Is cow's milk less expensive because of the government subsidies?

[teo123]

dismissive of others' arguments when it's convenient for them

I just don't see what is there to respond to in BrimstoneSalad's last post here. It's just ridicule without actual arguments.
A quick Google search about what economists think about agriculture subsidies affecting the food prices leads me either to error pages (suggesting nothing recently has been written about it) or to websites claiming agricultural subsidies have either no effect or increase the food price:

Farm subsidies and crop insurance don’t lower food prices.

Without foreign competitors to bring the price to market levels, consumers pay more for their product than they would in a free market system devoid of subsidies, costing consumers an extra $12 billion annually. 

U.S. farm policies burden American families with higher taxes and higher food prices.

I am quite certain no serious economist would argue that the price of dairy milk is 4 times less than it should be because of the subsidies, as BrimstoneSalad claims.

[Jebus]

Well put, @thebestofenergy.

I personally think @teo123 should be banned. He is a non-vegan on a vegan forum. He has been here for years and is still not a vegan. He rarely discusses vegan issues and is only here to promote his own work and ideas. I would be more forgiving if he presented his posts as opinion pieces. Instead he frames them as questions, although he obviously has no interest in putting any thought to the answers that are given to him.

More importantly, I think his posts have turned off others from becoming active on the forum.

[veganrachel]

Yikes, I am reading this argument back and forth between two humans on this page. First of all, calling
someone stupid, or saying someone is in preschool, or dumb, seems unnecessary. I am not an economist
but I have learned some statistics and read the book mentioned below.
--Conspiracy theorist? that insulting term is used to imply that anything other than the official narrative must be false.
After all, governments never lie to citizens, do they?. Kennedy was of course killed by a lone gunman, and 9/11 was caused by
foreign men (who were incapable of flying a small plane, according to their flight instructor) flew large planes in the middle of
a city, twice, into tall buildings. Yes, Governments regularly and deliberately lie to citizens and unfortunately elected officials
like to pad their own pockets instead of honestly working for citizens who elected them.
I believe that globalists want to reduce the population and one of many ways to do that is by encouraging the consumption of
unhealthy foods, including processed foods, gmo's, and animal flesh and other products. I will not mention covid jabs even though
they are part of a luciferian genocidal agenda.
I do not know where you both live, but I am here in the USA.
--In the 2013 book, Meatonomics, the vegan author states that in the USA, animal agriculture businesses are given over
$38 BIllion dollars in subsidies from taxpayers. The result of these handouts/subsidies is that the cost of flesh, organs,
dairy products, eggs, and seafood will cost consumers only 1/3 of what they should really cost. In other words, consumers
have already PAID animal ag up front for the right to buy cheap products. This in turn
encourages Americans to eat MORE of these animal foods because they appear "inexpensive" and therefore
fruits and vegetables appear 'expensive' in comparison. For instance, in 1920 a chicken took 112 days to raise
to be slaughtered and weighed less than 3 pounds. Today, they raise a chicken in 45-47 days to a slaughter weight
of 7 pounds, and only use less than 1/2 of the feed it took in 1920. Yet todays's chicken costs consumers much less than
it did in the 1920's, dollar for dollar.
--The truth is that it takes more $ for the factory animal farmers to raise an animal than they can sell it for! that is an excuse for
handing animal ag the subsidies.
--Some Americans like me want these ridiculous subsidies, abolished. They are free handouts to animal ag, including to
fast food restaurants who charge very little $ for their whoppers and big mac's, encouraging humans to eat
More of them. If Big mac's cost customers their true price, $13-14 each, they would not buy them!. In addition, the corrupt
government we have should be encouraging higher consumption of fruits and vegetables instead, which are healthy. Only 3 in 10
Americans eat the proper amounts of vegetables and fruits on a daily basis, and Americans live on processed foods
and are getting sicker and sicker. Vegetable and fruit corporations only receive $17 million in support.
Just my 2 cents....

[Red]

Yikes, I am reading this argument back and forth between two humans on this page. First of all, calling
someone stupid, or saying someone is in preschool, or dumb, seems unnecessary.

It can be entirely justified and warranted to do so in a discussion. It might be a bit "rude" or "mean" to do so, but pointing it out in a debate helps observers understand that the person in question may not be a reliable source of information on a given topic.

--Conspiracy theorist? that insulting term is used to imply that anything other than the official narrative must be false.

The larger the scope of something is, the less likely it is to be true. This is also not insulting to point out; If someone makes a claim such as the government is hiding or covering something up, or that the world is controlled by a secret oligarchy, that person is by definition asserting a conspiracy theory, and therefore a conspiracy theorist. It might be reasonable to assume a conspiracy if the amount of people involved is low (in the tens range), but when it comes to things like 9/11 or Flat Earth, that'd be assuming that tens of thousands (probably even more in the case of the latter) are all taking part in a mass cover up, and not a single one has the guilty conscience or bravery to do so. Mathematically, this just isn't possible or reasonable to assume.

After all, governments never lie to citizens, do they?. Kennedy was of course killed by a lone gunman, and 9/11 was caused by
foreign men (who were incapable of flying a small plane, according to their flight instructor) flew large planes in the middle of
a city, twice, into tall buildings.

Oh boy...
I really hope you aren't saying that the CIA or LBJ or Bush Sr. or the Rothschild family were involved in the assassination of JFK. Saying Oswald didn't act alone is one thing (it isn't particularly outrageous to assume, though it's still asserting a conspiracy), but saying his own government killed him or some family of bankers did is both inane and insane.

As far as 9/11 is concerned, read this:
https://www.cracked.com/article_15740_w ... e-job.html

In the case of both JFK and 9/11, you'd be assuming that so many of these people are willing to keep their mouths shut, despite the circumstances.

Yes, Governments regularly and deliberately lie to citizens and unfortunately elected officials like to pad their own pockets instead of honestly working for citizens who elected them.

It's true that politicians lie (though not nearly to the extent that people think), but popular to popular lamentation, most of the time, they make a good on their promises, or at least attempt to (and when they fail, that usually isn't due to just ignoring the promise, sometimes you just can't get things done). In fact, failing on campaign promises is usually bad for political expediency. For instance, with Bush Sr., he promised to not raise taxes, and he did. Do you think he wanted to screw over the people who voted him in like that, or maybe he genuinely felt as though he had no realistic choice in the matter? Or look now with Biden, a lot of the left are saying nothing is getting done under him despite his promises (which he has delivered decently on so far IMO), despite the fact that the Supreme Court is stacked with Republicans, and the Senate barely has a Democratic majority (and let's not forget Manchin).
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/tr ... -promises/

No doubt, some politicians are corrupt and self-serving, but I see no reason to believe that this is the majority.

I believe that globalists want to reduce the population and one of many ways to do that is by encouraging the consumption of
unhealthy foods, including processed foods, gmo's, and animal flesh and other products. I will not mention covid jabs even though
they are part of a luciferian genocidal agenda.

Oh boy, OOOOHHHH BOOOOOY..... I really hope you're just a troll, if not, yeesh.
I can see why you are offended by the term "conspiracy theorist" now... Have you gotten most of your information from the Alex Jones "documentary" called "Endgame," which is loaded with bullshit and should not be taken seriously by anyone (great Megadeth album though)?

Why do you believe the "globalists" are trying to reduce the human population? Do you think they're all vegan/vegetarian and don't eat any processed stuff and aren't vaccinated?
For the record, GMOs and vaccinations are not harmful in anyway. You have been greatly misinformed to say the least.

I do not know where you both live, but I am here in the USA.

Teo hails from the great country of CROATIA, I am from the USA as well. brimstoneSalad whereabouts unknown, presumably Lithuania.

--In the 2013 book, Meatonomics, the vegan author states that in the USA, animal agriculture businesses are given over
$38 BIllion dollars in subsidies from taxpayers. The result of these handouts/subsidies is that the cost of flesh, organs,
dairy products, eggs, and seafood will cost consumers only 1/3 of what they should really cost. In other words, consumers
have already PAID animal ag up front for the right to buy cheap products. This in turn
encourages Americans to eat MORE of these animal foods because they appear "inexpensive" and therefore
fruits and vegetables appear 'expensive' in comparison. For instance, in 1920 a chicken took 112 days to raise
to be slaughtered and weighed less than 3 pounds. Today, they raise a chicken in 45-47 days to a slaughter weight
of 7 pounds, and only use less than 1/2 of the feed it took in 1920. Yet todays's chicken costs consumers much less than
it did in the 1920's, dollar for dollar.

This is true about subsidies, but these are done to win over voter blocks and to support local farms (not that that's necessarily a good thing, mind you). This isn't done as a way of reducing global population. That's WAY out there in the land of insanity.

In addition, the corrupt
government we have should be encouraging higher consumption of fruits and vegetables instead, which are healthy. Only 3 in 10
Americans eat the proper amounts of vegetables and fruits on a daily basis, and Americans live on processed foods
and are getting sicker and sicker. Vegetable and fruit corporations only receive $17 million in support.

When Obama was in office Michelle made a point of trying to reduce obesity and getting people to eat healthier (sadly these measures were undone by Trump).
Many government bodies DO want Americans to eat healthier (it would save us TONS on healthcare), but they don't expect us to, since that would mean WE would have to change, and since we're creatures of habit, that'd be a hard thing to break. It's kind of like how you'll hear recommendations to eat leaner meats instead of fatty meats, not because lean meats are healthful or an important part of a diet, but rather because Americans are far more likely to switch from cheeseburgers to chicken breast than beans and kale.

[FredVegrox]

I agree that personal remarks are unwarranted, and they suggest there is lack of good logic to argue points made, where there should be the focus.

Indeed where I am, I still pay more for the milk that I choose, which is nondairy. At least with buying whole foods for almost all of what I get it balances out to be more affordable, though certainly I wish nondairy milk would not cost that much more.