Usda

Dumped Cherries a Reminder of Awfulness of USDA Marketing Orders

Hurting farmers and consumers. Squeezing out competitors. Forcing production abroad. Causing food waste. What's not to love?

|

Dumped cherries
Santucci Farm

Two years ago, I wrote about an ongoing lawsuit that's pitted a Michigan cherry farmer against a "stupid" USDA-supervised industry group known as the Cherry Industry Administrative Board (CIAB). Somehow, that 2011 lawsuit is still making its way through the courts.

But the cherry board is back in the news this month, after Michigan cherry farmer Marc Santucci posted a photo of a sea of cherries he's been forced to dump to comply with the tart cherry marketing order, a program of the USDA's CIAB.

The viral image outraged those who saw it.

Santucci, a Traverse City, Mich. farmer, says he posted the photo on Facebook "because I want people to know that we sometimes do stupid things in this country in [an] attempt to do the right thing—we end up doing the wrong thing."

The cherry board is, categorically, the wrong thing.

The CIAB declares it "was created to assist the industry in dealing with the erratic production cycle of red tart cherries and to improve returns to the growers and processors of red tart cherries in the United States." Its "primary goal is to establish orderly marketing conditions by alleviating supply/demand imbalances," reads a 1985 report issued by the GAO.

In service of this goal, the board oversees all cherry handling in at least seven states. It sets annual quotas for tart cherries, establishing the portion of each year's cherries that may reach the marketplace.

A marketing order—and cherries represent just one of many enforced by the USDA—is just that: an order. "A marketing order, with or without handler approval, is binding on all handlers in the industry," reads a 1975 USDA report on marketing orders. Compliance is not optional.

"One key purpose of these marketing orders is to restrict the supply of a designated agricultural product in order to make that product more expensive," I describe in my forthcoming book, Biting the Hands that Feed Us (pre-order it now!). "Supporters claim this rewards producers and marketers by guaranteeing income, promoting the agricultural products to potential consumers, and fostering order in the marketplace."

Maybe that sounds nice. But marketing orders have been a source of controversy since Congress first created them in the late 1930s. Take the 1985 GAO report, which refers to marketing orders as a "controversial program," and which concluded that marketing orders "have the potential to restrict new farmers from entering the marketplace" and to create food waste.

"Critics often oppose [marketing orders] on the grounds that economic efficiency is enhanced when commodity prices and the total supply of products reaching the marketplace are determined in competitive markets," the GAO report also details. "They assert that consumer interests are undermined by policies that artificially and excessively raise food prices higher than free market conditions would allow."

These are just some of the issues created by marketing orders.

Santucci notes one perverse effect of the cherry rules is that by artificially depressing the domestic cherry supply, the rules simply increase demand for (and, consequently, the supply of) foreign-grown cherries on the U.S. market.

In addition to wasting harvested cherries, the marketing order has been responsible in recent years for causing farmers to abandon their crops to rot instead of harvesting them. Notably, that was also an issue in the early 1980s, according to the GAO report, which cited another federal report that referred to the tart cherry marketing order as a "regulation that induces growers to abandon part of their crop in the field."

Such government-mandated waste is an outrage. Worse still, the excess cherries, Santucci notes, can't be given away or donated.

If the cherry marketing order sounds counterproductive at best, its supporters would disagree.

"It was created at the industry's behest," said Perry Hedin, head of the cherry board. "It was voted in by growers and processors. It's not an imposition from outside."

This inside imposition, coupled with the ongoing 2011 lawsuit against the cherry board, calls to mind a recent Supreme Court case, filed by raisin handler Marvin Horne, that centered on the USDA's marketing order for raisins. I saw the case's two Supreme Court arguments live, wrote about the case extensively, wrote and filed an amicus brief in support of Horne, appeared on MSNBC to discuss the case, and devote several pages of my book to the case's dénouement.

The rules in Horne are similar to those pertaining to cherries. But the Horne case involved a physical taking (of money or raisins) by the USDA. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's ruling in Horne suggests that marketing orders that set quotas, like those set by the cherry board, are likely to survive any challenge.

That means the Horne case is unlikely to be the final nail in the coffin for USDA marketing orders. Sooner or later, though, these rules must—and will—fall.

NEXT: Court strikes down taking that is "a manifest abuse of the eminent domain power"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Congratulations on joining the cohort of H&R writers hawking their books at every opportunity! 😉

      1. Could you post that link again, please? It went by too quickly the first time.

        1. my friend’s mother makes $86 hourly on the computer . She has been unemployed for five months but last month her pay was $16964 just working on the computer for a few hours. why not try here ?????? Telltheinternet.com

      2. I have a question: is Mr. Stanucci barred from internally processing, canning/bottling, and warehousing “excess” harvest on his concern’s own premises for future use? Could they be exported abroad, or do the domestic rules of the board cap foreign exports as well?

        1. During the ‘new deal’ my grandparents were forced to destroy some of their crops by ‘top men’. They hated FDR till the day they died.

        2. That you have to ask shows the absurdity of the regulatory state.

            1. Some say that food irradiation is a good idea, and I agree, but…

              Total, complete and over-whelming irradiation of USDA and of FDA officials would be a ***MUCH*** better idea!

          1. I am just gonna leave this here with no further comment, since the squirrels ate my last one.

            1. Apparently it takes at least 100 kg/220 lbs of cherries to give you around 3 gallons (15 bottles) of 100 proof or close to 4 gallons (19 bottles?) of 80 proof cherry brandy. Before factoring in other production losses. So the economics ordinarily would not seem too good, except in the rare cicumstances like this where there was a surplus that could be picked up at the right price. It seems the world is always full of good opportunities like this the observant and nimble entrepreneur.

        3. Maybe they can let me know where they’re dumping them and I can liberate some of the dumped cherries and turn them into homemade canned cherries, jam, pie filling, wine, melomel?

    1. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $4800 for a week, pretty cool. working from home saves money in several ways.I love this. I’ve recently started taking the steps to build my freelance Job career so that I can work from home. here is i started.. Go this website more info work… http://bit.do/oMaVAv

  2. The real reason for these orders is FYTW.

    1. The real reason for these orders is money and greed.

      1. … oh, and corruption; can’t have these orders without government corruption.

        1. There are three chief reasons for these orders, money, greed, corruption, and graft. FOUR! Four chief reasons…

          1. Please do not become exasperated.

            The market is where it’s at. This article spells it out. Don’t get all sentimental on us.

            Who cares if the seller is greedy, money-hungry; we can always not buy or find another product. But if we want the product, we must pay the negotiated price, not turn to GOV for a break over our fellow man.

            I know its a pain, but adding GOV corruption and graft is correct when commenting on this situation.

            Peace.

            1. Bingo, in time it would fix itself but people seem to believe immediate intervention by a higher power is needed. They never learn, they never go away.

          2. Don’t forget demonstrating government authority.

  3. If Santucci tried to sell those cherries, the USDA would come in, guns blazing.

    And yet people don’t want to believe that ultimately all laws are predicated on the use of phyiscal force to enforce them.

  4. “It was created at the industry’s behest,” said Perry Hedin, head of the cherry board. “It was voted in by growers and processors. It’s not an imposition from outside.”

    They thought they were putting up a barrier to potential new entrants. Just like licensing laws.

    1. It’s a stupid argument that pretends everyone in an industry has shared interests and can speak with one another.

      1. The other producers in my industry are known within my company as “the competition.” I can’t imagine if our industry were governed by some board that forced me to comply with rules that were proposed by, and favorable to, my competition.

      2. If companies do this without government intervention, it’s illegal — price-fixing cartels, conspiracy. But when government does it, it’s magically wonderful.

    2. Yeah, no shit. This just in — incumbents in almost any industry like monopoly cartels.. If the industry tried to pull any of this BS without the official approval of government, all those involved would be prosecuted for felony price-fixing under the anti-trust act.

      1. If your prices are too high, that’s illegal price-gouging. If your prices are too low, that’s illegal dumping. If your prices are the same, that’s illegal price-fixing and collusion.

        1. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, p 436
          “Did you really think that we want all those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris [the government representative]. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against ? then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power & we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, & you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule INNOCENT men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, where there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted ? & then you create a nation of law-breakers ? you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden [the industrialist], that’s the game, & once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.

    3. I don’t see where growers and processors get to vote away other growers or processors rights and freedoms. If they want to set limits on themselves,fine. They should not get to do it for others,though,and have FEDGOV enforce it with their jackboots.
      Armed FEDGOV Agencies;
      FBI
      US Marshals
      ATF
      Secret Service

      IRS
      DHS
      National Park Service
      Postal Inspection Service
      Department of Health and Human Services
      Agriculture
      Labor
      Veterans Affairs
      Bureau of Land Management and Indian Affairs
      Environmental Protection Agency
      Fish and Wildlife Service
      Small Business Administration
      Railroad Retirement Board
      Food and Drug Administration
      Dept. Of Education
      Soc.Security Admin.
      NOAA

      –this may not be a complete list.– (yikes!)

      Most of those FEDGOV agencies should be using US Marshals,not having their own in-house armed “LE” squads. But they DO have them,so that they can keep their abuses “in-house” (confidential),and not have legit law enforcement refuse their extralegal armed assaults and seizures.

    4. So now industrys can create laws to protect themselves fro free trade?

  5. Nobody needs 23 kinds of cherries, anyway.

    1. I apologize if there are any multiple posts, but the server seems to be acting up.

    2. Then write in Bernie’s name in November…
      He’ll support your position.

    3. Psst, don’t mention that you need different cultivars of cherry for cross pollination…

  6. I look forward to getting as many plaudits as Fist.

    1. Nobody needs 23 kinds of plaudits.

      1. Fist doesn’t, but I do.

        1. Are you saying that FoE == Bernie?!?

  7. Maybe that sounds nice. But marketing orders have been a source of controversy since Congress first created them in the late 1930s.

    Didn’t FDR’s minions use the original marketing orders to punish those farmers who opposed Roosevelt’s policies?

    1. Racist !!11! Roosevelt only had everyone’s best interest at heart !

    2. Are you sure it was Roosevelt and not Hoover?

  8. Sooner or later, though, these rules must?and will?fall.

    Your cheerful optimism is kinda cute.

    It will only get worse. I doubt you could find 50 members of the House of Representatives or 20 Senators with the balls to tell industry rent-seekers to go to hell.

    1. What they need is an Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog Rule.

  9. You’re Eddie territory now Ted…

    1. That’s not a plaudit.

      And at least I’m posting stuff relevant to the article, not cat videos. Or whining about how everybody is coming to get the Catholics. 😉

      1. Ted, you were asking earlier for a link to Baylen’s book, so here it is. You can pre-order it now!

        1. You copied that straight from Baylen’s reply, didn’t you?

          (Assuming that’s actually Baylen.)

  10. The whole idea of a cartel is to beat the boom/bust cycle inherent in agricultural production. You set a median price and in the boom years you bank the extra money and then distribute it during the bust years. It evens things out so producers don’t tank during the bad years. The cartel should be composed entirely of private producers and everyone belonging to it should have a say.

    Letting government get its hands on it is a recipe for disaster. They instead try to even out production by destroying the extra crops during boom years. Genius. I wonder how many of the faceless bureaucrats on the cherry board have ever grown cherries. Or grown anything at all.

    1. Oh they’ve grown plenty – of government jobs and bureaus. Sewn in the fertile ground of human ingenuity and watered with the blood of powerless individuals.

      I’d make it more poetic like Agile Cyborg, but I don’t …. do whatever Agile does….

      1. Nobody…. “does” exactly what AC does.

    2. The nice thing about a private cartel is that, if you feel like you’re getting screwed over, you can leave the cartel.

    3. “The whole idea of a cartel is to beat the boom/bust cycle inherent in agricultural production. You set a median price and in the boom years you bank the extra money and then distribute it during the bust years.”

      Yeah, that’s the pretext. But the idea that we need a government-mandated cartel in order to address this ‘problem’ is ridiculous. Private companies are perfectly capable of storing excess production in bumper crop years and selling those reserves during lean years — provided the crop can be stored, which is true of tart cherries can be (being used as dried fruit and in jellies, preserves and pie filling).

  11. Two years ago, I wrote about an ongoing lawsuit that’s pitted a Michigan cherry farmer against a “stupid” USDA-supervised industry group known as the Cherry Industry Administrative Board (CIAB).

    I see what you did there. This board angers me to my core, and sickens the pit of my stomach.

    1. At least I read down to see if someone else posted that first…

      1. I can’t even believe I was the first sour soul to pop this cherry.

    2. This has got to stop. All our commentariat problems stem from runaway puns.

      1. Puns are the lowest form of humor. It’s the path of least resistance and is akin to going on welfare. Lazy commentariat.

        1. Says “Chipper Morning Wood” without a hint of self-awareness.

        2. Nobody needs 23 kinds of humor…

  12. Dumped Cherries a Reminder of Awfulness of USDA Marketing Orders

    FIFY

  13. OT: Libertarian moment in my town

    Happening on the same day? Blue Lives Matter prayer rally

    Down here, in a quite red town in a very red state, I have a pretty decent sense of which event will be better attended.

    1. I guess we know where you live. If you’re not careful, Tulpa is going to stalk up.

      1. I don’t fear any reprisals from Tulpa. He and I never had any run-ins. Of course, that’s because I’m Tulpa, and so are you.

        “The greatest trick Tulpa ever pulled…was convincing the commentariat that he didn’t exist.”

        1. [Scans article and comments text after Lesser Evil limps away, drops coffee cup]

          1. I lol’d.

    2. Dammit. I was envisioning some sort of Blue Man Group event until I clicked that link.

      1. Tobias Funke is sure to be in attendance. Scan all the blue surfaces carefully.

      1. We’re not so bad at the euphemism game.

    3. Small world.

      I was born in Detar Hospital.

      My grandfather and another man founded Temple Baptist Church in a tent on what is now Laurent Street but was not even in town then.

  14. It’s funny that issues that are politicized never get solved and humanity repeatedly encounters the same problems, sometimes for millennia, whereas other problems get solved easily and no one gives them a further thought (at least until government fucks them up again).

    I remember that a few of you have read Bernard Cornwell’s Last Kingdom series. I find a TV adaptation on Netflix the other day, it ain’t bad.

    1. The books are a lot of fun. I watched the first episode, and it’s pretty fun, but I haven’t yet been able to get over the fact that grown-up Uhtred looks like he just got busted for cooking meth in his trailer.

  15. Didn’t we go through this a year ago with a raisin marketing order that the US Supreme Court struck down 8-1 as a taking? Can’t a similar argument be made here?

    1. As you can tell from the example huge crate of dumped pristine cherries, there was no taking.

      1. being forced to dump them or FEDGOV takes them IS a “taking”. They took the value of those cherries when they ordered them dumped.

    2. Did you read the article? 😉

      1. Give me a break, I didn’t have my morning coffee yet.

        1. And I broke my favorite mug.

    3. See the last three paragraphs of the article.

      1. Yep, it certainly helps to read the whole thing…

        OTOH, there is a line of cases involving real property that holds that when government regulation reduces the value of property to zero, the regulation becomes a taking. Could that argument be extended to cases where the value of the grower’s property is reduced to zero? A stretch perhaps.

    4. It seems so Number 2. Some of our resident lawyers should weigh in on what comprises a taking. It shouldn’t have to mean only a direct physical confiscation of property by government agents. An action by the government that causes financial damage? One that removes your property rights? Otherwise using eminent domain to transfer property from one private owner to another would not be a taking.

      I would think so.

      1. Lawyers can will only tell you what the government ‘says’ is a taking. Which,is what ever the government tells you it is. It has nothing to do with the constitution or the reality that this would be illegal in any other industry.

      2. One doesn’t have property rights. One only has a usufruct from the King’s Men.

    5. It is ,the court’s wrong on this. If you make any other product,shoes,shirts,cars,ect. and the government told you you can not sell what you produced with your own money due to having ‘too much product’ in the market ,that would be a taking. crops are no different. USDA,,fuck you and die.

  16. The CIAB declares it “was created to assist the industry in dealing with the erratic production cycle of red tart cherries and to improve returns to the growers and processors of red tart cherries in the United States.” Its “primary goal is to establish orderly marketing conditions by alleviating supply/demand imbalances,” reads a 1985 report issued by the GAO.

    It’s an illegal cartel, unless you pay off enough enough legislators to make it legal.

    1. Farehneit 451 goes on around us every fucking day. I guess it’s blase when it’s the Dystopia you know.

      1. I finally figured out what that title means. It’s the temperature at which a Kindle melts.

        1. The temp at which the Constitution burns.

          1. The temp at which the crabs on my cherries disappear.

  17. Sooner or later, though, these rules must?and will?fall.

    Or the rule will become worse. The glass is always half-empty.

    1. What about libertarian moment don’t you understand?

    2. They haven’t even tried mandatory minimum sentances yet much less pograms.

    3. I once looked at the history of legislation regarding banks and home loans. The problems were identified right off of the bat then legislation was passed to make them worse. Then more to make it worser and worser and worser until we had the inevitable crash.

      You are right Crusty, they will just make it worse.

  18. 1975 usda report. Those 70’s price controls still kicking us in the ass. Nothing harder to kill than a government program.

    1. You know what else was hard to kill?

  19. “It was created at the industry’s behest,” said Perry Hedin, head of the cherry board. “It was voted in by growers and processors. It’s not an imposition from outside.”

    Sort of like Hitler was elected at the behest of all Germans, including Jewish Germans! It was not an imposition from the outside! If the majority wants it, it must be A-OK! /sarc

  20. This is what happens when you vote for Democrats or Republicans.

    1. It’s why we can’t have nice things.

  21. …. an ongoing lawsuit that’s pitted a Michigan cherry farmer against….

    the government wants to take cherries? I’ve seen how this plays out.

  22. 51 comments on a story about cherries and no link to that Bobbi Brown video? I am disappoint.

      1. The Cdr is Cruel to Be Kind. It means that he loves you.

        1. I appreciate any link to music. Left to my own devices I’d be listening to Air Supply.

          1. Left to my own devices I’d be listening to Air Supply.

            (crawls around on floor, looking for jaw)

            Dont do that. try this.

          2. Or here, since the Olympics are in Brazil, get some cacha?a and sunglasses and walk around the house listening to this in short-shorts

            1. I like the Tim Maia stuff. HM would appreciate the the silly Japanese fairy tale soundtracks I listen to. You xenophobes, not so sure about.

              1. Everything that highly-produced sounds like a over-long TV-commercial to me.

                1. Nailed it. That’s exactly what it is. I still got “We got short shorts” on my IPhone.

          3. It’s no worse than death metal.

          4. If you would like to listen to something created this decade, there is always this.

            1. If Amy Winehouse were born in Tennessee?

              1. Ok. I listened to the rest. That’s excellent.

            2. something created this decade

              …but trying to sound 40 years older…

              I like it.

              A lot of the ‘newer’ stuff i like is wacky dj stuff. This was Tommy Guerrero* + Money Mark’s project from like 7 years ago and the whole album is very good.

              *yes, this guy.

              1. but trying to sound 40 years older

                Exactly. It is not groundbreaking, but I approve of the trend. It also means “lots of instruments” which is another good trend. The Alabama Shakes are having a lot of success by doing something similar.

              2. I really like that first link. It sounds like George Clooney and his gang engaged in a more realistic and sophisticated heist.

  23. So many tart cherries, so much potential cherry cider. **drunkenly sighs, falls off chair**

    1. SCOTT STERLING!

      But seriously, I’m proud to be an American today. If America doesn’t rank first in the air rifle competition, what’s the point of this country?

    2. “Thrasher learned to love shooting while hunting deer with her grandfather when she was in eighth grade.”

      That’s why we need common sense gun control. Children hunting!!

  24. The fact that we deliberately cause – under threat of government force – massive amounts of food to rot on the ground (on top of all the other “programs” that make food more expensive merely to enrich the well-connected) should be shoved in the face of every “food desert” and “hunger” activist in America.

    1. But you’re a racist. If you don’t oppose Walmart opening up a chain in some town because it pressures out local suppliers and thereby creates a food desert, you’re racist.

    2. Ditto with the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy.

      The CAP also impoverishes third world farmers by trying to make their goods prohibitively expensive.

    3. That scene is Sea Biscuit where FDR plows crops into dirt was one of the most moving scenes in cinematic histroy.

  25. Do all the ads I see talking about wasted food and how ‘we’ need to cut down on it take the USDA policies into account? Is it just waste when I,you,we do it?

  26. We had to destroy them – they were the promised reward for jihadi suicide bombers in Syria and Libya. If you know anything about Muslim theology you’d understand why this is necessary.

  27. The thing I find hardest to believe is that a system that prevents the cherries being donated has stood for this long. Congress critters may hate voting against rent seekers, but they hate being caught voting against the poor even more.

    1. The people who benefit from these arrangements are very good at keeping the rest of us unaware of what’s going on.

      1. But then you find out and realize you can’t do anything about it.

        But one can come here and have their optimism refilled….

        1. And those that supported the policies when they benefited from the Agencies/Boards enforcing the policies might no longer support those policies and therefore can’t do anything about it. Not saying thats the case with this guy but…

    2. I don’t see how the bureaucrats would be able to police it if the farmer happened to stop by a homeless shelter and unloaded several bushels of cherries and asked that the donation be kept anonymous.

      1. They have moles everywhere. And not just the kind that feast on rotting cherries.

  28. Life is just a supply/demand imbalance of cherries.

  29. Never gets old!

    “Clinton acknowledges trust issues, blames them on GOP”
    […]
    “Clinton has claimed she never sent or received anything marked classified. In reviewing the FBI’s investigation, Comey said seven e-mail chains dealt with matters that were “that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/pol…..125161.php

    Darn GOPers *made* her lie! But once she holds the magic scepter, they won’t be able to do it again!

    1. Ireland’s economy grew 26% in 2015. They have the lowest corporate tax rate in the world and companies are flocking there in droves.

      Our economy is barely breathing. Our tax rate is 35%.

      I imagine there is a large crossover between the people who don’t see that connection and people who are going to vote Cankles. She wants to raise our tax rate and raise taxes on everyone. Trump wants to lower the corporate tax rate to 15% and lower taxes on all tax payers.

      Hillary wins: The economy that Obumbles has been kicking the shit out of for 8 years tanks.

      Trump wins: The economy takes off like a rocket.

      It really is a no-brainer.

      1. Not sure re: your prediction, but have you heard about those horrible korparashuns that are keeping their money in Ireland? They should be paying that to uncle sugar, just ’cause.

      2. Trump wants to lower the corporate tax rate to 15% and lower taxes on all tax payers.

        That’s nice… should put a small dent in the damage done by the protectionism he also wants.

        1. Nice try shreek.

          1. What, telling the truth?

            I take it you think he’s going to cut spending, too… or are you cool with running even higher deficits.

      3. It’s not even fair to say our rate is 35%, at least when using it as a measuring stick against other countries. You have to set up shop in a state, and our states extract another 0%-12%. Most other countries don’t have state/regional taxes. And even the 0% isn’t accurate since it’s only South Dakota and Wyoming. Otherwise it’s a minimum of 4%. So our corporate tax rates are really between 39% and 47%. That’s so insane it defies belief.

        I don’t know why any corp shows a profit; best to allocate to R&D or salaries, and let value accrue to investors thru the stock price. Amazon has been wise to that game for almost its entire existence.

  30. This is why the argument that “Facebook/Google/Twitter is a private company so they can censor content as much as they please” doesn’t hold water: News sites depend on Facebook and Google to refer 80% of their traffic.

    The distinction isn’t between private and public but between noncompetitive and competitive. At this point the market for social media, search, and mass messaging are not competitive. These three social media trusts need to be busted post haste.

    1. Sarc?
      I hope so…

      1. It’s shreek. Wait a bit and his allotted time on the computer at the rehab center will be over.

    2. The distinction isn’t between private and public but between noncompetitive and competitive.

      That’s an interesting point.

      who decides the right level of competitiveness though; and in what aspects of the business?
      and when does effective-monopoly reveal its negative-impact?

      for instance – ebay is an effective monopoly. but it ‘works’ because it actually does nothing more than set up its own transparent marketplace itself; it just sets rules and fees and lets the content/transactions determine itself.

      Google’s near-monopoly on search doesn’t have negative impacts for consumers AFAIK (though i think others have suggested that there are a range of complications from the vendor side which create unfair preferences/advantages)

      is it just the ‘news delivery’ aspect which the Soc.media sites need to keep their hands off? Meaning, why would you need to break up these companies just because of their current practices of privileging certain media?

      is it possible to create a flatter media playing-field simply by telling ‘media portals’ they can’t play editor? (or must give users total control/transparency over their own filters/preferences)

      1. is it possible to create a flatter media playing-field simply by telling ‘media portals’ they can’t play editor? (or must give users total control/transparency over their own filters/preferences)

        This is actually a very good idea. I am worried about loopholes though in the definitions of “playing editor” and “total control”.

        Breaking them up when they get too big would solve most of the problems… there are no loopholes to find in a competitive marketplace.

        1. So it wasn’t sarc?
          Slaver alert!

          1. is “anti-trust law” something that all libertarians are supposed to throw down the gauntlet on, but NOT “freedom of association”?

            i think that’s a little weird.

            as a libertarian i generally want zero govt interference in the marketplace. in the above case, what’s actually being discussed is “how to minimize it” while acknowledging that it will probably get involved at some point.

            just saying. trying to moderate the negative influence of govt economic intervention is not the same as endorsing it.

            ‘Opposition to its very existence’ is nice as a ideological posture, but doesn’t actually provide anyone in the business of business with any decent argument to keep the man off their backs.

            e.g. People like the EFF, who’s mandate is to try and limit govt messing with “regulating the cyber-world”, dont’ just fold their arms and huff and yell, “Slaver” when legislation starts getting proposed.

            1. “is “anti-trust law” something that all libertarians are supposed to throw down the gauntlet on, but NOT “freedom of association”?”

              WIH is that supposed to mean?
              Let me quote from the slaver’s comment:
              “These three social media trusts need to be busted post haste.”
              Who decides what constitutes a “trust” and who does the busting? If that’s somehow related to “freedom of association”, I’m damned if I see it.

              1. Who decides what constitutes a “trust”

                > 60% of market share would be a good rule of thumb.

                who does the busting

                The same who does the punishing of rape and murder.

                If that’s somehow related to “freedom of association”, I’m damned if I see it.

                Ask Milo about Twitter helping with freedom of association.

                1. “Who decides what constitutes a “trust”
                  > 60% of market share would be a good rule of thumb.”

                  So we’re to rely on slavers to pull numbers out of their asses?

                  “who does the busting
                  The same who does the punishing of rape and murder.”
                  Yes, because me denying you the use of my property is exactly like rape or murder.

                  “If that’s somehow related to “freedom of association”, I’m damned if I see it.
                  Ask Milo about Twitter helping with freedom of association.”
                  Yeah, you’ll fix that. You’ll let the government decide who and what is news. I think you might call the result Pravda. Has a nice ring to it don’t you think?

                  1. So we’re to rely on slavers to pull numbers out of their asses?

                    Sometimes you have to. How else would we get the ages separating those who can legally consent to various activities from those who can’t? How do we get tax rates?

                    Ignoring the problem because the solution might have to involve an arbitrary number is silly.

                    1. Bipox|8.6.16 @ 12:34PM|#
                      “Ignoring the problem because the solution might have to involve an arbitrary number is silly.”

                      Inventing a problem which requires coercion to solve is evil.

              2. Who decides what constitutes a “trust” and who does the busting?

                Isn’t that what i asked in my first reply?

                My point was simply that yelling “slaver” isn’t an argument.

                the connection to ‘free association’ was that recently people seem to have ‘nuanced opinions’ about that stuff – as thought compromise is inevitable (see Hugh, et al)… and that there’s “nothing we can do” about public-accommodation laws…etc.

                Whereas business-regulation – stuff which is by-definition highly malleable – gets a huffy foot-stamp and insistence that it can’t even be discussed, because “slaver”.

            2. Govt won’t act against FB so long as it is advancing the government’s interests. As it is now and is likely to for the foreseeable future, given that its management and the likely wielders of power are very closely aligned in ideology and interests.

              Antitrust is one of those areas where you have to put aside the libertarian dogma for a second and think about things pragmatically. At its heart libertarianism is ultimately about the blessings of choice. Market power destroys that.

              The dogmatists try to wish away the conflict by saying market power can never exist without govt intervention, but FB, Google, Twitter, Amazon prove that’s bull. Some industries naturally lend themselves to consolidation, especially in a world of lightspeed communication and a point of sale in every consumer’s home.

              1. “Antitrust is one of those areas where you have to put aside the libertarian dogma for a second and think about things pragmatically.”

                I’m sure you have several examples of where anti-trust laws really helped, right?
                Every slaver’s cause is the ‘one special time where the government should step in and fix things’. Every slaver is full of it.

                1. You already brought up one of the big ones, the Bell breakup.

                  Free agency in sports.

                  The action against MS had some good effects as well.

                  1. Claims absent evidence.

                  2. Ya know, slaver, I keep checking back, presuming you’re going to post some lame cites to support your claims, and here it is, what, nearly 12 hours later and bupkis.
                    So you admit to lying?

        2. Breaking them up when they get too big would solve most of the problems…

          I doubt that.

          Because as noted – the role they play as a media-gatekeeper is really only a small byproduct of their other services. You’re basically demanding to “crush a Cadillac in order to remove the ashtray”

          i think simpler rules about transparency/control would ‘solve’ things in terms of reducing Social-Media’s ability to play gatekeeper. it would also open up avenues for competition *on those specific features*.

        3. Break them up and let all of the smaller parts be run by the people who already cant compete and in no time the guys running the dominant company now will have their small part grown back to original size.

          Having the government mandate that they stop doing the things that presently make them successful will guarantee a precipitous drop in quality, but then that is what you are after, isnt it?

          1. “Break them up and let all of the smaller parts be run by the people who already cant compete and in no time the guys running the dominant company now will have their small part grown back to original size.”

            Remember when the US broke up that long-lost company called AT&T? Glad that company is gone, aren’t we?
            http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb…../index.jsp

            1. LOL that’s your example?

              There is no comparison between ATT as it exists today and what it was before the breakup.

              1. LOL? LOL?????
                But you’re right, since there’s no comparison between the tele-technologies. Which ignored the fact that the companies did exactly as S suggested.

          2. Break them up and let all of the smaller parts be run by the people who already cant compete and in no time the guys running the dominant company now will have their small part grown back to original size.

            Right, because the only obstacle to a competitor against Facebook is lack of know-how. How do you suggest someone start from scratch to compete with an advertising outlet with 1.6 billion eyeballs to offer.

            Regarding “quality”, FB is entertainment. They don’t actually produce anything. FB is a net drain on economic productivity. If the quality goes down, who gives a shit.

            1. It’s amazing that other social media platforms with overlap in Facebook’s market have taken off, then.

              And I’d imagine the people who would give a shit are those who like Facebook currently.

            2. “Regarding “quality”, FB is entertainment. They don’t actually produce anything. FB is a net drain on economic productivity. If the quality goes down, who gives a shit.”

              So now, we’re going to ad econ-stupidity to the mix? Great; slaver wants to use guns to limit the size of companies who he now says produce nothing.
              Fuck off.

              1. The government produces nothing. If we get rid of it, who gives a shit?

                Of course, Facebook is providing a valuable service or people wouldn’t be paying them willingly.

                1. The government produces nothing. If we get rid of it, who gives a shit?

                  The government provides crucial services to protect the market from coercion and coins money. You would notice if it stopped.

                  Facebook is providing a valuable service or people wouldn’t be paying them willingly.

                  Yay dogma!

                  You seriously think that nobody ever pays for anything that doesn’t benefit them?

                  1. Sorry, no courtesy this time: F

  31. Here’s something I hadn’t heard about . . .

    “The lawsuit by the biggest U.S. health insurer [UnitedHealth], filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Florida’s Southern District, said American Renal Associates engaged in a “fraudulent and illegal scheme” to get larger payments from the insurer by convincing patients to sign up for UnitedHealth plans and connecting them with a charity that helped pay their premiums. The suit said the patients were eligible for coverage from Medicare and/or Medicaid, but the dialysis provider could receive far bigger reimbursements for treatments if patients had the UnitedHealth plans.”

    . . . .

    The suit said American Renal Associates’ reimbursement from government programs was $300 or less per dialysis session, but it sought to bill UnitedHealth around $4,000 a session.

    —-Wall Street Journal

    http://tinyurl.com/jrqo4on

    1. Providers depend on gouging insurers to cover the losses they take providing care to Medicare and Medicaid patients.

      $4,000 is the contract price per their ObamaCare contract.

      The providers are definitely, absolutely, unquestionably losing money at Medicaid’s $300 per session. That’s the way it’s been for decades. Providers typically lose money on every Medicaid patient and make up for it by charging private pay patients/insurers to cover the losses–because per their licensing, they must have a Medicaid contract and can’t exclude Medicaid patients.

      Nothing new there.

      The interesting thing here is that American Renal Associates (the provider) was steering people who qualified for Medicaid to the exchanges (UnitedHealth)–so the provider could get $4,000 instead of $300.

      Yeah, subsidized exchanges were supposed to be the solution to insurers getting gouged to cover underpayment by Medicaid, but the solution is backfiring big time. The taxpayers may help cover premiums, but the insurers are still getting gouged to cover Medicaid losses to providers.

      Of course, the taxpayers are getting screwed either way. The only bright side from the taxpayer’s perspective is that the average deductible for a bronze plan is now over $11,000 a year. If you’re the working poor, however, you might as well not have insurance.

      If Hilary wins, the slow-motion train wreck that is ObamaCare will almost certainly finish imploding under her watch.

    2. So basically the insurer is suing somebody for convincing others to buy their product?

      That this actually does make sense from the insurer’s POV shows how far through the looking glass we’ve come.

      1. Yes!

        That being said, UnitedHealth is fleeing the exchanges.

        They went from being on 35 exchanges to just a handful.

      2. Eh not really in the insurance market. It’s kind of like an all you can eat buffet getting pissed that someone convinced everyone competing in a eating competition to practice at their restaurant. When your business is based upon making profit on the averages instead of each individual case, your going to be ticked off if someone tries to fuck your averages. Especially if your only choices of responses will drive away your regular profitable customers.

        I can’t see where they have a case to sue though. That’s a little fucked up.

    3. American Renal Associates engaged in a “fraudulent and illegal scheme” to get larger payments from the insurer by convincing patients to sign up for UnitedHealth plans and connecting them with a charity that helped pay their premiums.

      As long as the premiums were paid, and the dialysis services were legit (medically indicated and actually delivered), I really don’t see what United’s problem is here. Other than they fucked up in setting their premiums and negotiating their reimbursement, but United’s fuckup isn’t really a basis for this lawsuit, is it?

      1. They can’t refuse preexisting conditions and have to use community rating in setting premiums.

        1. Still United’s fuckup. If this product is losing them money (and it must be, or they wouldn’t be suing), its their fault for not exiting the market.

          If its losing them money because of legal requirements (no underwriting, community rating), that’s not ARA’s fault.

          The basic problem here is, still, something that’s under United’s control: how much they pay ARA. Now, they probably can’t just say “no dialysis coverage with this product” (mandatory benefits, yo), but why contract with ARA at that rate instead of at a lower rate, or with DaVita or another provider?

          1. Right, they should just go out of business.

            How would you like that “solution” applied to your job?

            1. Courtesy C-.

              1. Is that Tulpa?

                1. Might well be; same sort of dishonest defense of bogus claims, and preference for government ‘fixes’.
                  Regardless he’s a slaver and deserves whatever abuse he gets.
                  Sorry, G, it’s not my job to put up with slavers.

    4. How long before dialysis treatment is a thing of the past? How long before our healthcare system is on par with Venezuela’s?

      1. “Death solves everything. No man, no problem.”

        — Uncle Joe

      2. Some of us have feared for a long time that the “solution” to ObamaCare collapsing would be single payer.

        I don’t think they can pull that off even if Hillary is in the White House. She’ll walk in the door massively unpopular and mistrusted. Also, one of the reasons Obama was able to get away with selling ObamaCare was because he timed it so all the important provisions wouldn’t take effect until after his reelection campaign.

        I don’t they’ll be able to get away with keeping the system as is for another four years.

        UnitedHealth, Aetna, Anthem, and Humana are all getting out of the exchanges as fast as they can, and those are just the big guys. Smaller ones are leaving, as well.

        Part of the problem is that they can’t walk back the Medicaid expansion. Again, below cost reimbursement rates for Medicaid and Medicare are the ultimate cause of the problem–and ObamaCare expanded Medicaid. That was like Cortes scuttling his ships so his army had no way home–they could only go forward. Only forward in this case is going off a cliff.

        If Medicaid only pays 12.5 cents on the dollar billed and Medicare pays 27 cents, it might be a conservative estimate to assume it would triple the cost of Medicaid to taxpayers and double the cost of Medicare–to pay full price for services. That’s an extra trillion+ a year in taxes to stop the market disruption.

        1. I don’t think any backlash against Hillary will matter. Obama’s election made it okay to be on the side of those in power no matter what they do. Hillary’s will make it okay to be openly and publicly in the tank for your preferred side. During Obama’s election most reporters denied being biased even if they obviously were. Now we have articles written about how it’s okay to be biased because Trump is Hitler. She wins this will be the new normal and normal opinion will never see the light of day.

          1. Ultimately, you take away soccer mom’s health insurance and put us all on Medicaid, and they’re gonna be pissed.

            It’s all fun and games until middle class soccer moms lose their insurance and end up on Medicaid–all at the same time.

            Someone’s gonna balk at that. Even Hillary may balk at that.

    5. The NYT article is more detailed and even more damning:

      The company identified poor patients in rural areas of Florida who did not have a nearby dialysis clinic in UnitedHealthcare’s network, the suit says. The centers then persuaded these patients to switch to UnitedHealthcare plans, using the American Kidney Fund’s program to pay their premiums.

      Finally, the centers billed UnitedHealthcare out-of-network prices of about $4,000 per dialysis treatment, compared with just $200 under Florida’s Medicaid program, the suit said.

      Because the UnitedHealthcare plans required greater out-of-pocket contributions than Medicaid’s coverage, the centers waived any part of the dialysis bill that was not paid by the insurer. UnitedHealthcare says patients remained responsible for bills from other doctors, which they would not have had to pay under Medicaid.

      Kidney transplants, rather than dialysis, are seen as the best options for most patients with end-stage renal disease, but the American Kidney Fund does not pay for premiums after patients receive a kidney transplant. Patients were not informed of that.

      1. I don’t see why that’s damning.

        They helped patients structure their financing in a way that was profitable to the provider.

        Ally Financial (ex-GMAC) will do the same thing if you want to buy a GM automobile.

        Maximizing reimbursement while adhering to the rules is how you turn a profit in a highly regulated industry.

        The biggest problems providers that specialize in certain codes get into is that when they get so big that traditional acute care hospitals aren’t doing those services as much anymore, the political inertia behind keeping the pay for those codes high starts to erode.

        When that happens, the providers’ businesses start to decline, and that’s when they often get into trouble–sometimes with fraud a la HealthSouth and sometimes, they just can’t stay above water once the reimbursement rates on the codes they specialize in are slashed a la Vencor.

        http://tinyurl.com/golbnos

        http://tinyurl.com/zuynz5k

        1. P.S. Because the New York Times paints something in a negative light, doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing.

          http://tinyurl.com/zr3thrq

  32. Hi,

    On this day 71 years ago the United States dropped an atomic bomb on a city with little military value and killed over 100,000 civilians in the process. To honor this occasion I present to you one of American Socialist’s libertarian heroes…

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gZfcJsWEtl0

    1. “Hi,
      On this day 71 years ago the United States dropped an atomic bomb on a city with little military value and killed over 100,000 civilians in the process. To honor this occasion I present to you one of American Socialist’s libertarian heroes..”

      Hi, asswipe. Thanks for the reminder of the day the US used a terrible weapon on the aggressor to end an equally terrible war and save millions of lives in the bargain!
      For all of the dim bulbs like yourself, not one person has ever come up with an alternative. I’m sure you have one, right?

      1. Nothing says limited government more than a massive public works project whose product is designed to turn human beings into charcoal

        1. “Nothing says limited government more than a massive public works project whose product is designed to turn human beings into charcoal:”

          So you have no alternative either, just the bleatings of a fool.

        2. Nothing says ‘for the greater good’ than massive public works projects whose product is to starve human beings into submission.

    2. “Durr, this city with a major regional military headquarters, industrial naval munitions centre and military port had little military value.”

    3. Only 100,000? How many died from regular old bombs employed by the U.S. during this time period?

      1. Pretty sure the most recent count has it well under 100K, but IT WAS A NUKE!!!!!!!!
        And that means lefty twits get to whine about it since they are moral and correct and full of concern (spelled b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t)

    4. Hi, on this day 55 years ago approximately 15 million people had starved to death in China over a two year period – this was the capstone of The Great Leap Forward.

      To honor this occasion I present to you one of Agammamon’s libertarian heroes (who are actually libertarian heroes and not someone’s fevered hallucination).

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg9-HTtgFOk

      1. Again dude – 5 minutes with Wikipedia before you post would go a long way to keeping you looking like a moron.

  33. In case you wanted to vomit like you never have, I present you with this.

    1. More big, fat, fucking bald-faced lies from the party that thinks your property is theirs. I am shocked.

      Every R that voted to confirm that woman should be kicked in the balls.

  34. This can’t be true, because my proggy relatives showed me this article in the Guardian about how the world is in the grip of the free-market ideology of “neoliberalism,” ruthlessly abolishing all regulations and creating “epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance anxiety and social phobia.”

    1. “Neoliberalism” is just a buzzword socialists use to try and pathologize the consensus global economic state of affairs…

      … one which isn’t the product of any nefarious conspiracy by capitalist elites so much as a gradual evolution away from the shit THEY don’t want to talk about – aka “Control Economies”.

      Why? because the control-economies fucking imploded. because control economies suck. Because they caused the deaths of millions.

      There is no “neoliberal” economic-philosophy written in any book; there are no neoliberal ideologues; no one is trying to ‘trick’ anyone into falling into their neoliberal traps. They want to pretend that there is because they can’t conceive of “spontaneous order”. Everything has to be CONTROLLED. Its in their fucking blood. So they assume that everything is the way it is because someone is “making it this way” – not because it is just where economic equilibrium happened to have brought things.

      And yes, the economic equilibrium can sometimes be ‘less than ideal’, but that’s not an argument against liberalized markets = its a case for increased liberalization in order to ensure that the benefits of trade don’t remain concentrated in narrow groups, like their ‘elite banker’–bugbears.

      All their pissing and whining seems to want to ignore that global-poverty was cut in half in the last 40 years, due entirely to the stuff they’re bemoaning.

      1. I remember hearing anecdotal stories from the USSR about their control economy. The one that really stuck in my head was the glass factory that had to meet a quota of production measured in tons / month. They were supposed to be making window panes.

        On the first day of the month they would pour a single block of glass equal to that quota, say seven tons, then they would all go home for the month.

        I have always been curious if those blocks of glass are laying around somewhere over there. Really, what else could you do with something like that besides just set it off out of the way? It would be an i interesting thing to see.

        1. On the first day of the month they would pour a single block of glass equal to that quota, say seven tons, then they would all go home for the month.

          Yeah. what they control-economics can never conceive of is individuals actually responding to the incentives in ways that *aren’t* consistent with their fantasy. they just expect everyone to line up and do as they’re told. they don’t realize that economic systems aren’t just sets of self-enforcing rules. they’re merely ‘incentives’ for people to pursue their own self-interest in ways which (incidentally) end up benefiting everyone.

          There’s no way to “bottle” that human-productivity and merely re-direct it at stuff you think is ‘more important’. The second you try and tell it to do something else, it will pretend to be engaged in your task while trying to find out how they can scam the fuck out of the Controller for more and more money

          *like everything municipal unions CURRENTLY do = create processes which are inefficient by design – because it ‘creates jobs’; demand layers of paperwork to slow throughput, guaranteeing endless backlog and artificial demand; create barriers to employment while simultaneously demanding unlimited Overtime hours so that they can maximize income, and so on.

          1. “There’s no way to “bottle” that human-productivity and merely re-direct it at stuff you think is ‘more important’. The second you try and tell it to do something else, it will pretend to be engaged in your task while trying to find out how they can scam the fuck out of the Controller for more and more money.”

            Well said. People respond to incentives, i.e. their own self interest.

    2. Well Eddie, y ou have to admit the socialist have had great success in combatting obesity. Credit where credit is due.

  35. I can only conclude that Reason is cherry-picking the data, cynically pitting the consumer against well-intentioned regulators. This anti-government rhetoric stems from a neoliberal conspiracy to take over the world.

    1. Very tart response.

  36. Sooner or later, though, these rules must?and will?fall.
    Before the heat death of the universe you mean? I see no reason to believe that. You certainly haven’t provided any justification for such hope.

    1. Nature will, um, find a way.

      1. The T-Rex will eat the regulations?

  37. The CIAB declares it “was created to assist the industry in dealing with the erratic production cycle of red tart cherries and to improve returns to the growers and processors of red tart cherries in the United States.”

    Watery tart cherries remain unregulated, thankfully.

  38. We have marketing boards in Canada: they keep out new entrants to the field and maintain prices that hurt consumers.
    But they’re a great political tool for buying votes from egg producers, dairy farmers, wheat growers, etc.

    1. In the US, we have the legislators from the farms states funded by ADM which makes a ton from ethanol fuel subsidies that no one thinks are worth shit.

  39. So farmers who take agricultural money (cop insurance) from the GOV must play by their rules? U take their money, u play by their rules.

    Who’d a thunk.

    Only play outside their price fix will destroy this… Or cheap imports.

    C ya

    1. Uhm, you do know that no one inside the US can ‘play outside their price fix’, right? That’s what an agricultural board is – its a central government planning agency for a whole crop. Everyone who plants that crop is controlled by the board whether it benefits them or not.

  40. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.Today40.com

  41. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.Today40.com

  42. I don’t see how the bureaucrats would be able to police it if the farmer happened to stop by a homeless shelter and unloaded several bushels of cherries and asked that the donation be kept anonymous.

    With police, duh.

    “The suspect was observed making an illicit dropoff. Bullets traversed the intervening distance. Suspect died of bullet wounds. Price of cherries was preserved, all officers went home safe.”

  43. Another example of the parasite class accosting productive citizens.

  44. I Leave my office job and now I am getting paid 96 Dollars hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was to try-something different. 2 years after…I can say my life is changed completely for the better! Check it out what i do…

    http://www.report20.com

  45. “It was created at the industry’s behest,” said Perry Hedin, head of the cherry board. “It was voted in by growers and processors. It’s not an imposition from outside.”

    Crony capitalism. Regulatory capture.

  46. yet people in the world are still starving…. this is also why cherries are about 3-4 dollars a pound.

  47. I’m got $92 an hour working from home. I See when my neighbor told me she was averaging $120 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. Check It out what I do..

    http://www.report20.com

  48. I have always maintained that the SOLE reason hunger exists in the world today is government.

    Usually, it’s in the form of a warlord who’s starving those under his rule to keep control, or starving his particular hated other tribe. My preferring solution is “shoot the warlord, feed the people”.

    The rest of the hunger problem is when statists insert waste into the line for essentially the same reason as the warlord; to keep control. The solution is also the same as for the warlord: “shoot the statist, feed the people”.

  49. Farkin’ tags.

  50. my best friend’s mom makes $74 an hour on the computer . She has been without work for five months but last month her payment was $19746 just working on the computer for a few hours. find more information …
    ?????????? http://www.factoryofincome.com

  51. RE: Dumped Cherries a Reminder of Awfulness of USDA Marketing Orders
    Hurting farmers and consumers. Squeezing out competitors. Forcing production abroad. Causing food waste. What’s not to love?

    I do not understanding what people are complaining about here. The State has done its job and has done it in an outstanding manner. It has accomplished all its goals. It has damaged farmers, consumers, eliminated the nefarious practice of competition in the agricultural sector, wasting food, etc. That is what our benevolent elitist ruling class wants for us and has worked diligently to these ends. Indeed, we should applaud their efforts in making our lives more miserable by having fewer choices at the grocery store and being forced to purchase other items they want instead of what we want. These ruling elitist turds are making our lives so much better by making our choices easier with fewer items to select from. How wonderful, nice and considerate our obvious betters are by simplifying our lives. So let us wash away our negativity and praise the powers that be for turning our lovely country into the next Cuba.

  52. Hudson . although Henry `s article is flabbergasting, last thursday I bought a brand new Buick after having earned $7028 recently an would you believe ten-grand this past-munth . it’s actualy the most-comfortable job I have ever had . I began this 4 months ago and practically straight away started making a nice at least $83.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

  53. Government involvement in business usually equals chaos.

  54. My Mom fed a family of six on my Dad’s income. She would wait until watermelon was 5 cents per pound. This meant the fruit was always the ripe, sweet, and peak of season at the best price. If you want kids to like to eat fruit (and cherries are prescribed to treat certain health issues), what’s wrong with a seasonal glut and low prices? And if there is an annual glut, then won’t it inspire more cherry pies, thus supporting the price by growing demand?
    The idea that the economy should be managed or manipulated, is idiocy. The free market does a much better job.

  55. This is precisely the kind of Board that exists to give people jobs, who could otherwise be producing something useful. A Board whose seats exist only to reward political favorites. A Board which is a source of nonsensical rules and source of lawsuits that benefit lobbyists, attorneys, and federal workers seeking something to do. We need to gut major portions of most of our federal Departments.

    The problem is that it takes political bravery, and that is sorely lacking these days. Maybe it will take Donald Trump to shake things up a bit.

  56. FASCISM defined: government control of private means of production.

    Cherry and raisin farming: private means of production.
    Marketing orders: government control.

    YOU figure it out.

  57. My Boyfriend broke up few months ago and left me heartbroken, this made me sick and my problem became very very difficult and it made me almost gave up but after the love spell from Dr Mack, my relationship was restored instantly, I was happy that the outcome was fantastic, only 3 days after contacting Dr Mack, positive change started happening. Never in my life have I thought this would work so fast. My man reconcile with me and he started acting completely different, we make love everyday, Dr Mack’s spells works! I feel happy once again, and like never before. It felt so good to have my lover back again, Thanks to Dr Mack, here is his Email: Dr_Mack@yahoo. com

  58. Hello everyone, “dr.mack201@gmail.com” helped me out when i thought my life is lost don’t know where its going??? It all started when the father of my two kids left me and sworn never to have anything to do with me and all effort to get him back prove to be abortive and i decided to let things be the way they are cause i felt my life is lost don’t know where its going. But Priest Andrew came into the picture and things turned out to be how i have ever wanted it to be???.I will forever be grateful to him for the rest of my life, Am so happy!!!!!!!!!!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.