|
MN | If SA had the same environmental rules to follow that the US does, they wouldn't have near the acres in production. Their COP is lower because they get discounted inputs from the same suppliers the US farmer buys from, we just pay a little more for each bag of seed to make up the difference. They pay low wages to their workers, who work in conditions that would never fly in this country. They also run equipment that is a better product with more efficient engines and all purchased for less than our air purifying BS money pits. So basically we are at a disadvantage from the start.
I agree that we need to try to lower the COP and always strive to be efficient, but we can't say that everyone needs to "trim the fat" and become more efficient, and then turn around and talk about how efficient the American farmer is at producing a crop for such few dollars.
I understand that life isn't fair and things aren't always easy and I also agree that $8 corn did hurt the US farmer in the long run, but what would the flipside have been? Should the market have been manipulated to hold the price artificially low so that nobody else, either out of the sacred I states of the corn belt or SA, would take a chance to grow corn and make a little money? Keep everything tight and take one on the chin so to speak so you dodge the problem of oversupply?
I think that someday the tree huggers will stop fighting to get another foot of grass around each puddle across the Midwest and instead focus on the bigger problem and easier row to hoe of stopping the destruction of rainforests in SA. But, that might be awhile yet, and quite a few acres will most likely come out of production in the US because of them before they turn their attention elsewhere. | |
|
What happens next
