Re: corporate farming consequences

["JS M" <jbiggs50@hotmail.com>]

Thanx for your comments.  There was a good segment on NPR today about the 
changing face of small farms, particularly in the Southwest.  One of the 
fastest growing segments of the California economy is the small, hispanic 
owned farm.  Seems the traditional migrant workers have saved a little dough 
and have bought small plots and started their own farms.  Maybe the future 
of farming isn't corporate, after all.

I wrote, "So, one government program in charge of cleaning up the 
consequences of another."

You replied, "Agreed.  Not the best solution to the problem, is it?  To 
whose advantage is it to do it this way?  Follow the money."

Assuming we're agreeing something is amiss, I think it's really interesting 
that farmers are the recipients of largess resulting from government waste 
and inefficientcy.  I wonder just how hard they would rant about cutting 
that bad ol' gub'ment if it was their ox being gored.  A recurring theme 
with the american electorate.

You wrote, "Unlike government workers, farming is a lifestyle, not a job.  
There is a level of responsiblity and enjoyment in farming that few people 
get with their jobs.  It's more like being a professional sailor than it 
like being a worker in an office."

You're still elevating farmers to some status above those of us with "other, 
less important" lifestyles.  This is a capitalist economy, based on forces 
of the market.  Professional sailors loose their jobs, government workers 
loose their jobs, businesses fold every day, so what's so different about 
farmers?  In a world where everything can be bought and sold, isn't farming 
just a job like any other?  Kind of cynical, I know, but it's the system we 
have.
jm

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com