It's something that needs to be sorted out; this whole issue where the resizing of a window resets the value of a text box in every single web browser, just lost a bunch of words.

Well I'm back on academias internet pocket. But the whole client-network thing is new to me, they're using STARoffice in this place. Never used Network software before; color me personal computing.

Let's see about these questions, bear in mind I answer from my own understanding of the article, much of the information I gleaned is inferred, like the Sweden thing; that is self-evident to some degree. But anyways: First I lead-in with a verbal parry.

Why is everything so black and white with you, the man and woman in my opinion want to give light to the issues plaguing the current system of production, that cheap food is a misnomer, mainly.

Much like the issue of using a car. We think of it in strictly manufacturing costs, yet the detrimental effect it has on the environment can also be thought of as a "cost" in owning the car; a car does air pollution, noise pollution, etc. Hidden costs like these are called externalities in Economics, specifically a negative externality in this case, and a way to think of a wat to deal with these hidden costs is to make the consumer pay for them. In theory; that is the general idea they run with when they say consumers do not pay for the full cost of food.

Which leads into the whole debate in healthy, cheap food. The synethesizing of the cheap food means reproducing it at a profit, which is becoming next to impossible for the farmer, because he recieves less and less of a percentage of the revenue for his product and must cut corners in production to maximise profit. That's where all these organic nuts come in because they start haranguing farmers about how unsafe fertilisers are, but the farmers don't care that much because they aren't seeing much of the dime consumers are shelling out. But it's the only way a farmer can fashion a profit. I think.

I quoth you: "The disasterous results to the environment, and the whole sustainable agricutlure point are very powerful arguments."

Yes they are.

"but i suppose the reducing of food prices needs to necessarily be met with automation;..."

ah-ah, the automation of food is a meeting of the immense, immediate demand for cheap food. Reducing food prices is simply a trend preserved by marketing execs in all these supermarket firms.

"and in order to produce food in the amounts that the US does, using huge amounts of land is unnecessarily wasteful (from an economists point of view, admittedly); why let the hogs roam free?"

You lost me slightly, I suppose we are in agreement in that large amounts of land that has been maximised of it's productibility (production potential, dunno economic term) is what the US wants. I think what needs to be added to the equation is that the government means to incite supplying immediate wants, through it's regulation of the farming system (ie: hogs roaming free)

"...i don't think that would necessarily reduce the need for government tax breaks or incentives anywhere near enough to influence that amount of tax that goes generally into subsidies. and, even though small time farmers are defintely losing, government subsidies into agriculture do drive down food prices enough to offset the taxes paid. "

I think you have mistaken ideas of what a subsidy is, I will have to answer this part a bit quickly; being kicked out. A subsidy can exist as an anti-tax (haha smart of me), I think it might be good to think of it as a College grant for Farmer Brown. The farmers complain of getting less tax breaks, generally in competition terms, more unfair/hostile treatment from the government than a typical mega-farm. So "an amount of tax that goes into a subsidy" is incorrect, there is no equilibrium mechanism within governmental policy that says the taxes need to meet the subsidies, of course you know this; I'm impatiently patronising you. haha.

Sorry will have to take a crack at your questions some other time, I understand where the article came from, I don't understand what you think the article says.