Re: RE: Re: Re: RE: Farm "subsidy" data base

["Ken Hanly" <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Some queries and remarks:
    1) What does 'works' mean. Farm commodities are not sold as free market
commodities since they are subsidized. THe only sense I can see to "works"
here is that consumers pay low prices. But in market theological terms arent
they "artificiallly" low?
    2) Why is the sector involving intellectually protected sector
differentiated? When the protection runs out are the commodities
undifferentiated as the now competing types of glysophate? They are
differentiated only because they are protected not qua product. Related to
this matter
    3) Many commodities not protected by intellectual property rights seem
differentiated. For example there is feed and malting barley and different
varieties of each not counting hybrids. In the case of grains there is
always price differentiation in terms of grade. In
crops such as apples they are surely not sold just as apples but as this or
that type and quality. But perhaps you are using undifferentiated in a
technical way I do not understand.
        4) But political reality makes it impossible to achieve market
functionality over the dead bodies of producers. There is a tradeoff. The
system works  only because market functionality is sacrificed to saving some
who would die if the market were truly functional.
 Isnt this so?
        5) Intellectual property rights backed by state power does not
necessarily bring success. A good example is GM flax. A patent was issued to
a U of Sask prof. who gained nothing except notoriety and a lot of
publicity. GM wheat is more ambiguous but it seems that the wheat will not
come on the market for some time because of consumer concerns. Even the
Canadian WHeat BOard has opposed its release on the market right now. GM
potatoes have been a disaster so far for developers as large purchasers and
processing plants will not touch them, at least in Canada.
    6) Aren't organic commodities differentiated from non-organic even
though there are no intellectual property protections? Or are state
sanctioned requirements to be "organic" such?

Cheers, Ken Hanly



----- Original Message -----
From: "Max Sawicky" <sawicky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 12:15 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:20968] RE: Re: Re: RE: Farm "subsidy" data base


> That's a useful distinction, but I would say it is the
> commodity sector that 'works' as far as markets
> go, and the other one that doesn't.  The stability
> of the intellectual-prop sector preserves its
> inefficiency and unfairness.  Market functionality
> travels over the dead bodies of failed suppliers.
> -- mbs
>
>
> Gene, I have been pushing the idea that the economy breaks into two
> different sectors.  1 consists of the undifferentiated commodities, and
> the other, those sectors protected by intellectual property rights.  The
> former will remain in trouble while the latter will prosper as long as it
> is backed by state power.  But then, you will have to wait until my book
> comes out in a few months ....
>
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 09:47:31AM -0800, Eugene Coyle wrote:
> > My argument is that selling an undifferentiated commodity on the market
> > -- like many farm commodities -- actually results in prices that only
> > cover marginal costs, not average costs.  The difference has to be made
> > up somehow.  That is what I see as the idea behind farm subsidies.
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>