Kruse Kronicle

Farm Subsidies: The Dirty Truth

—

by

mwkruse
in ,

Econolog: Farm Subsidies: The Dirty Truth

From a survey referenced at the Econoblog:

Farm subsidies are extremely popular. Respondents had to choose between the following positions:

A. It is not consistent with the American way to have a whole sector of the economy dependent on government handouts at taxpayers’ expense. We should trust the market, not the government, to find the right balance between supply and demand.

B. There is nothing more important than food. The government needs to subsidize farming to make sure there will always be a good supply of food and that the price does not go up and down according to the whims of the market.

37% preferred the free-market position; 58% preferred the interventionist position.

…….

Most Americans couldn't care less about the harm their subsidies inflicts on the Third World. Respondents were given these alternatives:

A. Rather than giving poor countries foreign aid, it is better to let them export what they can produce. For many poor countries agricultural products are one of the few things they can export. We should not undercut them by flooding the world market with cheap subsidized farm products.

B. Farmers in poor countries work for much lower returns than American farmers. Without government subsidies, American farmers won’t be able to compete and a lot of people working on farms will end up unemployed.

38% preferred A; 53% preferred B.

This is not good news.

Comments

4 responses to “Farm Subsidies: The Dirty Truth”

  1. nashbabe Avatar
    nashbabe

    I have a different perspective although I find those comments interesting.
    Not sure about the politics of the thing but I always thought part of the subsidy thing was to make sure that we had food available if and when other countries shut down supply to us for whatever reason if we’re feuding…but hey, I’m a farmer’s daughter so I’m sure I’m biased.
    I do want to point out that quite a lot of farms are corporate now and there aren’t as many family farms out there…and way fewer people are working in farms at all…so not too many out there to lose jobs, I would guess…at least not like it once was.
    In our newspaper today the talk was of the lack of safety in food ingredients imported from other countries because of the lack of scrutiny.
    I sell at a farmer’s market on the weekends and I see a resurgence of people wanting to buy food as “close to home” as possible.
    So glad you know where 102nd and Wornall is! 🙂 I will not soon forget the help of you and the gallant Melissa…

    Reply
  2. Alan Wilkerson Avatar
    Alan Wilkerson

    a member of our church who raised cattle in Iowa and farmed mentioned that most of the subsidies go to small companies like Cargill. I wonder what the % of income for an agri-conglomerate like that is derived from Federal subsidies. It would also be interesting to see what would happen if subsidies were limited to LLC’s or farms under a certain number of acres.
    Alan

    Reply
  3. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    “So glad you know where 102nd and Wornall is! 🙂 I will not soon forget the help of you and the gallant Melissa…”
    Have Mazda, will travel! 🙂 Glad you are back okay.

    Reply
  4. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    I think the subsidies were created in a far different time in terms of national security. You can avoid being at ther mercy of one country by having open markerts with a mutiple nations. The more integrated the nations are with each other the more difficult it is for one bully another through trade. I think safety issues can be addressed and become easier to address if we become more integrated.
    My concern is that the primary products that many poor nations have to trade are food stuffs, particularly in Africa. But US and European markets have all but shut them out of the developed worlds market place. I think Alan is correct about much of this going to corporations. The subsidy policies may have had a role decades ago but I think they now primarily serve the role of creating a “barrier to entry” for US industries, shielding them from competition. If dropped, I think our food prices would go lower and economies in poor nations would greatly benefit.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Michael W. KruseCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading