Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Random Thoughts after King Corn
Something dawned on me while watching the movie that I had truly never considered before -- you see, I had always assumed that farmers backed lobbyists who got subsidies through congress, and the reason they supported subsidies was because they either lacked knowledge about capitalism or assumed (much like Michael Pollan) that the traditional rules of capitalism didn't apply to them. After watching the movie though, I realized these pro-subsidy lobbyists were probably not backed by the farmers, they were backed by the major conglomerates -- because they stood to profit the most from it. If farmers are traduced into what is essentially wage slavery, the profit margins on corn revenue must be going wholesale to the companies which act as merchants for their (the farmers') products. A portion of this net profit, in turn, trickles down from the companies to pay the lobbyists who justify the corporations' exploitation of farmers via the implementation of subsidies. Since paying one or two lobbyists a substantial fee is cheaper than paying every farmer in America a decent one, the corporations are probably saving a lot of money by doing this. Additionally, because the farmers are paid to overproduce, the corporations never lack a supply of raw material. This is the most elegant, thorough and utterly evil scam I have ever really understood. How someone ever thought all this up originally is a complete mystery to me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hey guys, ok so this pertains more to the paper rather than King Corn but im not that computer savy so I didn't know how to post my own thread. Anyway I was being like a middle aged house mom yesterday and watching Oprah and the whole episode was about the conditions that cattle and chickens live in. They were mainly focusing on the consitions for the animals we eat ( along with some others ) but, they were talking a lot about this new law in california called "Proposition 2" which essentially gives the animals better living conditions before they are killed for food. Some farmers are up in arms about this while consumers of chicken and beef like the idea. Im not sure exaclty where to find the episode (maybe youtube?)but if your doing a paper on the living conditions of our "proteins", which is what they called them, then you should def look this episode up. it had all sorts of stats and laws and bills regarding the issue, and testimony from both farmers and consumers. Just thought I'd share a helpful tip! Good luck with the papers everyone!
Well, this doesn't really pertain to my paper, but I think that's realy cool. I'm from California, and haven't heard about prop 2 because it's hard to keep track of politics back home when I'm in Boston. Anyway, I think that's a really cool prop, but I'm curious as to why the farmers opposed it. Did Oprah say anything about that? Maybe because it is less "efficient" and costs more?
Yeah, I actually just voted Yes on Prop 2, because I think its a really great idea.
Basically, it pertains to cows that are killed for veal (that they be able to move around and make a complete circle and move their heads) and for chickens, that they be able to stand up and walk around. There are other aspects to it as well, but I think that the animals would be able to stand up and move around is a huge step in the right direction for animal rights, because if you've ever seen a stock yard, they pile these animals in and they just sit there and get fat and their internal organs just fail so if they weren't killed for food, they'd just die anyway. This prop also has to do with chickens that are used for eggs, which is another good move because now they aren't just production machines but they're being treated as actual living things.
I'm a softy and I love animals so this prop was really important to me, especially in a state as agricultural as California.
Post a Comment