That I think is a false statement.
"No it is a true statement, and you provide no argument that would suggest it was false."
Sure I do. Read my answer. They are set up, to keep the small farmers in business, to keep the monopolies, such as Tyson, from controlling food pricing, by keeping them from creating shortages, and thus gouging the consumers.
They are in fact structured to increase food prices in the US (while often decreasing food prices in other countries but that isn't directly relevant). These increased food prices also do in fact hurt the poor. If monopolies in food supply really are a problem then anti-monopoly laws are a better way to deal with they. Freer trade in agricultural goods would also help. In any case its unlikely that market concentration will become so much of a problem that it causes more damage to the country then the tens of billions per year in subsidies. And the real cost isn't just the tens of billions the government spends but also the reduced efficacy causing resources to be wasted that could be used in other areas, plus the tens of billions for the subsidies plus the higher costs that consumers pay plus at least part of our foreign aid budget (eliminating barriers and subsidies for agriculture would help poor countries more then our entire aid budget does).
You want to believe production, is the only thing determining food prices
I neither believe that nor do I want to believe that.
The big 64,000 dollar question, is if corporations, can make a profit, at current prices, through higher production, or if they will resort to closing down unprofitable marginal land, to create shortages, and drive up prices.
If marginal land is shut down it might lower prices. It would lower costs. Right now agricultural companies can get paid to produce nothing (to try to contain the costs of other subsidies) remove these payments and supply might increase even as some marginal land is no longer farmed. Also the government wouldn't be buying food off the market to contain the overproduction that its subsidies cause and most importantly there would be no floor on the price. Subsidies distort the normal operation of the market they can (depending on how they are structured) create more production and higher prices at the same time.
Frankly, I think we need to control the distributor monopolies, such as Kraft foods, more, so farmers have a better choice of buyers.
I have no objection to at least seriously looking in to that idea. But even if Kraft really is such a monopoly (and I'm not sure it is) agricultural price supports are a lousy way to deal with monopolies.
Kraft probably buys 80% of milk processed into cheese, and therefore sets the milk pricing.
Also look in to the Milk compact.
Tim |
