In another installment what has become a seemingly endless string of poorly researched and written op-ed pieces, John Stossel joins his frequent cohabitant of the local paper's op-ed page, the equally clueless Michelle Malkin, in pandering to the consumers of lies and half truths on the Far Right.
Today's screed purports to be a celebration of "private property," which seems right in Stossel's usual wheelhouse, but then he goes completely off the rails by stating almost categorically that Bernie Sanders supports collective farming. One of Sander's difficulties in reaching the American electorate, that is, of course, in addition to his apparent inability to use an "inside voice," vice shouting every single sentence, lies in the tag "Socialism" which has been gleefully applied by the Far Right. In truth, he has provided the glue to affix that label by using the term " Democratic Socialism" to describe his beliefs.
To many of the unwashed and, sadly, to many who, had they paid attention in school, would know better, the word "Socialism" is synonymous with Communism. It is not. Stossell would have us believe, or at the very least allows the ignorant to conclude, that Sanders proposes the end of private property and the commencement of collective farming, a la 1930's Soviet Russia. This is simply a lie of the right. Sanders' focus, vis a vis "Socialism" is in the areas of services (health care, for example) where all citizens have a stake. He has never even hinted at collectivization of anything such as land, business, etc, and would be laughed out of town if he did.
What truly caught my attention, however, is that in the area of land use and agriculture, which Stossel uses as his example, we (the USA ), in what is at best perplexing and at worst sinister, far from being Socialist, are now in many cases hovering simultaneously both ends of the political spectrum, depending upon where in the production process we look. Processing and distribution is markedly monopolistic and cartel like in operation, while planting and production is, in many cases, almost at the public (Government's) breast.
In the area of seed production, and agricultural chemical production, just three US firms (Dow, Monsanto, and DuPont) dominate the entire industry and by extension the market. As sinister or (probably even more so, depending on one's economic savvy is the following: Just four companies control 60 percent of terminal grain facilities, and Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, and Zen Noh control 81 percent of U.S. corn exports and 65 percent of soybean exports. Cargill has the largest global terminal capacity, handling significant grain exports in Canada, the United States, Brazil, and Argentina. It owns and operates a worldwide transportation network of ships, trucks, barges, railcars, and grain elevators for storage. Cargill is also among the top three beef producers in the United States and plays an important role in poultry production.
Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill now control the vast majority (over 85%) of US corn production, and continue to control more and more of America's farmland. While there are still around 2 million small farmers in America, most of their output is done under contracts to sell to these large agribusinesses, which by virtue of said contracts, hold absolute control over the land. So Stossel is right in one sense, private property is great for these businesses, and as long as they are compliant, those small farmers, but the control of their fortunes now lies , not in, on, or of the land, but in boardrooms far away.
We are slaves to corn in America and produce 84% of the world's supply. (for much more and more detail of corn, agribusiness and it's grip on us all, read the superbly written "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan.) If this were small farmers, in control of their own destinies and family farms dealing directly with consumers, what a wonderful thing that would be. Unfortunately that's not the way it is. And, while Stossel will never admit the "inconvenient truth", much of this corn production while profitable for the major consolidators and processors, is subsidized and crops insured by.....you guessed it - the US government, as in our taxes.
No other industry sector in America profits as much per capita from public charity as do those who draw farm subsidies. In fact the entire system of price supports for things such as sugar, corn, milk, etc, alone tops $20 billion annually. Added to that, federally funded crop insurance and credit adds another $36 billion annually. To put some perspective in play, that figure is about half of the total amount Medicare paid for drugs in 2016. Of course, all who benefit from Medicare paid into that system, while all of those who paid into Medicare also paid for farm subsidies, etc, but very few were beneficiaries of that largesse.
In summary, Bernie Sanders has never once advocated for government takeover of the means of production of anything. He has decried the growth of monopoly and cartels and the leverage they exert in the political and social sphere in the United States. He has also advocated for a level playing field in one area critical to all Americans - health care. He, and others, have also frequently maintained that government regulation "In the public interest" is appropriate and serves to protect the flock of citizens from the wolves of Wall Street. This point of view in that arena is congruent with the tenets of Theodore Roosevelt, that most non-Republican Republican.
Stossel, meanwhile holding up US agriculture and private land ownership as an icon of private grit, determination and capitalist triumph, has yet again displayed his abysmal ignorance. In the aforementioned op-ed piece he has chosen and glorified as "capitalism personified" the one economic sector in America which is actually the most "Socialist" in concept, that being government funded crop insurance, guaranteed prices for output, and government guaranteed loans based on assumed production. There is no sector in the US more "protected" from failure than US commodity farmers, and by extension, those to whom they are forced to sell their products, while the agribusiness processors and distributors are at the other end of the spectrum, verging on monopoly and market control.
I can appreciate well expressed alternate opinions, whether or not I concur with conclusions, but sheer ignorance such as regularly displayed by John Stossel is a waste of paper and ink.
No other industry sector in America profits as much per capita from public charity as do those who draw farm subsidies. In fact the entire system of price supports for things such as sugar, corn, milk, etc, alone tops $20 billion annually. Added to that, federally funded crop insurance and credit adds another $36 billion annually. To put some perspective in play, that figure is about half of the total amount Medicare paid for drugs in 2016. Of course, all who benefit from Medicare paid into that system, while all of those who paid into Medicare also paid for farm subsidies, etc, but very few were beneficiaries of that largesse.
In summary, Bernie Sanders has never once advocated for government takeover of the means of production of anything. He has decried the growth of monopoly and cartels and the leverage they exert in the political and social sphere in the United States. He has also advocated for a level playing field in one area critical to all Americans - health care. He, and others, have also frequently maintained that government regulation "In the public interest" is appropriate and serves to protect the flock of citizens from the wolves of Wall Street. This point of view in that arena is congruent with the tenets of Theodore Roosevelt, that most non-Republican Republican.
Stossel, meanwhile holding up US agriculture and private land ownership as an icon of private grit, determination and capitalist triumph, has yet again displayed his abysmal ignorance. In the aforementioned op-ed piece he has chosen and glorified as "capitalism personified" the one economic sector in America which is actually the most "Socialist" in concept, that being government funded crop insurance, guaranteed prices for output, and government guaranteed loans based on assumed production. There is no sector in the US more "protected" from failure than US commodity farmers, and by extension, those to whom they are forced to sell their products, while the agribusiness processors and distributors are at the other end of the spectrum, verging on monopoly and market control.
I can appreciate well expressed alternate opinions, whether or not I concur with conclusions, but sheer ignorance such as regularly displayed by John Stossel is a waste of paper and ink.
No comments:
Post a Comment