re: farsightedness of farmers
Topics: Resources
20 Sep 1993
From: ervan
My summary of the debate so far:
H: It would be better in the long run if farmers let their croplands flood.
They don't do it because they (and capitalism) are too short sighted.
E: Nonsense. Capitalists are just as worried about future profits as
current profits.
H: But they are losing topsoil to erosion which is not sustainable and
therefore, by example, they are not interested in the long run.
E: Simply false (references previously provided).
H: Okay, so they are using pesticides which have external costs.
E: True but irrelevant. It shows only that pollution is a problem,
not that farmers are shortsigted about preserving their land.
(details follow).
> [ you said eroded topsoil is not lost. ]
I meant that it doesn't just disappear from farm land.
Wind erosion (which you originally mentioned) causes tiny
*net* losses. Water erosion causes more, but even this amount
is readily replinished.
> [ 200 years of monoculture has caused irretrievable soil loss ]
For the 2nd time, it's not irretrievable. It's very readily
restorable. This is done all of the time.
*Even if* it were being depleted, that doesn't prove your case. How
long into the future should we try to maintain Cadmium reserves? I
don't know. Neither do you. If there is ready substitute available, we
can use it up sooner. If it is something critical that we cannot
replace, we use it a slower rate. Soil is no different. If we
have an essential need for 50% of our current topsoil, it doesn't
matter that we expend the rest. Okay it matters, but it matters
only to the extent that it is profitable to keep it. What is
the most urgent need in the economy? Your proposals utterly
fail to acknowledge a trade-off. Let's say that topsoil depleting
farming yields another $1000/acre for 20 years. At the end of
that 20 years there is still enough non-depleted topsoil to feed
everyone, just not quite as cheaply. But, in the meantime that
$1000/acre went to some very good causes, like education that
otherwise would not have been affordable, or new hospitals, or
new housing. All of these are legitimate goals. You cannot
have all of them at once. Something has to give. The market
is as efficient a mechanism as exists to allocate resources
between all of these different goals.
I'll ask again, should we ban mining? I submit that capitalism
is more efficient than statism at preserving precious resources.
The ex-USSR bragged about its iron production, most of which
went unused, a vast portion of which sits (okay, I don't know
what Russia has done with it) in rail cars rusting because
they cannot keep the trains running, they cannot keep the
tracks repaired, and they don't actually have anything to use
all of the iron for. This is government direction of the economy
in action, being not only ineffecient but terribly wasteful of
natural resources. Capitalism on the other hand, hoards these
resources and owners charge as much as they can get. This
discourages profligate use. If owners were over-exploiting
mineral resources, speculators could buy them on the futures
market, thus raising the price, lowering their consumption,
and securing a handsome profit for themselves. If owners
charge too much, they cannot realize maximum profit.
>
> Monoculture and pesticide:
I agree that improper use of pesticides creates pollution.
I've already agreed that some controls are appropriate for
pollution (though definitely not the kind you have in mind!)
since it is a negative externality. This has nothing to
do with question of farsightedness of farmers and flooding.
You used the same tactic in reference to building more fuel
efficient cars. Dealing with pollution is a distinct question
from whether or not capitalists invest wisely and look to
the long term. We could, for instance, tax pesticides to
the point that their use was curtailed to an appropriate level.
An individual farmer could then use them or not as best made
sense in his case. Regardless, he would still be making the
best use of resources he could.
> [ we are not forced to use pesticides ]
We're not forced to use oil either, but it would be damned
painful to get rid of it. How much do you think it would
cost to get rid of pesticides? How much would we save?
You argument is simply that it would save something. That's
not compelling.
> [ The community, and not the farmer, should decide how
> much pesticide to use
> because it will take a long time to know its effects. ]
If nobody knows until the future, well, nobody knows until
the future, government or private citizens. So that part
of the argument is irrelevant. If the government can assess
damages (current or certain to occur in the future), so can
private individuals.
If you dump carcinogens on my property, you'll be in court tomorrow.
I'll start with a restraining order and proceed with civil action. A
capitalist notion of property rights is exactly the right thing. You
should have listened to the conversation Steph and I had. She is
surveying a plant that Conoco (I think that's her company) is going to
buy to make sure all of their grounds and dumps are free of truly
nasty toxins because Conoco does not want to get sued after buying the
property. The question is merely a technical one of who is affected so
that the farmer in question can pay appropriate amounts (a priori
hopefully). For those instances, where damage is very widespread
(e.g. atmospheric sulfur), it is reasonable for the government to sell
pollution points instead of forcing individual arrangements to be
made, i.e. prior restraint is tolerable for extreme cases.
Again, you have set reality on its head. The government is one of
the most heinous polluters of all (witness several tons of hot
radioctive debris setting on Utah railroad tracks for several years)
because it refuses to let itself be sued for its errors. Eastern
Europe was another fine example of government control of pollution.
> [ Food could still be grown without pesticides, herbicides, and
> monoculture, albeit less effectively.]
Yes, and is the farmer in a better position to calculate that
value or the government? You can't seriously believe the
government does a better job of managing soil for productivity.
> [ The government now keeps prices artificially high and generates
> surpluses. ]
Seems dumb to me too. This is the same government you would trust to
manage flooding or erosion? Not me! Actually, government crop
subsidies are responsible for some of the erosion because they
encourage higher yields than are economically reasonable.
Furthermore, since the subsidy may go away in the future, farmers are
encouraged to sacrifice soil now to get higher yields while the price
is too high. I made this point with respect to Detroit being short
sighted due to changing regulation too.
> [ higher corn prices will not lower consumption. ]
They would lower corn consumption.
Back to the main point, farsightedness (as opposed to pesticide
pollution): Do you think capitalist farmers are not interested in long
term profits? If they are, do you think that they can maintain long
term profits by depleting their soil? Do you have references to show
that significant depletion is actually occurring? Farmers are
farsighted. They are making profits by providing lots of cheap food,
just what the market wants. They are not depleting the soil, except
in minor ways and that induced largely by government foolishness.
If you reply, please address the main thread first.
Home