RE: Public support for farm subsidies
David Levenstam wrote: Far more people support the general idea of freedom of speech than support many specific unpopular examples. The analysis of bundling issues and logrolling has a long history in the field of public choice, but an interesting recent paper on this topic is: Saari, D. and K. Sieberg (2001) The Sum of the Parts can Violate the Whole American Political Science Review, 95(2): 415-433. Alex Dr Alex Robson School of Economics Faculty of Economics and Commerce Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200. AUSTRALIA Ph +61-2-6125-4909 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2002 2:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Public support for farm subsidies Hi, I'm new to the list, having just moved here after 11 years in the Field of Farm Subsidies (Iowa), so I hope it's alright for me to reply. Living in Iowa I observed tremendous support for agricultural subsidies, including both price supports (which legislation under the Contract With American began to phase out) and ethanol subsidies (a form of ADC, or Aid to Dependent Corporations, in particular to Archer Daniel Midlands, which bills itself as Supermarket to the World but which might just as well call itself Airline to Bob Dole). Even many self-proclaimed conservatives supported ag subsidies during the Iowa Caucus seasons, and I saw some of them unabashedly demand from Phil and Wendy Gramm continued ag subsidies even as these conservatives applauded the Gramms' opposition to government subsidies. Having grown up in Chicago and lived in Denver I saw virtually no support whatsoever from urban residents, even statist-liberals, for ag subsidies. Of course I am speaking anecdotally, and not statistically, but I try to recall that the wording of a poll can substantially alter its results. Imagine, to take what seems like a clear example, the difference we might see between a poll that asked do you support cutting welfare? and one that asked do you support cutting welfare if it would cut payments to starving single mothers? or even one that asked simply do you support cutting welfare if it would cut payments to single mothers? Many people who would in general support cutting welfare might think twice when confronted directly with the possibility that a cut in welfare could reduce welfare payments to single mothers. To take an example that Milton Friedman has I believe used over the years, imagine the difference between asking whether people support freedom of speech and whether they support the freedom to say nasty things about Bill Clinton (or George Bush, or the Pope, or whomever; Iowa has a large percentage of Catholics in the population, many of whom take a dim view of criticizing the Pope). Far more people support the general idea of freedom of speech than support many specific unpopular examples. In our ag subsidy poll, imagine the different between asking Canadians (or indeed Americans) whether they (we) support increasing ag subsidies and asking whether they support increasing ag subsidies if other countries' governments already provide higher subsidies. Contrasting Canada's low subsidies with the subsidies of other governments plays, as Eric suggests, on Canadians' xenophobia; in the case of Americans, we have seen Pat Buchanan (and Ralph Nader, though he would deny it) playing likewise on American xenopobia. I've personally seen herds of conservatives who would otherwise at least claim to oppose Big Government stampeding after Buchanan (Pat again, not James) as he tried to lead them over the Big Government cliff of protectionism. Yet I cannot imagine that in any national poll that asked simply, do you support higher ag subsidies that Americans, even typically subsidy-sympathetical statist-liberals, would in any large percentage say yes. Does anyone see any evidence that outside of areas in which farming plays a large role Americans support higher (or indeed continued) ag subsidies? Sincerely, David B. Levenstam In a message dated 7/30/02 3:07:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This question has been bounced around on the armchair list for a while...here's a bit of evidence on the question. It's from Canada, but I doubt that American results would be that much different. The vast majority of Canadians support farm subsidies for the indefinite future. The question keys into a bit of standing Canadian anti-Americanism, but change the question wording to reflect American farmers receiving lower subsidies than the French, and I think results of an American poll would be quite similar. The poll, taken August 2001, can be found at: http://www.canadianalliance.ca/hotissues/viewby/index.cfm?DoID=756readartic le =1dirlevel=2category=4department=37 Eric -- If you found out that Canadian farmers receive less subsidies than American or European farmers, which of these two statements would come closer
Re: Public support for farm subsidies
It may be interesting to look at the history and current perceptions of farm subsidies in New Zealand too. Revolution in a Small Country by R. W. Bradford http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/features/58bradford1.html Not surprisingly, with a guaranteed profit on every sheep they produced and subsidies to increase production, farmers added to their herds. New Zealand's sheep population increased from 55 million in 1975 to 70 million in the early 1980s, despite the declining demand. The government purchased the surplus sheep, killed them and froze them, and ultimately processed the carcasses into fertilizer, which it sold back to the farmers at subsidized rates. The economics of the whole process were appalling: in one instance, sheep that cost the taxpayer $330 million in subsidies were converted into fertilizer and sold for $6.5 million. ... Farmers, traditionally the backbone of National Party support, were the first special-interest group to find itself in Douglas's crosshairs. Supplementary minimum prices were abolished and loans brought up to market rate. (To help farmers who had borrowed against subsidy-inflated land values, capital amounts of loans were reduced, so very few farmers were forced off their land.) Farmers marched on Wellington, but the Labour government was firm. Within a few years, farmers had adjusted to the new rules, become entrepreneurial, and were strong supporters of the Revolution. This pattern repeated itself in other sectors of the economy. Before you remove the privileges of a protected sector, Douglas wrote in 1989, it will tend to see change as a threat which has to be opposed at all costs. After you remove its privileges and make plain that the clock cannot be turned back, the group starts to focus on removing the privileges of other groups that still hold up its own costs. ... The farmers, hit hard in the Revolution's early days, quickly learned about free markets and seemed much better businessmen than the subsidized and regulated American farmers I've met. They routinely discussed the world market prices for various farm products, and about shifting production based on market conditions. Right now, many are getting out of sheep and especially beef, where prices are low, and moving into deer, because venison prices are high. I spoke to only one farmer who wasn't making a profit. He was a wealthy American who two decades ago had bought land that he farms more as a hobby than as a business.
Re: Public support for farm subsidies
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but I try to recall that the wording of a poll can substantially alter its results. Imagine, to The question wording could have been a bit better, but nothing was misrepresented or too slanted. The question was framed around the actual farm subsidy debate in Canada, which largely centers around responses to foreign subsidies (which are a fair bit higher than the Canadian ones). Does anyone see any evidence that outside of areas in which farming plays a large role Americans support higher (or indeed continued) ag subsidies? I'd love to see results from a decent survey on this. I'd be willing to bet in a Hanson market on the results. I'd put even odds on overall support for farm subsidies being at 65% in a fair, unbiased question. I'd give 2:1 that support is 50%. Eric
Re: Public support for farm subsidies
Howdy, Does anybody think that the amount or pattern of support for farm subsidies would change if the average American were better informed? (I know, I know, better informed is awfully value laden and implies a Philistine-ish public, I'm just not sure how to phrase it.) By better info I mean deeper understanding of int'l trade economics along with more complete knowledge of amounts spent and the patterns of spending and per capita costs, etc. (And anything else you feel is important.) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even many self-proclaimed conservatives supported ag subsidies during the Iowa Caucus seasons... Michael Moore, in an episode of his show TV Nation went to Newt Gingrich's home district during a 4th of July parade. He first joined the parade carrying a sign denouncing big government and got cheers. He changed his sign so that it denounced federally funded local projects and was kicked out of the parade. While I'm not a big M. Moore fan, that stunt was a bit revealing Best regards, jsh = ...for no one admits that he incurs an obligation to another merely because that other has done him no wrong. -Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Discourse 16. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com
Re: Public support for farm subsidies
Bryan Caplan wrote: You can check your public opinion guesses about various kinds of spending at: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/GSS/ Click S for spending. But first click Subject on the left-hand menu! Sorry. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] He wrote a letter, but did not post it because he felt that no one would have understood what he wanted to say, and besides it was not necessary that anyone but himself should understand it. Leo Tolstoy, *The Cossacks*
Re: Public support for farm subsidies
In a message dated 7/31/02 9:23:51 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but I try to recall that the wording of a poll can substantially alter its results. Imagine, to The question wording could have been a bit better, but nothing was misrepresented or too slanted. The question was framed around the actual farm subsidy debate in Canada, which largely centers around responses to foreign subsidies (which are a fair bit higher than the Canadian ones). But that's the whole point: supporters of ag subsidies have managed to turn a question about support for a government spending program into a question about us versus them. Does anyone see any evidence that outside of areas in which farming plays a large role Americans support higher (or indeed continued) ag subsidies? I'd love to see results from a decent survey on this. I'd be willing to bet in a Hanson market on the results. I'd put even odds on overall support for farm subsidies being at 65% in a fair, unbiased question. I'd give 2:1 that support is 50%. Eric Sadly at the moment we seem only able to speculate, but perhaps someone intrepid will find us some polls that ask the simple question of whether Americans support more, continued or less spending on ag subsidies. Sincerely, David
Re: Public support for farm subsidies
In a message dated 7/31/02 10:44:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Standard questions ask higher spending, lower spending, or about the same. I bet you would get at least 40% saying about the same and probably 25% saying higher, making the status quo the median voter outcome. You can check your public opinion guesses about various kinds of spending at: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/GSS/ I searched the site but didn't find anything on farm subsidies. David Levenstam
Re: Public support for farm subsidies
In a message dated 7/31/02 12:09:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Howdy, Does anybody think that the amount or pattern of support for farm subsidies would change if the average American were better informed? (I know, I know, better informed is awfully value laden and implies a Philistine-ish public, I'm just not sure how to phrase it.) By better info I mean deeper understanding of int'l trade economics along with more complete knowledge of amounts spent and the patterns of spending and per capita costs, etc. (And anything else you feel is important.) While it might be value-laden (by which I take it you mean laden with value judgements) it might also simple be descriptive. Isn't it Public Choice economists who coined the term rational ignorance to describe the situation in which it would cost the average taxpayer more to get better informed than he could thereby save himself in taxes he could thereby prevent (or prevent from being raised, or get lowered)? Sincerely, David Levenstam
Public support for farm subsidies
This question has been bounced around on the armchair list for a while...here's a bit of evidence on the question. It's from Canada, but I doubt that American results would be that much different. The vast majority of Canadians support farm subsidies for the indefinite future. The question keys into a bit of standing Canadian anti-Americanism, but change the question wording to reflect American farmers receiving lower subsidies than the French, and I think results of an American poll would be quite similar. The poll, taken August 2001, can be found at: http://www.canadianalliance.ca/hotissues/viewby/index.cfm?DoID=756readarticle=1dirlevel=2category=4department=37 Eric -- If you found out that Canadian farmers receive less subsidies than American or European farmers, which of these two statements would come closer to your view: a) Canadian farmers should not receive subsidies to help them compete with the subsidies that farmers in other nations receive, even if this means that some farmers go bankrupt ... 13% b) Canadian farmers should receive subsidies to help them compete until farm subsidies in other nations are lowered, even if this means subsidizing farming for many years 78% c) no opinion ... 10%
