[was: RE: [PEN-L:20964] Re: RE: Farm "subsidy" data base]
Gene writes:> My argument is that selling an undifferentiated commodity on the market -- like many farm commodities -- actually results in prices that only cover marginal costs, not average costs. The difference has to be made up somehow. That is what I see as the idea behind farm subsidies. <
in
theory, in a competitive market without "subsidies," the exit of
farmers from the market would mean that prices gravitate toward the minimum
average cost.
>
I agree with you that the clout of the Farm Bureau, et. al. shape both the size
and destination of the money.
The other aspect of this is the international
-- keeping corn production high (through the farm subsidy) ruins farmers in
other countries.<
the latter is because of dumping, no? But even without dumping, if the US farmers sold at minimum average cost, wouldn't that drive most non-US farmers out of business, since US farming is so productive by capitalist standards?
> Another aspect is the subsidy for turning corn into automobile fuel, a subsidy for ADM, our friendly supporter of NPR.. Why subsidize driving when people are hungry? <
supposedly, the
investment in methanol is supposed to pay off in terms of cleaner air.
Does it, or is the subsidy just a boondoggle -- or does it just encourage more
driving (and thus more pollution)?
Jim Devine
