Agricultural subsidy reform seems high on the list of things that aren't going to happen, but this is a pretty cool ad from Oxfam America:
One doubt's it'll make a difference, but here's hoping.
« Happy Anniversary! | Main | Some Money With Your CAFE »
Farm Bill
10 Oct 2007 02:32 pm
Comments (9)
Here's hoping, but what should really happen is the elimination of all farm subsidies (not just the "unfair" ones), which would force many family farmers out of business (because they're inefficient) and strengthen agri-business, just the way Wal-Mart eliminated thousands of Mom and Pop stores across rural America.
This would be a good thing because U.S. expenditures would fall, farmers in poorer nations (but probably not the poorest) would gain access to U.S. markets, and farmers who left the farm would get more productive and better-paying jobs. But it won't happen, because both parties love to subsidize farmers.
"Here's a farmer"
[rotund white guy in jeans and flannel]
"Here's a farmer, too"
[rail thin African in white shirt and wash pants]
"Farm subsidies crush a continent."
[pile of cash on scrunched-up stylized map of Africa ... blood oozes from the image]
******
Oxfam shouldn't be picking between two Americans.
Why not? Shouldn't domestic US policies be geared towards helping US citizens?
Oh I see, never mind, oxfam is international.
I'm with you Alan, but I tend to think even the poorest farmers would benefit from our elimination of subsidies. Consider Laos, which really is one the poorest of countries. I've talked to rice farmers there, and they are acutely aware of the impact of our farm subsidies. They know much more than I about our agricultural policy. And they certainly felt that an end to our subsidies would improve their situation. Interestingly, communist Laos has a more capitalist approach to agriculture than the US. No farmer in Laos ever gets a subsidy. Their primary method of dealing with price fluctuations on the rice market is for individual farmers to store rice in their houses after the high yield years. This isn't government policy, however. Smart farmers store rice because it holds its value better than the Lao currency (Kip).
Well, as someone who actually grew up on a farm, I should point out that commodity payments have been counter-cyclical since the mid 1990s. That means when commodity prices are high, as they are now, farmers won't receive anything. There will still be a substantial amount of money going to landowners, but the bulk of that will be conservation payments for taking erodible land out of agricultural production and seeding it for wildlife habitat. Those payments can't exceed the average cash rent value for the land in a local area. It should also be noted that by taking land out of agricultural production, that program supports world farm prices, not depresses them.
Neat statistical tidbit: Walmarts SuperCenter grocery sales were equal to 75 percent of all money received by U.S. farmers for all crops and livestock in 2005.
"That means when commodity prices are high, as they are now, farmers won't receive anything."
No, the farmers aren't getting any money, only the landowners are. Do you really expect anyone to fall for that three-card monte? As for your neat statistical tidbit, I guess Walmart's SuperCenter grocery sales must have been one humongous amount of cash to equal 75% of the money ladled out to America's premiere welfare queens.
I'm pretty sure Oxfam prefers elimination of all subsidies, but since that's not going to happen, they are shooting for this compromise.
Comments closed October 24, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Have any of the candidates said anything about this yet, or are they all hiding under their desks? What with Iowa and all, I can't imagine any of them would dare be sensible. Is there any sort of resource out there trying to work out where senators stand? I would imagine since the wide open spaces are overrepresented in the senate, if this was going to be fixed, it would have been in the house.
Posted by Boring Commenter | October 10, 2007 2:57 PM