Pic on the right would cost $270 in paypig land if you paid canadian paypig bucks.
no canadian has been able to piece together these items for less than $270 CDN in canada. not even by using sales or loss leaders.I challenge any leaf who claims that he can: fire up your ms paint and crop the in-store photos into a nice collage and prove it.
Truth is, in order to get it for less than $270 you'd have to plot out which stores to hit and when, you would need thorough recon and reliable price and availability intel - possibly recruiting locals as though it were a military raid. You might even need to recruit agents from within the stores.
>Meat subsidies strip other food industries to the bone
Would you go into a fast food restaurant to order a hamburger if you knew it would cost you over $50? Would you order steak in a fancy restaurant if you knew it was going to cost you over $200? In truth that’s already what you are paying. When is the price you pay not the price you pay? When the government helps to foot the bill.
>The U.S. government subsidizes the beef industry. The government subsidies are for corn to feed the animals and water and land for them to graze on. If the beef industry had to pay fair market value for these resources, a Happy Meal would turn into an Unhappy Meal very quickly. Those subsidies are funded by taxes collected from the American taxpayer – that’s you and me. And it doesn’t matter whether you are vegetarian, vegan, pescetarian (those who eat fish, but no other meats) or belong to any sect, creed, religion or faith that prevents eating certain kinds of meat, you are not exempt: if you live in the U.S and pay taxes here, you’re paying for that big, juicy, $50 Big Mac along with the rest of us.
They have been socially engineered to be absolute gluttons for punishment; the ultimate Paypig people. The only thing that I have seen that comes close to their behaviour on these boards over the past few months are literal paypigs who are into 'findom'.
All of their indoctrination tells them that paying ridiculous high prices is a good thing. They think being a paypig to their agricartels is an accomplishment.
>Sixty three percent of the U.S. government food subsidies go directly or indirectly to subsidize the meat and dairy industries. Less than 1 percent goes to fruit and vegetable cultivation. Less than 2 percent goes to nut and legume cultivation. Stopping meat subsidies would raise meat prices dramatically. If I cannot afford meat I will not buy meat; However, I could buy fruits and vegetables if the decreased governmental subsidy for meat is used to subsidize fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes. Shifting subsidies will help provide healthy and affordable diet choices for all Americans.
Charles Wilson
Why did Canada turn into such a shithole?
Justin Gutierrez
>America needs to reallocate its food subsides. Now that America is struggling to provide health care for its disadvantaged populations, it is time to focus on the cause of health problems. Poor diet causes problems such as hypertension, heart disease and, most alarmingly, the high rate of obesity and type two diabetes that is increasingly affecting our youth. The better our diet, the healthier we are and the less we will desperately need that health care. Shifting our food subsidies will help ourselves and the environment, and help to safeguard the health and future of the next generation of Americans.
Gabriel Howard
Only redeeming factor of the UK, are food is cheap. But that is to keep labour costs down.
Ryan Hill
>In this tough economy people buy the food they can afford instead of making healthy and environmentally sound choices. In a country like the U.S., healthy foods should not be a luxury. Our tax money should not be used to harm us. If the subsidies to the beef industry were ever cut so that we would get a more accurate sense of what things should cost, we would see Ronald McDonald would go out of business or quickly be replaced by Ronald McHealthy.
Jaxon Thomas
>Be involved – don’t let your taxes work against your well-being. Let your senator know that you sent them to D.C. to look after you, and that they should support only farm subsidies that increase the well-being of America.
Noah Powell
>right picture is 75 bucks of food if you shop at safeway kek I can get WAY MORE than that for 75
Wyatt Harris
what can you expect from a country that elected a mediocre drama coach faggot as "prime minister"
>Government food subsidies—including meat and dairy products—are damaging the health of Americans, according to a study just published in JAMA Internal Medicine. It’s a problem we’re working to fix.
>The first study, conducted by researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Emory University, found that “current federal agricultural subsidies focus on financing production of food commodities, a large portion of which are converted into high-fat meat and dairy products” and other items that increase the risk for cardiometabolic risks in American adults.
>Researchers followed 10,308 American participants from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and measured the percentage of calories consumed from subsidized foods, body weight, blood pressure, inflammation measures, and cholesterol levels. Those who consumed the most subsidized foods, including high-fat meat and dairy products, were 41 percent and 21 percent more likely to be overweight and have elevated blood sugars, respectively.
Oliver Davis
>t gets worse. Subsidized meat and dairy products can also lead to early death. In a related study, Harvard researchers found that eating more saturated fat—found primarily in animal products—was associated with increased risk of death.
Cameron King
>Children’s health also pays a toll when meat and dairy producers profit. Last summer, our report “Who’s Making Money from Overweight Kids?” took a look at subsidies in school lunches.
>We found that in 2013, the U.S. Department of Agriculture paid more than $500 million to 62 meat and dairy producers for beef, chicken, turkey, pork, fish, dairy, eggs, and lamb that ended up in school meals.
Ayden Taylor
today*
It's cost of living
Jeremiah Nelson
Both sides together cost like 15-20 bucks in my country. You both are poor as fuck.
Aiden Wood
>So where are the subsidies for disease-fighting fruits and vegetable? They receive just a fraction of what goes to meat and dairy products. Maybe that’s why new USDA findings show that Americans are eating fewer fruits and vegetables than they were a decade ago.
Zachary Adams
no canadian has been able to piece together these items for less than $270 CDN in canada.
focus on that
Christian Young
>Congress is already starting discussions on the 2018 Farm Bill—which oversees subsidies—and we’ll be working to encourage the federal government to alter agricultural policies to address America’s diet-related chronic disease epidemics.
Julian Scott
My new hobby is shitting on Canada. This isn't the country I thought it was when I was a kid.
>In 2009, the U.S. federal government paid $12.3 billion to America's farmers. Even as farmers profit from increased demand, the government remains a major player in the food business.
The Atlantic has put together a list of the top nine products that the government most heavily subsidizes:
everytime you fly across or drive across the country, and look down our out the window you see very quickly how important/big the farm lifestyle is. that shit keeps most of you alive nigga.
Jaxon Foster
>Corn, at the top of the list, raked in over $77 billion from the government between 1995 and 2010, and the subsidies have only been going up. There's a common belief that healthy food is inherently more expensive, and thus can only be for the wealthy. But in fact, healthy food could easily be more affordable for everyone, if not for agribusiness CEOs, their lobbyists and the politicians in their pockets.
Jaxson Young
>Lawmakers whose campaigns are underwritten by agribusinesses use billions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize the commodities that are the key ingredients of unhealthy food -- corn, basedbeans, wheat, etc. This manufactured price inequality helps junk food undersell nutritious food.
Daniel Davis
>According to Salon:
"Corn -- which is processed into the junk-food staple corn syrup ... -- exemplifies the scheme ... [I]t is a bargain, but one created by deliberate government policy that serves the corn industry titans, not by any genetic advantage that makes corn derivatives automatically more affordable for the budget-strapped commoner."
Tyler Green
16 posts zero in-store pics
Gavin Scott
>The Environmental Working Group (EWG) also released its 2011 Farm Subsidy Database, although the USDA has reportedly refused to release all the data to confirm exactly who the billions in farm subsidies are being paid out to. Still, as EWG stated:
" … despite lawmakers' boasts of enacting major reforms in the 2008 farm bill, the new data clearly show that wealthy absentee land owners and mega farms awash in record income are once again the main beneficiaries of federal farm programs – while struggling family farmers go begging.
Chase Hall
>And once again, the database shows that many farm subsidy recipients get those fat government checks at addresses in New York City, Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles – not exactly farm country, and a far cry from the programs' original intent".
Nolan Lewis
>You're probably well aware that it's typically cheaper to buy a loaf of bread than a pound of broccoli or even a pound of ground beef than a similar amount of green peppers. And most people also realize that they can get a value meal at numerous fast-food restaurants for far less money than it takes to purchase foods to make a healthy meal, such as organic chicken and fresh veggies, for their family.
Alexander Gonzalez
>Perhaps this disparity has struck you as odd. After all, what makes vegetables more expensive than bread or meat? It's clearly nothing inherent to their growing requirements.
Julian Collins
>Not at all.
Instead, it's the direct result of government food subsidies, which favor the very foods you should eat less of if you want to stay healthy.
>How Farm Subsidies Harm Taxpayers, Consumers, and Farmers, Too
>
Summary If Congress takes the path of least resistance and extends current farm policies for another five years, it will have surrendered an enormous opportunity for reform. Most debates over federal programs force lawmakers to balance a program's social benefits with the costs of financing it, but current U.S. farm policies serve no legitimate purpose. They burden American families with higher taxes and higher food prices. They harm small farmers by excluding them from subsidies, raising land prices, and financing farm consolidation. They increase trade barriers that reduce incomes in America and in lesser-developed countries. They are falsely promoted as saving the family farm and protecting the food supply. In reality, they are America's largest corporate welfare program.
>In reality, they are America's largest corporate welfare program.
Andrew Martin
This year's expiration of federal agriculture policies gives Congress an important opportunity to take a fresh look at the $25 billion spent annually on farm subsidies. Current farm policies are so poorly designed that they actually worsen the conditions they claim to solve. For example:
Farm subsidies are intended to alleviate farmer poverty, but the majority of subsidies go to commercial farms with average incomes of $200,000 and net worths of nearly $2 million.
Farm subsidies are intended to raise farmer incomes by remedying low crop prices. Instead, they promote overproduction and therefore lower prices further.
Farm subsidies are intended to help struggling family farmers. Instead, they harm them by excluding them from most subsidies, financing the consolidation of family farms, and raising land values to levels that prevent young people from entering farming.
Farm subsidies are intended to be consumer-friendly and taxpayer-friendly. Instead, they cost Americans billions each year in higher taxes and higher food costs.
Ian Peterson
The reason why Canadian (and German) posters on Jow Forums are so fucking annoying is because the government of Canada literally pays shills to try and convince Canadians that everything is fine and that anything bad in Canada is just a lie
Rather than fix the problems, Trudeau prefers to pretend they don't exist
Sadly it looks like the Conservatives will win anyway, which means they end up with a cucked Dairy Mafia government in Canada
>Canadians are Paypigs to their Food Doms I appreciate how you come up with a new angle/ analogy each thread, keeping the Canadian food crisis topic fresh
Lawmakers would be hard-pressed to enact a set of policies that are more destructive to farmers, taxpayers, and consumers than the current farm policies. For these and other reasons, organizations representing taxpayers, consumers, environmentalists, international trade, Third World countries, and even farmers themselves have united around the shared conclusion that the current farm subsidy system is failing and in dire need of reform during this year's reauthorization.
Gabriel Thompson
>our currency is shit so there's no comparison Imagine being Canadian. My fucking sides
Carter Russell
Groceryjew now hijacking /ptg Most real Americans are busy with Christmas Hmmmm
Before delving into the minutiae of farm policy, lawmakers should first determine what subsidies are intended to accomplish. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced farm subsidies in the 1930s, Secretary of agriculture Henry Wallace called them "a temporary solution to deal with an emergency."[1] That emergency was the collapsing farm incomes that afflicted the 25 percent of the population living on farms.
Today, farmers account for just 1 percent of the population, and farm household incomes are well above the national average, making the original justification irrelevant. What modern market failure or social problem is solved by farm programs today? Subsidy advocates offer five flawed justifications.
This is the most common-and provably incorrect-justification. The average farm household earns $81,420 annually (29 percent above the national average); has a net worth of $838,875 (more than eight times the national average); and is located in a rural area with a low cost of living.[2] The farm industry's current 11.4 percent debt-to-asset ratio is the lowest ever measured and helps to explain why farms fail at only one-sixth the rate of non-farm businesses.[3]
Overall, net farm income totaled $279 billion between 2003 and 2006-the highest four-year total ever.[4] The farm economy is thriving, and farmer incomes are soaring.
Furthermore, farm subsidy formulas are designed to benefit large agribusinesses rather than family farmers. Most farm subsidies are distributed to commercial farmers, who have an average income of $199,975 and an average net worth of just under $2 million.[5] If farm subsidies were really about alleviating farmer poverty, lawmakers could guarantee every full-time farmer an income of 185 percent of the federal level ($38,203 for a family of four) for just over $4 billion annually-one-sixth of the current cost of farm subsidies.[6]
Hudson Martin
No one is here except me and your myriad of IP alts.
While farming can be very profitable, farmers are always one weather disaster away from losing their crops, but this risk can be handled with basic crop insurance rather than with expensive annual government subsidies. Washington does not address homeowners' risks by writing each family an annual check regardless of whether or not their homes have been damaged.
Giving farmers $25 billion in annual subsidies regardless of whether or not their crops have been damaged is no more logical. Crop insurance markets, as well as futures and options markets, can balance good and bad years in a way that is cost-neutral over the long run.
>The 2017 Obesity Update by the OECD placed Canada among its most overweight countries, with 25.8 per cent of the population aged 15 and over considered obese.
So if meat costs so much in Canada, why are Canadians so obese?
>Canada — a country vast, rugged and beautiful, admired around the world for its commitment to diplomacy. >Canadians actually believe this
Leo Johnson
Bernier is going to fix Canada, no matter how much you try to deflect.
Myth #3: Maintaining a cheap and stable food supply.
Some contend that food markets would fluctuate wildly without farm subsidies. In reality, food prices of both subsidized and unsubsidized crops are relatively stable. Given that the percentage of family budgets spent on food has dropped from 25 percent to 10 percent since 1933, any potential price instability would have an increasingly small impact on family budgets.[7] Even if price stabilization was necessary, price support programs have largely been replaced by commodity subsidies that stimulate overproduction rather than stabilize prices.
Nor do farm subsidies contribute to lower food costs. Two-thirds of food production is unsubsidized and thus relatively unaffected by subsidies. Of the remaining one-third, price reductions caused by crop subsidies are balanced by conservation programs that raise prices. Furthermore, food prices are based not only on crop prices, but also on food processing, transportation, and marketing costs. Bruce Babcock, professor of economics at Iowa State University, has calculated that eliminating farm subsidies would have virtually no effect on food prices.[8]
Lucas Taylor
Trudeau didn't take Trump's phone call and fucked his people over. Also they pour a shitton of money down the drain with their healthcare system.
Blake Gonzalez
>user posts pics of Scheer
He's a paid Liberal Party shill, no one on Jow Forums likes doughboy scheer
Eli Butler
Trying hard to hijackother threads when christians are around.
Proponents contend that without subsidies, American farm products would be replaced by imports, leaving the United States dangerously dependent on foreigners for food. However, the United States currently grows more food than it needs to feed itself and exports a quarter of its production.[9] The lack of subsidies has not driven all beef, poultry, pork, fruit, and vegetable production out of America, nor would it drive away production of currently subsidized crops.
Anthony Martin
Didn't read one word, no burger gives a fuck about a LEAF, meanwhile you all chatter and squirm and fail to get the attention of the LION.
Stay mad faggot leaf
Andrew Hill
>Clearly hes for trudeau, goyim fucking desperate jews
Europe and Japan's farm subsidies bring American consumers food at below-market prices. Rather than enact trade barriers to prevent this, Americans should welcome the cheap imports and allow farmers to focus on producing the crops in which the United States has a comparative advantage. Responding with U.S. subsidies and trade barriers has the net effect of raising prices for American consumers and thereby limiting any progress in free-trade negotiations. Australia largely eliminated its farm subsidies in the 1970s, and after a brief adjustment, its farm economy flourished. New Zealand implemented a similar policy in the 1980s with the same result.[10]
Two-thirds of all farm production-including fruit, vegetables, beef, and poultry-thrives despite being ineligible for farm subsidies.[11] If any of the five justifications were valid, these farmers would be impoverished, near bankruptcy, or replaced by imports, and both the supplies and prices of fruit, vegetables, beef, and poultry would fluctuate wildly. Clearly, this has not happened. In this controlled experiment comparing subsidized and unsubsidized crops, the doomsday scenarios described above have not occurred for unsubsidized crops.
The most logical explanation for the persistence of farm subsidies is simple politics. Eliminating a government program is nearly impossible because recipients form interest groups that relentlessly defend their handouts. The public paying the costs is too busy going about their lives to challenge each wasteful program. Furthermore, supporters of farm subsidies often repeat the five justifications, especially the myth that these policies aid struggling family farmers. The difference between perception and reality in farm policy is large.
How Farm Subsidies Lack Economic Sense
Farm subsidies serve no legitimate public purpose. Worse, they harm the farm economy. This section explains both how farm subsidies work and the economic incoherence embedded in U.S. farm policy. (See also the accompanying text box, "How Farm Subsidies Are Calculated.")
The Main Commodity Programs. Farm policy is extraordinarily complex. This complexity conveniently insulates the farm policymaking process within a small group of lawmakers and interest groups who specialize in the details.
Subsidy eligibility is based on the crop. More than 90 percent of all subsidies go to just five crops-wheat, cotton, corn, basedbeans, and rice- while the vast majority of crops are ineligible for subsidies. Once eligibility is established, subsidies are paid per amount of the crop produced, so the largest farms automatically receive the largest checks.
Camden Price
USDCAD has gone from 1.28 to 1.3610 in just 9 weeks LMFAO
for leafs that's 78 cents USD to 73.5 cents USD in 2 months. you're supposed to be a 1st world country yet your currency trades like a 3rd world currency.
you are royally fucked as the grocery stores will use this as an excuse to jack prices even more. It doesn't help that WTI crude oil got JUSTified -7% after stock markets closed (stocks closed 12:15, NYMEX stayed open until 12:45). USDCAD set to hit 1.43 this week or
Subsidies are also quite duplicative. The names of the three different commodity subsidies do not adequately describe their purposes:
Marketing loan program. Despite being called a "loan," this program has the net effect of reimbursing farmers for the difference between a crop's market price and the minimum level that Congress sets every five to six years.[12]
Fixed payments. Fixed payments are given to farmers based on their farms' historical production and are unrelated to actual production.
Countercyclical payments. This program functions somewhat similarly to the marketing loan program by subsidizing farmers up to a government-set target price. This rate is higher than the marketing loan rate and therefore represents an additional subsidy.
For farmers who grow the subsidized crop, these policies have the net effect of subsidizing them up from their crop's market price to its countercyclical price rate, or even higher when the market price is above the countercyclical rate and they receive fixed payments.
Remedying Low Prices with Lower Prices. Farm policy is supposed to help farmers recover income lost because of low crop prices. However, farmers can increase their subsidies by planting additional acres, which increases production and drives prices down further, thereby spurring demands for even greater subsidies. In other words, subsidies merely lower prices. This is the policy equivalent of trying to use gasoline to extinguish a fire.
Jonathan Green
I don't know about the quality of food in Canada but in america it's non existent. Good food that isn't mass produced gmo pesticide hormone cancerous swamp """""""""food"""""""" is actually really expensive in the US.
t. lived in tennessee
Alexander Roberts
>when your economy is run on petroleum extraction and you just imposed a carbon tax on heating oil. >how'd you like your economy today, sir? >Trudeau: just fuck it up. It's all good Just fuck my shit up.
Chase Wright
You’re no bernier supporter groceryjew. You just obfuscate with threads to blackpil everyone.
Read the farm bill, and a big problem jumps right out at you: Taxpayers heavily subsidize corn and onions, two crops that facilitate the meat and processed food we’re supposed to eat less of, and do almost nothing for the fruits and vegetables we’re supposed to eat more of. If there’s any obligation to spend the public’s money in a way that’s consistent with that same public’s health, shouldn’t it be the other way around?
The problem dates back to the bill’s inception in the 1930s, when farms raised livestock and grew a mix of crops, including staple crops (corn, wheat, oats, barley) and what the bill calls “specialty crops” but what the rest of us know as fruits and vegetables.
From the 1930s to 1980, subsidies alone weren’t substantial enough to significantly change the mix of crops on farms, according to Vincent Smith, professor of economics at Montana State University and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “In 1980, we introduced crop insurance subsidies of substance that began to change the ways in which farmers manage risk, and to discourage diversification,” he says. And then we increased them until they became very substantial, and farmers, at least to some extent, farmed to the bill the way teachers teach to a test.
Grayson Thompson
What’s important about how we subsidize farms isn’t necessarily the overall dollar amount — it comes to 5 percent to 10 percent of the market price of most of the subsidized crops — it’s that it takes some of the risk out of farming grains and oil seeds, but not fruits and vegetables.
Farming is inherently risky. Weather, insects and disease, over which you have limited control or none at all, can wipe you out. One of the ways farmers manage risk is to plant variety. Okay, powdery mildew got your strawberries, but the broccoli’s going gangbusters. For farmers, crops that are given guaranteed protection from both losses and price drops are lower-risk propositions.
Farmers, like the rest of us, have bills to pay and children to feed. (Full disclosure: My husband and I farm oysters and have benefited from the farm bill’s conservation program.) A guaranteed source of income is attractive. That’s one of the reasons that, of the 300-million-plus acres planted with food (other than grass, hay and forage for animals) in this country, half are corn and onions. Another 50 million are wheat. Only 14 million are devoted to fruits and vegetables, from peas (1.2 million acres) to mangosteens (1 acre, which I’d dearly love to visit).
