Farm subsidies are supposed to keep food prices down, and farmers and farm towns thriving. As costs have risen, farming has consolidated. Fewer farmers are working bigger farms. So subsidies are not achieving one goal of farm policy, says Dee Davis of the Center for Rural Strategies, a group that seeks attention to rural issues. "The greatest out-migration in rural areas is [in] the places [that] get the highest agricultural subsidies," Davis says. "The system is not working."[....]"If we are really serious, we can make sure that family farmers are supported, not just big agribusiness," a casually-dressed Obama told a crowd in Amana, Iowa. "I think that we can make sure that subsidies are going to people who need it, not Fortune 500 companies."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97309054
If you cannot read the cartoon the pig is labeled "Agribusiness" and the ice cream "Food Subsidy Pyramid". Obviously a reflection on the current distribution of subsidy payments in the country. And its affect on the overall health of the nation.
This all just makes me wonder where is our country going? When bigger is always better in the subsidy arena? When we are paying farmers billions of dollars not to farm to control prices? When the ecology of the land is compensated for maximum output of monocrops?
All just something to dwell on.
I agree that something needs to change. The big, commercial farmers are getting a lot of support, while smaller-scale farmers are struggling. Free-range and organic farmers tend to be on the smaller scale, and I believe that they should have much more support from the government because of their tendency towards good environmental and humane practices. Maybe if we just supported smaller farms, less would be produced and we wouldn't have to pay for people not to farm.
ReplyDeleteI agree that something needs to be done. The government subsidizes big business in hopes that it will trickle down to the lower level farmers but clearly that hasn't happened. I think it's ridiculuous that the government pays farmers not to produce. It doesn't make any sense to me. A, E
ReplyDeleteLike the other two ahead of me, I too believe something needs to be done about this problem. The distribution needs to keep smaller farmers in mind. A
ReplyDeleteI think that crops such as corn and soybeans should always be subsidized when they are harvested on a large scale. Also, I think that small farms that are all organic should be subsidized as well. Farming without the use of pesticides or large amounts of fertilizer is environmental friendly. (A)
ReplyDeleteWhy do subsidize farms at all? If we did not subsidize farms what would happen? Would prices of food rise, or fall? I think from what we have read so far that if the government stopped paying farmers not to produce, the supply would increase and the price would drop.
ReplyDeleteThe book says that when a transaction has a positive externality, that is a benefit for a third party, that the government should subsidize that transaction. What is the benefit of large agriculture farm factories to third parties? I can only think of negative side effects.
E, T
I'm concerned primarily with three things in the food industry: Eco-friendliness, healthiness, and cheapness. At first, I was skeptical of the local farm movement because I felt that it would undermine cheapness(making things harder for lower income households),would not necessarily improve Eco-friendliness(transportation costs may be reduced, but methane from livestock in commercial farms can be captured), and wasn't necessarily healthier than commercially grown crops and produce(the crops and meat of commercial farms often aren't, but easily can be just as healthy). However, upon learning that the government is subsidizing larger commercial farms more heavily than smaller farms, I've changed my position towards the local food movement. I agree 100% that government subsidization of large commercial farms should be ended. Moreover, I feel that my belief that commercial foods are cheaper than local foods may prove to have been based on false premises, as government subsidies would have distorted the actual price of commercial food. With commercial farms and local farms both having advantages and disadvantages in terms of Eco-friendliness, and with the healthiness of commercial and local farms produce and livestock being potentially equal, I feel that government should remove its subsidies of commercial farms, and allow the market to determine which is the best approach to food production.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that money could be used more wisely on supporting eco-friendly farms or starting projects to help the unemployed. Prices are how farmers decide what to grow and how much. With susidies, this is distorted because it can promote the planting of products that are cheap for them, but not needed by consumers. At the same time, subsidies have purposes. For example, they allow the protection of green space and competition with foreign imports.
ReplyDeleteI have always wondered about subsidies and I think that it's a policy that needs to change; people starve everyday in America AND around the world. The government's position on subsidies is that its an economic AND environmental program because it limits the amount of fertilizers that runoff into the water. But I think there's a way to change the subsidies program and kill two birds with one stone.
ReplyDeleteBefore subsidies the government would just buy crops from farmers that went unsold, and these crops would sit in silos and rot. I think the government should start buying crops from non-organic farmers like they used to instead of subsidizing them and they should pay organic farmers so that they can plant MORE crops. Then, they could take the crops they buy and ration them out to people who are on food stamps; food stamps limit people to unhealthy, inexpensive, and unhealthy processed foods, and if people were getting food directly from the government the government wouldn't have to spend as much on food stamps. In addition, the supply curve for organic food would shift to the right if the government paid organic farmers so they could farm more, and they would become less expensive so that more people could afford them. Also, it would become an incentive for farmers to switch over to organic in order to receive government funding, and then the supply curve would shift to the right more, continuing to lower the price.
As far as numbers (how much to pay, how many inorganic crops to buy from farmers, and how much to supplement food stamps) I'm unsure, but it could help Americans eat healthier and, in time, I think it would lead to organic farming becoming the norm, helping the environment.
I agree with Richard, but I believe that rather than subsidize farms based on their being organic, I think that government should subsidize farms based on their being Eco-friendly and producing healthy crops and meat. While organic farms can be more Eco-friendly and healthier than non-organic farms, they don't have to be, as non-organic farms can be Eco-friendly and healthy as well. For example, I've heard that new genetically modified crops (which would disqualify a farm from being "organic") are being developed which simultaneously decrease a farm's need for fertilizer while increasing crop-yield. And I feel that if they aren't already being developed now, genetically modified crops will be developed that are healthier as well. In short, I'm saying that organic farms aren't necessarily more Eco-friendly, and don't necessarily produce healthier foods, and that government should thus consider a farm's Eco-friendliness and the healthiness of its produce or livestock when choosing which farms to subsidize.
ReplyDeleteI agree with much of Rich's post. Rather than pay for a plot to be empty, the farmed food could go to far better use being given to those who cannot easily afford a steady meal. I know many liberals are critical of the idea of restricting what recipients of food stamps can purchase, but a healthy diet and a healthy mindset towards food are important factors in one's life. By providing fruits and vegetables directly, the government can help foster a healthier, more productive citizenry.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the farm subsidies in general are rather harmful, and need major restructuring. Though I'm a strong proponent of government intervention in the market, this is an example of the failure that grips both our public and private sectors. Rather than being used to advance the wellbeing of its citizens and the health of the market, government collusion with powerful, private firms has shaped its intervention to be beneficial primarily to the biggest producers. The Democrats have just as much a vested interest in continuing these subsidies as Republicans. Republicans, though they might issue cries against budgetary waste, are suddenly quiet when the elimination of waste might adversely effect jobs in their district or their future campaign funds. Subsidy reform is not about to happen anytime soon.
This is a good question. Subsidies are necessary to protect the local farmers of the country from competition. I agree, the surplus food could ans should be put to better use. Most times, people only focus on improving the middle class, if the middle class is satisfied then all other peorsons below this status are just in bad luck. This surplus food should be given to those persons in the country who aren't able to afford food even with the subsidezed prices.
ReplyDeleteI was listening to Pres. Obama's Union speech last night and he made some interesting proposals for us as college students and for farmers in the market. If I listened correctly, he stated that his administration will implement new trade barriers to protect local suppliers including our farmers. The same proposal that we are making now: small, local family farms should be protected and not those large agribusinesses is the the same initiative upon which he is working, But... politics is another discussion by itself. Lets hope that the gove will really do something about this inequity in the market.
I couldn't agree more with Rich. What the government needs to do is pay the organic farmers so that hopefully in time many farmers will follow suit in organic farming. Giving the organic farmers support will give the non-organic farmers the incentive to switch to growing fully natural. Switching to organic will help the environment, because it will limit the amount of fertilizers that non-organic farmers use. The government says that subsidies are an economic and environmental program, because it limits the amount of fertilizers that runoff into the water. If the government creates the incentive to switch over to organic farmers by supporting them, then this would limit subsidies, because there will be less fertilizers, and in turn help the environment. (A)
ReplyDeleteLike many people have said above, supporting local and small farms would benefit us in the long run. Instead on investing on the large companies, investing in the small companies would be like giving back to the community but lower prices will be the result. Supporting orgranic farms will help us take care of the environment while growing food that would be sold at a lower price than those of large companies. E.A.
ReplyDeleteAll my thoughts have already been said, I'm just surprised this hasn't happened already.
ReplyDeleteI think the US has subsidies so that the farmers in this country can have a manageable wage. In comparison with farmers in other countries, the US protects them through subsidies to not grow food, even though we already grow more food than we need for US Aid and other outlets. Furthermore, I am not against smaller farms, but it brings up questions of efficiency, comparative advantage, and also how many people would want to become farmers because of the need for them? Small farms would be overwhelmed by the demand to produce as much as collective ones.
ReplyDeletethe pig is labeled "Agribusiness" and the ice cream "Food Subsidy Pyramid". a reflection on the current distribution of subsidy payments in the country.
ReplyDeletethis is a really good question, about the food surplus, what are all the "surplus" go?
I agree with Mysha,this surplus food should be given to those persons in the country who aren't able to afford food even with the subsidezed prices.
the bigger, the better? That might not become ture, the smaller farms may works well too...just saying what I thought, but I'm not really familiar with the agribusiness...A