Comments on: “Agflation”, conservation, and the loss of wildlands in America http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2008/04/11/agflation-conservation-and-the-loss-of-wildlands-in-america/ for students and teachers of Economics Wed, 23 May 2012 04:39:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Emma & Philip http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2008/04/11/agflation-conservation-and-the-loss-of-wildlands-in-america/comment-page-1/#comment-13609 Emma & Philip Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:24:32 +0000 http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2008/04/11/agflation-conservation-and-the-loss-of-wildlands-in-america/#comment-13609 The government is at a dilemma as to where to put their money: either subsidizing farmers for fallow land and thusly saving enviroment, or to stop subsidizing farmers and allow them to produce more goods in response to global food prices increasing at the cost of the enviroment. This is especially difficult, as the enviroment is the ultimate public good: the free market would not be able to charge you for breathing air, walking through forests and enjoying other perks to the enviroment, and hence would not take the initiate of planting forests, let alone conserving resources such as land and raw materials. Therefore, it is impossible to place a price on the enviroment, and hence means that it is the government's responsibility to provide. Farmer's goods, however, are highly competitive goods, with a clear price of which the rising of has caused farmers to want to farm more. So while the benefit to farmers is more than obvious, the harm to the environment is immeasurable. The only solution seems to be to increase subsidides on fallow land, which would increase the benefit to farmers without them harming the enviroment, and thusly preserving the positive externalities of production, in which an underpoduction of farmland causes the environment, and those associated with it, to thrive. The government is at a dilemma as to where to put their money: either subsidizing farmers for fallow land and thusly saving enviroment, or to stop subsidizing farmers and allow them to produce more goods in response to global food prices increasing at the cost of the enviroment. This is especially difficult, as the enviroment is the ultimate public good: the free market would not be able to charge you for breathing air, walking through forests and enjoying other perks to the enviroment, and hence would not take the initiate of planting forests, let alone conserving resources such as land and raw materials. Therefore, it is impossible to place a price on the enviroment, and hence means that it is the government's responsibility to provide. Farmer's goods, however, are highly competitive goods, with a clear price of which the rising of has caused farmers to want to farm more. So while the benefit to farmers is more than obvious, the harm to the environment is immeasurable.

The only solution seems to be to increase subsidides on fallow land, which would increase the benefit to farmers without them harming the enviroment, and thusly preserving the positive externalities of production, in which an underpoduction of farmland causes the environment, and those associated with it, to thrive.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Phil Waste http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2008/04/11/agflation-conservation-and-the-loss-of-wildlands-in-america/comment-page-1/#comment-5180 Phil Waste Mon, 23 Jun 2008 01:23:56 +0000 http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2008/04/11/agflation-conservation-and-the-loss-of-wildlands-in-america/#comment-5180 Southern Resurgence Here is an idea that the Republicans, oil, tobacco companies will hate. How about we plant sugar cane or sugar beets in the states of Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana. We encourage them to stop planting tobacco which is killing millions. Sugar cane or sugar beets are 7 times more efficient than corn in making ethanol. You want proof that it works? Just google Brazil and find out for yourself. Now, you won’t be using a food product or even displacing a food product…… In 1798, Thomas Malthus predicted that population growth would be perennially held in “check” by inherent limits to food production. ... Energy can substitute for food in his theory but when the energy is the food……catastrophe will result. Completely renewable and no one is hurt except for those purveyors of death the tobacco companies. I would sure like to know the idiot who decided to use corn (a food product) and doomed ethanol to failure. Had to be an oilman! Stop the tax subsidies to corn farmers and give them to sugar cane and sugar beet farmers, in the mean time eliminate import tariffs for ethanol. Allow the import of flex-cars made by our very own car company Chevy…. Come on all you Democrats in Congress are you going to give us more of the same or are you going to make a difference? Do something now to prove you are not just more of the same…… and I mean minions of the oil companies…. OH! This could all be done in one year……….No more dependence on foreign oil. What ever happened to common sense in America? You know, if we can’t straighten out a simple mess like this we deserve to fade away as a has been leading nation…… It is real simple folks; America has been sabotaged by special interests namely the oil companies including those from the Middle East who want to sell oil, oil, oil. Cars are already to go, made by Chevy! They are called flex-cars and burn any combination of oil and ethanol. Southern Resurgence

Here is an idea that the Republicans, oil, tobacco companies will hate.

How about we plant sugar cane or sugar beets in the states of Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana. We encourage them to stop planting tobacco which is killing millions. Sugar cane or sugar beets are 7 times more efficient than corn in making ethanol.

You want proof that it works? Just google Brazil and find out for yourself. Now, you won’t be using a food product or even displacing a food product……

In 1798, Thomas Malthus predicted that population growth would be perennially held in “check” by inherent limits to food production. … Energy can substitute for food in his theory but when the energy is the food……catastrophe will result.

Completely renewable and no one is hurt except for those purveyors of death the tobacco companies.

I would sure like to know the idiot who decided to use corn (a food product) and doomed ethanol to failure. Had to be an oilman!

Stop the tax subsidies to corn farmers and give them to sugar cane and sugar beet farmers, in the mean time eliminate import tariffs for ethanol. Allow the import of flex-cars made by our very own car company Chevy….

Come on all you Democrats in Congress are you going to give us more of the same or are you going to make a difference? Do something now to prove you are not just more of the same…… and I mean minions of the oil companies….

OH! This could all be done in one year……….No more dependence on foreign oil. What ever happened to common sense in America? You know, if we can’t straighten out a simple mess like this we deserve to fade away as a has been leading nation……

It is real simple folks; America has been sabotaged by special interests namely the oil companies including those from the Middle East who want to sell oil, oil, oil.

Cars are already to go, made by Chevy! They are called flex-cars and burn any combination of oil and ethanol.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Howard Jing http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2008/04/11/agflation-conservation-and-the-loss-of-wildlands-in-america/comment-page-1/#comment-4829 Howard Jing Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:02:12 +0000 http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2008/04/11/agflation-conservation-and-the-loss-of-wildlands-in-america/#comment-4829 There are many things that the government can do to get more farmers to stop using their land. As Mr. Welker said, the gov't can always increase the payout of having a farmer agree to not farm certain parts of their land. As the benefits of farming continues to rise, it only makes sense to increase the benefits of not farming. Another method might be to guilt farmers into stop farming certain areas of land. This can be achieved through public service announcements on television and other commercial campaigns. The government can raise awareness of what exactly a farmer is doing by allowing wildlife to grow on their land. Once a farmer knows that by refraining from plowing parts of their field, they would not only be getting money for no work, but also saving the lives of endangered animals, I would expect them to be more receptive to the idea of not having to work as hard. There are many things that the government can do to get more farmers to stop using their land. As Mr. Welker said, the gov't can always increase the payout of having a farmer agree to not farm certain parts of their land. As the benefits of farming continues to rise, it only makes sense to increase the benefits of not farming.

Another method might be to guilt farmers into stop farming certain areas of land. This can be achieved through public service announcements on television and other commercial campaigns. The government can raise awareness of what exactly a farmer is doing by allowing wildlife to grow on their land. Once a farmer knows that by refraining from plowing parts of their field, they would not only be getting money for no work, but also saving the lives of endangered animals, I would expect them to be more receptive to the idea of not having to work as hard.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Hansen http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2008/04/11/agflation-conservation-and-the-loss-of-wildlands-in-america/comment-page-1/#comment-4820 Hansen Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:20:46 +0000 http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2008/04/11/agflation-conservation-and-the-loss-of-wildlands-in-america/#comment-4820 As the market has changed, so should the government payments to keep the lands idle and for the wildlife. While before, the Farm Bill was a reaction to farmers losing money, now it should be brought back, stronger than ever, in a response to growing environmental issues. Unfortunately for many developing countries such as Brazil and China, the problem of rising food costs has caught up with much of their citizens. In many countries around the world, feeding their citizens is still the first item on the agenda. When that is done, perhaps then they may look at the environment. So this may not be a case of whether or not farmers want to farm the land or not, but a case in which the government wants the land to be farmed simply for the sake of having food to give to its people. As the market has changed, so should the government payments to keep the lands idle and for the wildlife. While before, the Farm Bill was a reaction to farmers losing money, now it should be brought back, stronger than ever, in a response to growing environmental issues. Unfortunately for many developing countries such as Brazil and China, the problem of rising food costs has caught up with much of their citizens. In many countries around the world, feeding their citizens is still the first item on the agenda. When that is done, perhaps then they may look at the environment. So this may not be a case of whether or not farmers want to farm the land or not, but a case in which the government wants the land to be farmed simply for the sake of having food to give to its people.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Christina Hu http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2008/04/11/agflation-conservation-and-the-loss-of-wildlands-in-america/comment-page-1/#comment-4803 Christina Hu Sun, 13 Apr 2008 02:12:36 +0000 http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2008/04/11/agflation-conservation-and-the-loss-of-wildlands-in-america/#comment-4803 This is such a huge topic, I won't even attempt to cover it all. But the bottom line is, if we don't do something NOW to save the environment, we're all doomed in the decades to come. This reminds me slightly of the capital vs. consumer goods curve, except that if we choose to invest in consumer goods rather than capital [the environment] now, there won't be any captial left to speak of in a little while. As for helping alleviate the hardships of rising food prices on poor people, the government should start handing out food packages or redistributing wealth in some way; that's what it's there for, right? To keep the country running smoothly and make sure nobody goes to bed hungry and look out for the future [though it seems like the gov't only cares about now, what with the destruction of Earth's lungs]. This is such a huge topic, I won't even attempt to cover it all. But the bottom line is, if we don't do something NOW to save the environment, we're all doomed in the decades to come. This reminds me slightly of the capital vs. consumer goods curve, except that if we choose to invest in consumer goods rather than capital [the environment] now, there won't be any captial left to speak of in a little while. As for helping alleviate the hardships of rising food prices on poor people, the government should start handing out food packages or redistributing wealth in some way; that's what it's there for, right? To keep the country running smoothly and make sure nobody goes to bed hungry and look out for the future [though it seems like the gov't only cares about now, what with the destruction of Earth's lungs].

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Rebecca Sung http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2008/04/11/agflation-conservation-and-the-loss-of-wildlands-in-america/comment-page-1/#comment-4798 Rebecca Sung Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:57:16 +0000 http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2008/04/11/agflation-conservation-and-the-loss-of-wildlands-in-america/#comment-4798 Following up on the negative effects, loss of forestry can also mean a loss of potential medicinal plants that can only be found in those forests. Maybe a cure can be found for diseases like AIDs is located in those forests, but with them diminishing everyday, we would never know? Also, there's also the destruction of many animals' natural habitat which endangers many species. Following up on the negative effects, loss of forestry can also mean a loss of potential medicinal plants that can only be found in those forests. Maybe a cure can be found for diseases like AIDs is located in those forests, but with them diminishing everyday, we would never know?

Also, there's also the destruction of many animals' natural habitat which endangers many species.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Jo Lo http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2008/04/11/agflation-conservation-and-the-loss-of-wildlands-in-america/comment-page-1/#comment-4787 Jo Lo Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:17:19 +0000 http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2008/04/11/agflation-conservation-and-the-loss-of-wildlands-in-america/#comment-4787 Its common nowadays to see how one thing happening in China will affect something else in America. This article is no different. Taking back thousands of acres of land has both positive and negative effects. The positive effect would be that if farmers cultivate more land, thus increasing output of food, the prices would decrease and decrease the burden of insanely expensive food prices on many of the world's poor. The negative would be as Mr. Welker wrote would be what some people are doing to try to cash in on the high food prices. Cutters in Brazil are cutting down more and more of the forest to create land to grow sugar cane. This is a environmental problem that will further escalate global warming as the 'lungs' of the earth are slowly being taken away by people who risk the future by thinking about now. Its common nowadays to see how one thing happening in China will affect something else in America. This article is no different. Taking back thousands of acres of land has both positive and negative effects. The positive effect would be that if farmers cultivate more land, thus increasing output of food, the prices would decrease and decrease the burden of insanely expensive food prices on many of the world's poor. The negative would be as Mr. Welker wrote would be what some people are doing to try to cash in on the high food prices. Cutters in Brazil are cutting down more and more of the forest to create land to grow sugar cane. This is a environmental problem that

will further escalate global warming as the 'lungs' of the earth are slowly being taken away by people who risk the future by thinking about now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: andyxu http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2008/04/11/agflation-conservation-and-the-loss-of-wildlands-in-america/comment-page-1/#comment-4785 andyxu Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:41:55 +0000 http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2008/04/11/agflation-conservation-and-the-loss-of-wildlands-in-america/#comment-4785 Wow, this is a very interesting topic. The concept of giving farmers an opportunity cost for farming, annual payments of $51 per acre for letting their farmlands sit idle, is one that I would like to see applied in future China. When China adopts this measure, it will mean that 1) food scarcity is no longer a top concern in China and 2) the government is aware of the need to intervene the market economy in order conserve the country's wild lands. The effect of this monetary subsidy is, of course, conserving land and hence the ecosystem. In market terms, the incentive to not farm takes away the segment of the supply curve in which the revenue generated from farming an acre is less than $51, as farmers find the marginal benefit of $51 per acre subsidies from the government greater than the cost of working full-time and yet receiving less than $51 for their work. Wow, this is a very interesting topic. The concept of giving farmers an opportunity cost for farming, annual payments of $51 per acre for letting their farmlands sit idle, is one that I would like to see applied in future China. When China adopts this measure, it will mean that 1) food scarcity is no longer a top concern in China and 2) the government is aware of the need to intervene the market economy in order conserve the country's wild lands.

The effect of this monetary subsidy is, of course, conserving land and hence the ecosystem. In market terms, the incentive to not farm takes away the segment of the supply curve in which the revenue generated from farming an acre is less than $51, as farmers find the marginal benefit of $51 per acre subsidies from the government greater than the cost of working full-time and yet receiving less than $51 for their work.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Jason Welker http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2008/04/11/agflation-conservation-and-the-loss-of-wildlands-in-america/comment-page-1/#comment-4783 Jason Welker Sat, 12 Apr 2008 03:01:29 +0000 http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2008/04/11/agflation-conservation-and-the-loss-of-wildlands-in-america/#comment-4783 Good insight Chris, thanks for sharing! Good insight Chris, thanks for sharing!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Chris Seah http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2008/04/11/agflation-conservation-and-the-loss-of-wildlands-in-america/comment-page-1/#comment-4782 Chris Seah Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:59:41 +0000 http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2008/04/11/agflation-conservation-and-the-loss-of-wildlands-in-america/#comment-4782 It is interesting to note that the US government drove crop prices up through scarcity. The problem of affixing a quantitative "value" to ideas like the environment, as Mr. Welker has said, is difficult. As a matter of fact, I would go one step further and call it impossible, because no one entity controls all the land on the planet and people would find faults with a pricing system (some people think the environment is priceless). At the same time there is the ethical concern of depriving people food food and jobs for the sake of the environment, which is in this case the rather vaporous "greater good". Perhaps governments should consider investing in alternative, non-invasive means to provide food and energy for their people like vertical farms or something. In the meantime however, it is essential that governments increase their paid rates to farmers in keeping their land fellow, lest we suffer unseen repercussions that will kick us in the behind in the next few decades because, as of yet, we cannot possibly estimate the magnitude of those costs. It is interesting to note that the US government drove crop prices up through scarcity. The problem of affixing a quantitative "value" to ideas like the environment, as Mr. Welker has said, is difficult. As a matter of fact, I would go one step further and call it impossible, because no one entity controls all the land on the planet and people would find faults with a pricing system (some people think the environment is priceless). At the same time there is the ethical concern of depriving people food food and jobs for the sake of the environment, which is in this case the rather vaporous "greater good".

Perhaps governments should consider investing in alternative, non-invasive means to provide food and energy for their people like vertical farms or something. In the meantime however, it is essential that governments increase their paid rates to farmers in keeping their land fellow, lest we suffer unseen repercussions that will kick us in the behind in the next few decades because, as of yet, we cannot possibly estimate the magnitude of those costs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>