You’re being unusually agreeable this morning.

Katz, usually I agree with you. Then I don’t post. When I do it is often a matter of seeking elucidation, though sometimes I post just for mischief (just as I am sure that some of your rebuttals of my posts are). On occasion I think you are wrong and then I go in to bat on that. But I admire that your response is always to pursue the argument and seek the evidence, and to hunt it down remorselessly, without playing the man.

You are one of the great clear thinkers and scrupulous minds at LP, possibly the greatest. You have my full admiration.

GregM

One could as easily (and maybe more accurately) say that farms exist to provide a livelihood to farmers, and to support farmers’ wives, farmboys, and even, happily, farmers’ daughters. These folks were what used to quaintly be understood as an important part of ‘the people’ — who, if the enterprise flourished (oh no! surplus!) and their numbers prospered, then went on to fill the posts indicated in the army, the academy, and the church which serve society, or the state if you like. Same with other kinds of small businesses.

Congratulations Daffy.

You’ve just invented the self-refuting argument.

One could as easily (and maybe more accurately) say that farms exist to provide a livelihood to farmers, and to support farmers’ wives, farmboys, and even, happily, farmers’ daughters.

No, one could more easily and accurately say that farms exist to make a surplus.

This strikes one as a rather prejudicial assessment, perhaps even ready-made to support the somewhat problematic argument which precedes it.

One could as easily (and maybe more accurately) say that farms exist to provide a livelihood to farmers, and to support farmers’ wives, farmboys, and even, happily, farmers’ daughters. These folks were what used to quaintly be understood as an important part of ‘the people’ — who, if the enterprise flourished (oh no! surplus!) and their numbers prospered, then went on to fill the posts indicated in the army, the academy, and the church which serve society, or the state if you like. Same with other kinds of small businesses.

Ecosystems are marvelous things.

Stimulating curiosity is a notoriously hit-and-miss affair. Much effort will be unproductive, but it is almost impossible to say that it is ever actually wasted.

Oh, I think we can safely say this of our Sociology departments.

In addition, wrong and wicked though they are in this, for we all know at LP know that universities should properly be places set apart for a self-selected but State-funded blessed elite to pursue their private interests in arcane esoterica undisturbed by any vulgar demand that they do anything that might be socially useful, governments have expected, and irresponsible “academicsâ€? (unworthy of the name though they are) have agreed to undertake research at government expense, for the benefit of industry and businesses generally. I really can’t see why farmers should be excluded from this.

But GregM, this kind of subsidisation goes back much further than the Education Acts of the 1870s. Frankly I’m surprised by your ignorance.

Haven’t you ever heard of tithes, wherein the state taxed the people to fund the Church?

And of at least as ancient an lineage, states have taxed the people to fund an armed force. And it is well known that these armed forces existed to protect the state from its taxpayers as well as protecting the state from its foreign enemies.

Now, what do the Church, the Army, and the Academy have in common?

Oh yes! None of them are intended to make a profit. They are supposed to exist to serve a variety of higher purposes.

Now it may well be argued that there is no higher a purpose than the making of a surplus. I have some sympathy with that position. But when I look at these institutions I ask myself which of them aid in making a surplus. And for the life of me I can’t see how the church ever did that. Nor the army, except by means of oppression. So that leaves the Academy.

Perhaps the Academy could do better. But the problem with knowledge is that often you don’t know what’s important for decades after it’s discovered. And we live in rapidly changing times. Everything starts with curiosity. Stimulating curiosity is a notoriously hit-and-miss affair. Much effort will be unproductive, but it is almost impossible to say that it is ever actually wasted.

Farms, like all other businesses, exist to make a surplus. If they fail to do that, they don’t deserve to survive. It is cruel to everyone to keep unproductive businesses alive.

Thank you for that Smithian lesson in political economy, GregM. Obviously that’s not the same thing as specific programmes for those engaged in agriculture – with which I don’t have a problem but your non sequitur is surely unnecessary.

You are most welcome Mark. Often I find it is helpful to point out the blindingly obvious on LP threads. It would escape many of the punters who post here otherwise.

But there is no non-sequitur. The case for subsidising inefficient and unviable farmers is just as strong as the case for funding academics who carry out roles of no social utility.

Of course in this example you need $2 million for the land, say $250,000 for improvements, 500 cows cost another $500,000. And this is the point I’ve learnt about such businesses – the same money sitting in the bank at 6.5 % would earn more and I’d have much less risk. So why are the people making these business decisions being offered financial help ?

Many farmers, especially those where the land has been held in the family for many years find it very difficult to make economically rational decisions when it comes to selling up. They’re very emotionally tied to the land. Giving them a subsidy to encourage them to leave the land I think is a better decision than having them cling on for many years – we already know what the suicide rate is like in the country.

In many ways asking farmers to leave the land and find a job in the city is like asking remote aboriginal communities to move the cities where they have a better chance of finding work.

Governments subsidise all business through education and have been doing so since the Public Education Acts of the 1870s which have provided businesses with (sometimes) literate and numerate employees.

Thank you for that Smithian lesson in political economy, GregM. Obviously that’s not the same thing as specific programmes for those engaged in agriculture – with which I don’t have a problem but your non sequitur is surely unnecessary.