Technically, every expenditure, in the budget costs money. The more pertinent question is, do we, the general public get our money's worth.
I would say no. In fact I would argue that for many of the subsidies even if the budget cost was $0 they still wouldn't be worth the money.
"Many of them are structured to increase food prices which hurts consumers esp. the poor."
That I think is a false statement.
No it is a true statement, and you provide no argument that would suggest it was false. You instead try to provide an argument that the cost is worth it. Even if the cost was worth it my statement about how food prices are increased and how this impacts negatively on the poor would still be true.
The history, of corporations, is littered with examples of corporations, limiting competition and manipulating supply, to create an optimum price; much as MSFT regulates the price of Windows, based on their maximum profits, not cost to produce.
MSFT has a legally granted monopoly on Windows. This monopoly is also known as copyright protection. If someone gets a legal monopoly on food then I will agree with you.
Boy, that is really pushing the quid pro quo thing quite a bit. Yes, cheap food, and subsidies can hurt local farmers, but it does feed the poor, if only short term.
The answer is to let the market sort it out. The food exports from the US and Europe are cheap because of subsidies not always because of lower production costs. Food sold in the US is often more expensive not cheaper because of barriers to trade. In both cases both rich countries and poor ones wind up poorer then they would be without the subsidies and trade barriers.
Tim |
