Farmers don't pay enough to get Americans to work for them, so....

It isn't cheap, otherwise it wouldn't require intervention.

And, again, Norway is not the U.S. Norway's population is less than 6 million people. And Norway has immense natural resource wealth.

When you say people, you mean small farm owners. I'd say the people--as a whole--are better served with plentiful, cheap goods.

Jobs that aren't needed. You see the jobs as a benefit; I see them as a cost. As I said above, milk production isn't about jobs; it's about producing milk.

Industrial farms have more resources to understand and adhere to environmental regulation. They also have stockholders to whom they're accountable.

"If."

Just because the word “socialism” scares the piss out of you, doesn’t mean it’s scary or will do you harm.

The current farm bill keeps milk prices stable, not low. It'd be better if there were an insurance system to keep it stable rather than a subsidy system; that wouldn't have to be government-run, either. The dairy industry has seen improvements to productivity over the last several decades which mean prices should have fallen instead of remaining stable or increasing; no Baumol's cost disease to contend with. But they haven't, because of the subsidy regime.

Yes, and the propping up of prices is only benefitting inefficient suppliers....and hurting consumers.

Fair point. I think it's fair to ask if we're propping up family farms just out of sentiment, but...there is always the threat of monopolies and/or trusts dominating any industry having so much pricing power that they can harm consumers by raising prices at will. We've seen what happens with the oil industry, but with agriculture it's a threat to our food supply.

Sarah Taber on Twitter has a lot to say about family farms.

The other question that comes to my mind about refusing to subsidize "inefficient" industries is what about computer chips? Taiwan Semiconductors can crank out chips quicker and cheaper than anyone else, but...China... Depending on Taiwan may not be such a great idea. Intel is committing to build massive capacity in Ohio, but...not enough to take up the slack.

You keep saying this as if it's self-evident that a larger population makes a robust social safety net impractical, but you never explain why. If nothing else, you'd think economies of scale would make it a little easier.

So do we. And Norway and the U.S. have virtually identical per-capita GDPs.

I keep wondering about this too. I still didn’t understand why this model wouldn’t work here.

Because Paladin has built an entire world view around it the idea that it won't?

More related to discussion.

Seems like it would and we’d be better off for it.

You should run for Mayor!

but... the S word!!!!

Idaho Statesman uncovers abuses by farmers (paywalled but limited free stories)
A Department of Labor investigation found Jorgensen Management Inc., a potato farm in southeast Idaho, failed to pay its workers a total of $159,256 in wages and did not reimburse them for transportation costs. Jorgensen Management also threatened to end its workers’ contracts and “send workers back to Mexico” if they did not accept the lower wages, the investigation found.

A Department of Labor investigation found Jorgensen Management Inc., a potato farm in southeast Idaho, failed to pay its workers a total of $159,256 in wages and did not reimburse them for transportation costs. Jorgensen Management also threatened to end its workers’ contracts and “send workers back to Mexico” if they did not accept the lower wages, the investigation found.

The United Farm Workers sent a letter demanding an investigation into the foreign labor program after reports that said workers in Georgia were required to dig onions up with their bare hands and paid 20 cents per bucket; they were allegedly threatened with guns and violence, according to a VICE news report.

I'm sure @Paladin is opposed to such abuses, while also opposing government efforts to do anything about them.

I have no problem with and fully support states enforcing laws that require employers to fulfill their wage obligations to their employees.

That's a pretty anti-capitalist/pro-statism statement.

Enforcing the terms of a contract is one of the legitimate functions of the state. Part of having an actual, functioning legal system. Kind of important.

that doesn't change my statement.

No, it isn't. Capitalism is not anarchy. Laws that obligate employers to pay their employees for work are not statism.

I would think that would depend on if the employers think the employees did their job. That's not anarchy, that's capitalism.

Contracts are, and always have been, part of capitalism.

No. Contracts help to control capitalism.

Contracts are a function of a legal system.
Capitalism is an economic system.

You have such little awareness of how the world actually works, it's astonishing.

Capitalism IS an economic system, but one that's predicated on property rights, the right to free exchange, and the right to contract.

Deflection. You have proven time and again, you have no idea how the world actually works.

No. The government allows those rights. If the Government stopped enforcing those rights, capitalism would not adhere to them.

I keep forgetting that we're all just the property of the government.

You should probably read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. - assuming you have a decent memory, you'd be less likely to forget exactly what is the relationship between the US Government and the American people.