Government food subsidies, or government agricultural subsidies, are payments to farmers and agricultural businesses by the taxpayers in efforts to control food prices and food supply.
[Note: You can hear Representative Ron Paul on subsidies here: Ron Paul subsidies are just payments to big corporations]
These subsidies allegedly protect from surpluses in food supply, which could be damaging to prices and those earning from those surpluses. They also used to allegedly protect the consumers against radical increases in crop and food prices. These policies remain in effect, despite claims that the US pays more for crops than others and has been for quite some time.
What really happens is that a small percentage of large farms or businesses receive the majority of the percentage of subsidies, although they don’t need it, and act in disregard over the fact that subsidies have now reached about a quarter of a trillion dollars within the last 10 years.
These farmers are promised minimum crop prices and annual payments, allowing them to collect money that is not needed, and artificially controlling the prices and availability of certain crops and foods. Of course, there is little mention of the damage this does to small farmers, or the damage introduced to the business when Government intervenes.
Government food subsidies and Government agricultural subsidies are just Government intervention, which most often results in regulation, taxes, and the insertion of artificial money.
Of course, large companies joyfully receiving subsidies and a majority of demand because of prices or other factors, can afford to deal with new regulation, lower purchasing power, and taxes. The real effect is on the small farmers who can’t and shouldn’t have to deal with this.
The people also face the burden, which is paying more money in taxes for subsidies to farms, paying higher prices because of inflation (an increase in the supply of money) , and paying higher prices because of increasing cost for farms to deal with new regulation. Additionally, the subsidization of such a large group of foods at such a massive level completely distorts the market, possibly introducing a stall in technology advancement.
This is where the issue crosses health and liberty. In my opinion, forcing the American people to pay for a private company’s business transactions is a clear violation of property rights. It unfairly distorts the agricultural industry, forcing taxpayers and small farms to pay the price. Secondly, the printing of money isn’t something meant to be taken lightly, and as decalred by the Constitution, was a right given to Congress, not the Federal Reserve, and not to expend money in various industries.
This is also a threat to the health of the American people, because technological advancement plays a key role in improving health.
In this situation, the subsidization that has plagued the agricultural industry and that has contributed to a near-monopoly on crops, has resulted in crops like sugar and corn being used in the majority of foods consumed by Americans. Normally, I wouldn’t have a problem with an industry being dominated by certain products, if those products were truly chosen by the market and not by Government intervention and artificial Capitalism.
The market does choose corn and sugar, but the other crops that could have a chance at taking their position, at better satisfying consumer demand, are given so little chance to compete because of what we talked about above. This can obviously have a domino effect, because if no crops but the subsidized crops are getting planted (exaggeration), where is the room for healthier alternatives to come in?
The situation isn’t exactly at that point yet, but most people also don’t realize how widespread these few crops are in our foods. Technology is what allows for advancement in all fields, including health. We can’t indirectly or directly limit farming, innovation, or research, although the actions here do that.
It is technology that can make us healthier, introducing new ways for people to keep track and learn, and introducing new ways for people to connect and become active. It is also consumer demand that creates the need for research, or it used to be at some point. It was consumer demand for a new solution to the dieting trend in the 80s and 90s that led to much advancement against the theory that fat is bad for you and should be avoided at all costs, despite the fact that we need the macro nutrient to survive and operate optimally.
This is exactly why all the large agriculture companies support farm bills that introduce new regulations, taxes, and give more power to the Government. When you’re producing the food that goes in most products, have shares in the companies selling those foods, and have Government officials offering up power they shouldn’t have, there is little room for benefit for the average farmer and taxpayer.
This intervention only hurts the farmers below these massive companies and the taxpayers, and not just in farming. The excessive printing of artificial money weakens our currency across the board, and this is simply money we don’t have.
Let the market decide what crops are most needed, and allow innovation to take its natural course and offer some revitalization to agriculture and health.
Ahmed Serag
Related Posts:
Very interesting man! Just another example of how money runs the world.
[...] by these corporations. For example, why wouldn’t “Big Agriculture” support taxes, when estimates place close to 80 percent of subsidies given to farms by the Government go to large agriculture [...]
[...] the name of diet protection, campaigns, coalitions, local laws, bills, federal laws, taxes, subsidies, bailouts, and raids would be used to dictate what the public cannot eat, and what they can eat. [...]