>at the current price, the net is probably negative. Thus, farm families
>growing corn would starve to death if they depended on growing corn to feed
>themselves. If they are eating, it is probably because of subsidies from
>the government, off-farm work, and depletion of capital, rather than the
>corn they produce.
Am I missing anything? Why don't they just set aside a portion of the
land to plant or grow whatever they need to eat, and use only the rest
of the land for their cash crop? Then they don't have to starve to
death. More than that, they will find themselves in a better
negotiating position (because they won't go hungry if they won't sell
at a loss).
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 06 2000 - 12:00:23 EST