Re: Kevorkian Economics- long

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

Nice article.  Proponents of open market, unfettered capitalism would argue 
that agribusiness is just market evolution.  Is the author suggesting that 
farming is an enterprise that should not be directed by the forces of the 
market, but rather that "the public" should determine who and how food is 
produced?  That's just pinko socialism.  Hmmmmm.  There's a parallel 
enterprise that has not had to compete in the market - the military.  Maybe 
farming is as important as having a standing army.  Or, maybe, the military 
should have to compete for revenue just like any other business.  Double 
hmmmm.
jm


>From: Peggy Adams <adams@pcei.org>
>To: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Kevorkian Economics- long
>Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:29:50 -0800
>
>If you are not interested in rural or farm economic issues hit the delete
>key now.
>
>For those of you still interested, the article below is provacative and
>might be worth taking the time to read.  It is from a a presentation given
>to the Minnesota state legislature by by Dr. Richard A Levins, professor of
>applied economics at the University of Minnesota.  The issues are relevant
>here, also.
>
>P.
>
>
>One of the things I enjoy most about Minnesota is its longstanding support
>for family farming. Lately, however, we are challenged with a very
>different kind of economic thinking, one I call "Kervorkian economics."
>The New Kervorkianists see that many of our family farms are in trouble.
>Rather than   search for ways to help them, these theorists devise
>"transition" programs that get farmers out of agriculture. It is as if Dr.
>Jack walked into the room and said we are all going to die sooner or later,
>so we might as well let him help us get it over with tonight. Such thinking
>may bring about cheap
>grain, but only at a cost of losing family farming as the economic backbone
>of rural Minnesota. This is simply too high a price to pay.
>
>This year I have been working with a wonderful group of Swift County
>leaders to find ways to strengthen farming in the county. In doing  the
>background  research for the project, I learned that we are much farther
>down the road to  losing farming as a foundation for rural Minnesota than
>I would ever have guessed.  Farm sales and government payments for Swift
>County  were $112 million in 1995. They rose to $135 million in 1996.
>Judging  by these numbers alone, farmer income would appear to be a very
>important  part of the local  economy. In the past, it was. For example, in
>1975 farmers accounted for slightly over 30 percent of total county
>personal income. Today, things are
>much different.  In 1995, the contribution of farmer and farm employee
>income to total  personal income in the county was 1.63 percent. Granted,
>farm income bounces around more than most other types from year to year,
>but that is a shockingly  low number. The three-year average for 1995 to
>1997 was a bit higher at 7.29  percent. On the other hand, the farming
>contribution to  personal income in the county was negative in 1993. The
>corresponding numbers for other southwestern Minnesota counties are much
>the same.  There is, of course, more to the story than farm income.
>Farmers pay land rents, buy supplies, pay property taxes, and affect the
>economy in many ways
>that are not reflected in farmer and farm employee personal income.
>Nonetheless, the income and well being of farmers is the crux of the matter
>when we speak of rural economies. Agriculture has changed  so much that we
>can no longer use the words "agriculture" and "farming" interchangeably.
>Agriculture includes all sorts of agribusiness activities and landlord
>income that certainly benefit someone. They don't, however, always benefit
>rural areas.
>
>We looked closely at land rents and ownership in our Swift County project.
>Ninety percent of the tillable acres are planted to corn and soybeans. A
>survey we did of 62 Swift County farmers showed that about 60 percent of
>the  tillable acres in the county are rented, while 40 percent are owned by
>
>farmer/operators. The trend is toward more, not less, rented land. Rented
>acres grew by 29 percent between 1993 and 1998. Furthermore,  the older
>farmers we surveyed talked most often of renting out their land when they
>retired. The survey also showed that there are many more  landlords than
>farmers associated with the land in Swift County: the 62 farmers rented
>from 198 landlords.
>
>Absentee landlords
>Records kept by the University of Minnesota's Southwest Farm Business
>Management Association show returns for corn and soybean  production on
>rented land during 1983-1997. For corn, the farmer never once  made as much
>as the  landlord. For soybeans, farmers made as much as the landlord  in
>two years and  less in every other year. With so many of the farming
>dollars going to  landlords, it is of obvious importance that those
>landlords live in the county. Otherwise, the only local benefit is likely
>to
>be the cost of a stamp to mail a rent check to Arizona! But one out of
>three landlords in the Swift  County survey did not live in the county, and
>this number is likely to increase as farmers will their land to children
>who have long since left the county.
>
>Something else that surprised me in the Swift County survey was that one
>out  of three farmers think that large agribusiness interests "don't care
>at all"  about farmers' survival. Only five percent rated agribusiness  as
>"very concerned" on this question. In my 25 years in farm management, I
>have thought farmers viewed themselves as in partnership with agribusiness.
>But  with a flood of mergers, acquisitions, patent fights, contracting, and
>other heavy-handed moves, agribusiness is losing its favored status among
>farmers  in a big way. Farmers are in the best position of all to see that
>what
>benefits agriculture does not necessarily benefit farming!
>
>Should we all be worried about bigness in agribusiness? I went to Professor
>Willard Cochrane, President Kennedy's chief agricultural economist, now
>widely regarded as one of our greatest proponents of family farming. He
>asked me to imagine that a giant elephant had walked into my  living room.
>"It doesn't matter if it is a good elephant or a bad elephant, it's still
>going  to break something," he said. Size brings about economic power, and
>that power will be used to foster the ends of global agribusiness,  not
>farmers and the rural economy.
>
>Agribusiness booms
>He has a point. The size of modern agribusiness giants defies
>comprehension.   For example, last year Cargill, DuPont, ConAgra, ADM, and
>Monsanto all had   gross sales greater (often much greater) than all 87,000
>Minnesota farms put together. DuPont paid more to buy Pioneer than all
>87,000 Minnesota farmers combined have ever spent on production costs for
>any year. And for those who   think that there is no money in agriculture,
>I again remind  you that agriculture and farming are not the same thing.
>Farmers are in a staggering crisis, but the agribusiness story is very
>different. As  pork producers suffered under the lowest prices in a
>generation, the nation's two largest  pork processors found $14 million to
>reward their CEOs. That's peanuts compared to the $51.8 million
>compensation package Robert Shapiro, CEO of Monsanto, hauled in for 1997.
>Meanwhile, the average farmer in Minnesota made less than $15,000 last
>year.
>
>In all of this, it has become fashionable to blame the  farm crisis on
>failed government policies. Then, in the best tradition of Dr. Kervorkian,
>we try to  abandon public programs altogether. I hope you will not  think
>that way. The public has every right to decide how its food will be
>produced and who will  do it. The Minnesota Legislature has already made a
>wonderful  statement on the value of family farming, and the leaders of
>Swift County are among the many citizens who have not given up on our
>family farm  tradition. We must continue in that tradition-our rural
>economy is at stake.
>
>
>Peggy Adams
>
>===================================================================
>Palouse-Clearwater Environmental Institute
>P O Box 8596; 112 West 4th St; Suite #1
>Moscow ID 83843-1096
>Phone (208)882-1444; Fax (208)882-8029
>url:  http://www.moscow.com/pcei
>
>Please Note our individual staff email addresses below:
>
>Thomas C. Lamar, Executive Director: lamar@pcei.org
>Peggy Adams, Watersheds/Food Systems: adams@pcei.org
>Jon Barrett, Idaho Smart Growth:  smartgro@micron.net
>Elaine Clegg, Idaho Smart Growth:  eclegg@micron.net
>Anita Grover, Watersheds: grover@pcei.org
>Laurie Guardes, Financial Manager:  gardes@pcei.org
>Ashley Martens, Environmental Education:  martens@pcei.org
>Lisabeth Edlund, Americorp/Youth at Risk edlund@pcei.org
>
>Celebrating thirteen years of connecting people, place and community.
>===================================================================
>
>

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