Post a response to this discussion thread
TC: I mostly agree with you, but there are also cases where farm subsidies have serious problems that need to be addressed. Some crops are protected by archaic legislation and staggeringly high subsidies. A couple of examples:
Sugar growers' subsidies, which date back to a Great Depression era program, provide enormous profit margins. Some of these margins are as high as 100 percent, according a report I saw on 60 minutes several years back.
Peanuts are another heavily subsidized crop. A group called Citizens Against Government Waste claim peanut subisidies and price controls cost taxpayers 500+ million a year have driven domestic peanut prices nearly 75% above the average world market price. Granted, CAGW surely has an agenda, but the nonpartisan Center For Responsive politics posts similar subsidy numbers.
The real concern I have is where the subsidy money in these cases is going. Like you, I can live with slightly higher food prices if it means protecting the little guy. But, at least in the case of sugar and peanuts, that doesn't seem to be the case. The story on 60 Minutes reported that a lot (I don't remember the exact percentage) of the subsidy money for Florida sugar growers went to a handful of multimillionaire growers. CAGW claims that one-fifth of peanut growers (20%) control 80% of the "peanut quotas" (the legal privilege to grow peanuts for consumption in a given year). If those numbers are accurate, then it amounts to welfare for the rich, and unfairly high prices for the consumer.
Grundle: While I agree that mechanization, modern agricultural science and superior hybrid crop strains have led to a geometric increase in efficiency and food production, I maintain that some form of support is necessary. The low crop prices of the 1990's have put tremendous pressure on the smaller farms to stay in business. I would argue that as small and midsize farms fail, the largest growers gain a greater percentage of the market share and a greater control over prices. Potentially this could lead to a oligopolistic market and a loss of the benefits of competition. Also, this would increase the big grower's influence with lobbying Congress. Of course, opening more overseas markets for all farmers would be the ideal situation for getting rid of the surplus and increasing prices. But in the absence of that, I think modest price supports for the smaller farmers make sense.
Post a response to this discussion thread