to break that in the way any normal business competitors would where subsidies are not being poured in?..."

Imagine you or Lucky are trying to break in to farming. You just want a level playing field to compete. Instead you get into one where your tax dollars and the dollars of others are taken and given almost exclusively to your competitors to be used to compete against you. Your own dollars being used against you.

Even in that instance he cannot even acknowledge "...and make it almost impossible for any competitors to break that in the way any normal business competitors would where subsidies are not being poured in?..." and so he has to stretch to find away to not confirm that.

Small independent farms have been gobbled up for decades now by the bigger farmers in large part due to this 'reward system' flaws. This is fact.

Imagine this same subsidy system was set up in restaurants. Tax payer money taken and dolled out to the top % of largest restaurant chains only.

Not only do they have the cost advantages of scale to begin with, but they now get tax dollars which go straight to the bottom line, allow them to improve their scale and efficiency and thus get EVEN more tax dollars the next round.

Cut, paste, repeat until independent smaller restaurants are devastated and then say 'it was fair because it was provided by 'production'. Who 'sells the most'.


Imagine being Lucky or IHIV that you contort your self to argue that would be fair (in Farming or restaurant or any industry) since they use 'SIZE' because you are committed to never admitting the underlying problem.

At first it seemed like you didn't think systemic racism was a thing, then it seemed like you didn't think was an instance systemic racism, then it seemed like you were saying it wasn't really an "issue", now you're saying the problem is no one's offered a solution? I know this is a big thread and you're having a back-and-forth with others at the same time, but all I've been doing is getting those first bits out of the way, that's why I haven't proposed a solution yet.

My answer might seem a bit weaselly here, but I don't really have a specific policy for US agricultural subsidies. It'll be complicated, but also there's a lot of ways to potentially redistribute subsidies. You could for instance look for areas that historically haven't had much investment and see what could be targeted for expansion, then you'd have a policy that wasn't based on race at all but would seek to redress the balance. Anything like that.

Lol cuepee. There are 2.2 million farms in the US.
And your dumbass wants me to agree that having 2.2 million + 1 is "almost impossible". Then when I don't agree you make posts like this.
Like I've already said I don't know much about the industry or about how subsidies work-- but why on earth should I ever agree with something you say?

"Look at Luckbox trying so hard to deny racism"

This thinking kinda assumes things couldn't be worse off--but they very much can be. Just because you're not rich doesn't mean you haven't been getting an advantage and are still in a better position than you would likely be w/o it.

To be sure I don't think anyone here knows anything about farming, but the idea that the piles of money that the government throws at rich farmers makes it hard for competition is something that we would need to research and try to look at empirically.

Lucky here is the point of my post which you ignore. Look very close at the bolded...


"...and make it almost impossible for any competitors to break that in the way any normal business competitors would where subsidies are not being poured in?..."


That you can look at a certain subset (the White Farmers) getting 97% of the subsidies and not even admit that is not a normal competition field, demonstrates exactly who you are.


This is not just about historical wrongs. This is about a CURRENT wrong that institutionalizes and protects that prior advantage given.

You do not need to know this industry to see that.

Can you not see how the same type of subsidy would impact the restaurant industry (or any industry) as per my example above?


You do back flips to avoid admitting an obvious fact and truth when you do not like what you would have to admit.

What you say here is only true if you are complete idiot with regards to how business works.

Honestly Lucky, don't assume everyone is as naive and ignorant of business as you are.


It is standard economic theory that if you take two groups within the same category of business and give one group subsidies, paid for in part by the other group, that the group receiving the subsidies is advantaged.

That you think that needs more study or more specific knowledge is just dumb.

That subsidy money goes right to the bottom line in an industry where putting any money on the bottom line, especially for smaller farms is not a given.

When you ADVANTAGE one group at the expense of others you absolutely do make it harder to compete. That is simple economic fact even if you have a grade 2 understanding of economics and are incapable of understanding that.

Cupee, no one denies the largest farmers get the most cash. The reason they get most of the cash has nothing to do with race.

Except for it having determined what type of people own the largest farms.

That has nothing to do with the money being spent today. The goal of farming subsidies/stimulus really has nothing to do with helping farmers, but rather securing the nations food supply. That the biggest farms benefit is merely a byproduct of the goal.


I get it, you all want racial equity in farming. If you buy into the farming subsides rationale and efficacy, you are going to hurt way more black families by changing the focus of subsidies, as it would mean higher and more volatile food prices. By all means, sell those black families out for the black farmer who owns, on average, 132 acres of land.

Who benefits the most from cheap food prices? Poor people. It also makes food stamps cash stretch further.

With that said, get rid of farm subsidies all together.

Except it clearly has to deal with race as I have shown.

You cannot just white wash away what happened.

Just as the GOP voting restriction measures deal with race but some, like you pretend they don't because they don't specifically identify the measures by race.

Purposeful preservation of a system that was 100% set up to escalate a certain group (white men) into the sole power positions and then finding a way to ensure that there is no normal level playing field after for others to ever compete (rewarding those who are biggest when they are only biggest due to prior gov't advantage) IS CERTAINLY a continuation and institutionalization of that racism.

There is no denying that truth.

Tomorrow the gov't decrees:

- For the next 100 years only White Males will be allowed to own restaurants and they will get tax subsidies to do so
- 100 years from now that practice is seen as wrong by the citizens and dropped
- Instead the gov't pivots to saying 'OK we will still provide subsidies but only do so by which restaurants drive the most sales'


IHIV immediately says that since that is being driven by 'Sales' it is fair and not another way to Institutionalize and protect the PRIOR race gained position.


IHIV ignores that todays Institutionalized Racism is often not overt but is designed to protect those legacy gained advantages in more benign and indirect ways.

You are just repeating yourself. It's not currently designed to protect white people. This is proven by 80% of white farmers get little to no subsidies, just like the majority of the black farmers. When you say white people, not all white people are benefiting, in fact, an overwhelming majority haven't benefited. It's designed to to facilitate well-off farmers. Just like the NBA is set up to pay the highest money to the best performing players with the idea those players contribute disproporatatly to the efficacy of winning games, and consequently drawing crowds, where as subsidies end goal is to reduce the cost of food. It's entirely irrelevant that 90% of the top basketball players are black.

You consistently ignore this, and just repeat yourself. When 80% of the group you say are supposed to be propped up by racism don't actually get the benefit of this so called racism, you have a serious issue with your narrative.

What don't you understand about that? I don't need a long winded regurgitation.

Given my restaurant industry example above nothing changes if you assume both new POC and white owned restaurants enter the market.

That it is not an exclusive problem does not deny the origination and intent and reasons for it being maintained.

You CANNOT give 'white owners only' a hundred year advantage, destroy all POC competition, and then put in a FIX that then continues to reward that sole ARTIFICIALLY created white group by rewarding sales only.

Simply trying to white wash that away with 'well now others are caught up so it is not an issue' does not work.


Imagine POC start making a gain and the gov't reinstitutes the ban again. Then they open it up again with the same subsidy. Cut, paste repeat, every time POC make any gains.

IHIV would still argue there is nothing racist as his view is you can only consider the point in time and if they are THEN at that specific point in time only regarding 'Sales' then MAGIC it cannot be racist.

To him it is irrelevant that they keep wiping out the playing field and keep it tilted to advantage the white owners.

The overwhelming majority of your reastruatant owners will not get a subsidy, as in they get no "systematic advantage".

When you say white males are getting the subsidy, you are not being honest, becasue most of the white males don't get it.

Now you are just lying, as you always resort to.

In my restaurant hypothetical the gov't stepped in and made sure only White men could own and operate restaurants for 100 years.

Then then opened the market to POC but switched the subsidy to the 'Biggest restaurants' tying it to Sales.

That when they remove the restriction, a few new white owned restaurants enter and are also trapped by this does not undue the racist BEGINNINGS and the implementation now of a subsidy meant to protect that now created White male top Sales cohort.

Except that the money spent today is due to who has the biggest farms.

So to recap, race determined who got which areas to farm and the capital to grow, which determined who got the most productive farms, which determines who gets the most of the subsidies.

But other than that, it has nothing to do with race.

Edit: Oh, and also we should scrap subsidies just cause but aiming for a fairer redistribution would be catastrophic

You are doing what Cupee is doing, just repeating yourself. 80% of the folks you think benefit from this, never benefited. It was only a select few. Also, nothing about the current subsidy model is racist, systemically racist, or racial discriminatory.


Hahaha. This is dishonest. Subsidies only benefit the rich folks, and do not do much for food prices, or anyone else, including these white folks you all think got this huge advantage. Now, I'm not opposed to helping the big farms out if they face collapse during and economic crisis, but we should stop the annual subsidies. No one denies that a few white folks got the benefit of this stuff.

As far as fair...I don't see an issue with racial disparities in the NBA, and I don't have an issue with racial disparities in regards to farming, just as I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with most of crack users being black, and most meth users being white. I don't have an issue with blacks getting disparate amount of treatment for drug addiction.

How many reastruatant are generationally owned in your little analogy? You are doing this mythical and undying monolithic entity thing again. One thing you should be aware of, a significant percentage of farm owners are non-operators, and foreigners.


Also....

Of course I'm repeating it. I'm trying to make it as simple as possible for you. I listed the steps for you. This is like our previous problem of you not being able to pick A or B (even after saying "there is no third option"). You get laid out two steps and rather than disputing either of them you just reject the conclusion anyhow.

My other confusion is you saying that subsidies do nothing but also if we tweak them a bit then all hell will break loose but also we should scrap them altogether. I don't see how any of those can be simultaneously held.

Right, I understand your conclusion and I reject it. The issue is, you're not engaging with the reasons I'm rejecting it, but rather you just repeat and explain the conclusion again. I'm glad we at least agree on what is actually occurring.


The purpose of subsidies are to benefit consumers, i.e. cheap food prices. It doesn't accomplish that, so we should scrap them. If you do believe it lowers food prices, then that's going to disproportionately affect poor consumers when you take those subsidies away from those big farms. Now, if you want to change the scope of the subsidies to bring about racial equity due to historic discrimination, I reject that plan too, as Biden is doing.

First, an overwhelming majority of farmers haven't benefited from the systemic issues youve asserted, but you are now going to give a leg up to a certain demographic of farmers, and it appears the sole deciding factor is the skin color of the person. That would be systemically racist.

Second, black farmers settled a lawsuit, twice, with the USDA/DOJ. We as taxpayers have already paid out for these historic issues related to farming that you speak about.

Typically when someone rejects a conclusion they have a problem with either a premise or the structure o the argument. When someone rejects the conclusion just 'cos then trying to explain the argument again is the only option available.

Wow. Reread my last post. If you call that "just 'cause", I really wasted my time trying to reason with you.