“Without subsidies, it would not pay for Americans to produce much cotton; with them, the US is the world’s largest cotton exporter. Some 25,000 rich American cotton farmers divide $3 to $4 billion in subsidies among themselves – with most of the money going to a small fraction of the recipients. The increased supply depresses cotton prices, hurting some 10 million farmers in sub-Saharan Africa alone”. –Joseph Stiglitz, writing on the US cotton industry
I agree. Subsidies do hurt us.
I forgot to mention…..there is serious waste with subsidies as well.
DD’s two post are both correct, but redundant. Whether in the form of direct subsidy, or “soil banking”, or import tariff, or (horrors!) tax credits, we wind up paying for something we may never use or buy.
If we tie in subsidies (particular food ag) with welfare reform…..don’t you think that would be a good direction?
Let me know if I don’t make sense to you.
Give us an example, DD. Sounds to me like just another version of welfare, not welfare reform.
No. I don’t think it is necessarily another version of welfare per se…..for instance….in older Jewish times the widowed and poor had to go a farmer’s field and collect their own food.
The food was not handed to these individuals…these individuals had to collect their own food. Perhaps those who are on welfare should do give some “sweat equity” into some of what they receive.
Perhaps instead of letting the ag subsidies go to literal waste….perhaps the poor can go to the farm fields and collect the food and sell at a “farmer’s market”…..yeah?
Oops! I saw my typo.
It should read that those who are on welfare should conduct some “sweat equity”.