Currently government is giving huge subsidies to the farmers to get the goal of doubling farmers’ income.But in my openion the government is doing work directionless. by giving subsidies or paying money directly to the famers account is not a permanent solution. Now agriculture needs huge transformation at the level of infrastructure. if the infrasture such a making a policy of one farmer one land, protected farms, assured irrigation to every farm, efficient marketing stretegy etc. then no need to provide fianancial assistance to the farmers, farmers will do everything by their own.I have written a book Doubling Farmers’ Income By 2022, Ways and Means” A Step Ahead to Eliminate Poverty From Rural India.: Amazon.in: BHUNESHWAR PRATAP SINGH: Booksthis book suggets the government and farmers that how to trnasfor the agriculture so that farmers’ income can be made double within five years form the base year of 2015. if agriculture is transformed in the practical way then the poverty issue will be no more for the India..i think you should consult this book this is affordable also…
Govt. created long term plans for providing inputs, infrastructure, credits, extension, human resource training & extension, marketing, logistics and financial assistance for adopting cutting technologies, good agri practices to enhance production and quality in mandated agri / horti crops. Some of the major central sector programmes have been implemented are PMKSY, MIDH, RKVY, MNREGA etc. There are also national federations and institutes to provide crop wise all inputs and marketing support to promote cultivation of such crops in the country. National Federations like NHB, NAFED, NCCD, NCDC, NCUI, ICAR, IARI, SAUs. AICRP projects etc.Govt carries out long term plans to aid and support overall development of agriculture in the country. The objective is to increase area under agriculture, improve cultivation practices, use of modern methods & technologies, enhancing production & quality, linking with markets, pre-post harvest measures, cold chain logistics, establishment of value processing units etc. so that farmers get maximum leverage from the markets. The govt. initiatives and plans make the farmers successful, make them adopt newer method of cultivation etc. Therefore happy and progressive farmers build the foundation for a stronger nation.
There have been no attempts by the government to limit production of agricultural products?
FALSE One example is the restriction of certain Herbs but that was before the 80's Alternative Medican act that was signed by the president. I personally followed the deal over Stevia..which was a natural plant sweetener. The FDA blocked it for no real good reason, meanwhile they had reports of Saccharine causing epiliptic fits in small children. The government does what it does but is given sway based on politics as well. Always had. Look at the endangered species act......there's animals on it that aren't even close to be endangered. Other aggricultural products include Herbs from China..since many listed are poisons too...and without a complete ban there would be overdose problems. During the great depression our government payed farmers to dumpt their milk because the bottom had falled out of the market. I'd also say that this ethanol craze with people planting corn just to jump on the bandwagon of subsidies has some limitations attached to it.
How should the government help us with global warming?
It seems you were actually how governments can help us stop it or cope with the effects. The first thing to do is to tax the emission of greenhouse gases. Estimate how much it will cost to reverse or mitigate the effect of a ton of CO2 and then add that much to the cost of anything that releases a ton of CO2, should be enough to price coal, oil and natural gas right out of the electric power market and get money from transportation fuels that can't be easily replaced into a fund to deal with the effects. Government might also help the nuclear industry expand because nuclear is what is going to have to take over from fossil fuels if we are to maintain our way of life without destroying the environment (a lowered standard of living is not going to be acceptable to the general voting public, deal with it Greenpeace). I am convinced that money collected from a carbon tax should not go into general government revenue and should not be used as a subsidy for the poor or to reduce income taxes because then government will become dependant upon polluters and may have trouble raising taxes once the polluting industries have cleaned up, if one is concerned about the effect the increased prices will have on the poor then increase the top tax rate or add new higher tax brackets and then increase welfare payments or reduce other taxes for the poor. Research is a good thing for government to fund so funding of fusion and space solar power systems should be a priority for the future as those two power sources will provide some competition for fission while clean coal research should probably be refocused on getting CO2 out of the atmosphere so that we can fix the problem we have (I don't hold much hope of clean coal ever working myself) and the politically correct power sources should be funded based on the assumption that they will only be niche markets. In the long term I think we need to get off this planet and into space to really stop polluting but we can survive global warming without needing such drastic action (although one possible method of reversing global warming is putting a big sunshade between the Sun and Earth).
How did Roosevelt's programs help farmers?
Specious alternatives. This was a multidisciplinary approach, and while "B" is closest to the truth, this matter is a good deal more complex than some of the paid hack "historians" out of the bogus Freedom and Heritage Foundations would like the imbeciles who read their drivel to think. The main critique issued by eminent economists of that time and since is--and in today's reactionary atmosphere, where crackpot "pundits" scream on broadcast many hours a day, it's considered almost blasphemy!--was that the N.R.A. (National Recovery Administration), an even BIGGER spending and work program, could've ended the Depression by the end of '38 or early '39. Unused industrial potential was the key to the problem, and stimulating demand really WAS the solution!!! "A" is the most derelict and ridiculous of your multiple choice errors. I KNOW people who would not have survived the Great Depression without the WPA and/or CCC, which not only allowed them to start to live normally again, but gave them vital HOPE.
There is a ubiquitous story about the Hoover administration doing nothing or taking inadequate actions to salvage the country from the 1929 economic meltdown and allowing it to developed into the Great Depression, which is absolutely false.When the stock market crashed, Hoover — a preeminent progressive of his time (contrary to what ordinary people nowadays perceive him as) — led the federal government to deviate from the course other previous administrations (perhaps with the exception of the Woodrow Wilson administration) had taken in times of economic doldrums: the course of noninterventionism. He choose to have the government intervene in the economy to an unprecedented extent in an attempt to rescue the economy from the dreadful downturn. For example, he increased federal expenditures precipitously, initiated numerous public work projects, called on business leaders not to cut wages and raised tariffs significantly as he really thought government interference transcended free market in helping the economy recover. But it turned out that his actions, instead of terminating the depression, exacerbated it. When FDR took over, he — instead of ending the interventionist policy Hoover had inaugurated — continued Hoover’s meddling in the economy and extensively expanded the role of the government. That greatly prolonged the Great Depression rather than mitigating or ending it.So it may be right to inculpate Hoover of contributing to the severity of the Great Depression, but it is absolutely wrong to say his nonchalance and his reluctance to implement full-scale government intervention aggravated the situation and/or begot the Great Depression.If you want to learn more, I have an article written exclusively on this matter. It can be accessed from this link: The Myth of Herbert Hoover, Laissez Faire and the Great Depression.