Living with all these uber-liberals in Califorina, I have been forced to read "The Ominovore's Dillemma" which, I hate to say, has probably radicalized me a bit about the American "subsidy" system. The rest of my knowledge is from growing up around farms, and being raised in a family where my grandparents and great grandparents (still living when I was young) were farmers as well (Arkansas and Mississippi). From the intellectual perspective, and from the real world perspective, farming is a political and bankers game as well.
But, from the very old old free market days, I think farming needs to have some political and banking games. It's very easy to have a bunch of farmers producing the same goods, and too much on the market means they can't sell for a profit. Even if you didn't have to factor in Government sheninagins, you still can be unprofitable even when you did everything right (Unless you are able to have a market-wide monopoly type agreement between all individual farmers to tag exactly what the production will be and an agreement on what the target price should be.... which would favor mega-farmers who need razor thin profits). So I don't advocate throwing the baby out with the bath water. You need some human made system to protect you from the vagaries of mother nature, the inability to control how much other individuals produce, and from the machinations of other governments and banking systems. Or at least a human made system to negotiate on your behalf through this minefield.
I see why the system we have in place exists, though from reading Omnivore's Dillemma, I think the old FDR plan was closer to a solution than the new plan is. It all needs work.
Don't know if that's much in line with how you feel about it no-vas. Just my perspective.
