meg, jimmy carter and the economist on the us farm bill: unified front
Posted by Meg
In yesterday’s Washington Post, Jimmy Carter wrote on the misery of farm subsidies.
He says,
It is embarrassing to note that, from 1995 to 2005, the richest 10 percent of cotton growers received more than 80 percent of total subsidies. The wealthiest 1 percent of American cotton farmers continues to receive over 25 percent of payouts for cotton, while more than half of America’s cotton farmers receive no subsidies at all. American farmers are not dependent on the global market because they are guaranteed a minimum selling price by the federal government. American producers of cotton received more than $18 billion in subsidies between 1999 and 2005, while market value of the cotton was $23 billion. That’s a subsidy of 86 percent!
And how.
This week’s Economist is about the end of cheap food thanks to farm subsidies (among other things). They say,
The trillions of dollars spent supporting farmers in rich countries have led to higher taxes, worse food, intensively farmed monocultures, overproduction and world prices that wreck the lives of poor farmers in the emerging markets. And for what? Despite the help, plenty of Western farmers have been beset by poverty. Increasing productivity means you need fewer farmers, which steadily drives the least efficient off the land. Even a vast subsidy cannot reverse that.
“The Economist’s food-price index is higher today than at any time since it was created in 1845 (see chart). Even in real terms, prices have jumped by 75% since 2005.”
Enter agflation. There are certainly other things that drive up food prices (change in global diet, the weather, the rest of the market economy), but subsidies, subsidies, subsidies are the prime factor. They started out with the best of intentions, but at this point, they are not working and should be abandoned, or drastically revamped. The trifecta of Meg, Jimmy Carter and the Economist agree: it must be true. But how change?
The Farm Bill is being discussed again this week in Congress. If only Iowa weren’t so important right now, we could discuss wildly inefficient ethanol subsidies for what they are, and not the votes they have the potential to win.