STORM2K

Can someone explain to me why the government pays people not to plant crops? I have never understood that. I went to this website http://www.ewg.org/farm/region.php?fips ... searchform
These people living in my neighborhood near Tampa are getting paid not to plant crops in Tennessee, Georgia, NC, and other states. Frankly it sounds like some kind of scam to me. Oh well the Bucs paid K. Johnson not to play and now the Panthers are paying him not to play. Sounds like a great way to make a living.

I think the government wants farms to replenish themselves by not planting the same crops each year. They feel it is a good idea to let it sit, grow grass etc. This way the land is not constantly being sprayed with fertilizers, etc. Lots of times these fertilizers get into the waters. I think that the government thinks it is better to pay them something and let the land replenish for a while.

This is just my opinion.

Farm subsidies are complicated, but it's all economical. It's partly redistributive to benefit working farmers (though wealthy farm owners also benefit), and it also helps keep food prices down. In the US it also helps domestic farmers compete with their international counterparts.

In the case of paying not to plant crops, it's just the government's attempt to control the market and prevent flooding.

Boy, I was way off...

Regit wrote:Farm subsidies are complicated, but it's all economical. It's partly redistributive to benefit working farmers (though wealthy farm owners also benefit), and it also helps keep food prices down. In the US it also helps domestic farmers compete with their international counterparts.

In the case of paying not to plant crops, it's just the government's attempt to control the market and prevent flooding.

Let me see if I understand this. If say the farmers have a gazillion bushels of corn, the price of corn would go down, and the farmers wouldn't make as much money? So they pay them not to plant to keep the price of the corn up? Why can't they instead pay a subsidy to the farmers for the corn and give it to starving people overseas?

Janice wrote:I think the government wants farms to replenish themselves by not planting the same crops each year. They feel it is a good idea to let it sit, grow grass etc. This way the land is not constantly being sprayed with fertilizers, etc. Lots of times these fertilizers get into the waters. I think that the government thinks it is better to pay them something and let the land replenish for a while.

This is just my opinion.

Janice I hadn't thought about crop rotation. That kind of makes sense to me.

Cookiely wrote:

Regit wrote:Farm subsidies are complicated, but it's all economical. It's partly redistributive to benefit working farmers (though wealthy farm owners also benefit), and it also helps keep food prices down. In the US it also helps domestic farmers compete with their international counterparts.

In the case of paying not to plant crops, it's just the government's attempt to control the market and prevent flooding.

Let me see if I understand this. If say the farmers have a gazillion bushels of corn, the price of corn would go down, and the farmers wouldn't make as much money? So they pay them not to plant to keep the price of the corn up? Why can't they instead pay a subsidy to the farmers for the corn and give it to starving people overseas?

Why don't you do some research on it and give us a report?

not that Wikipedia is the authoritative site on anything, but this does provide some answers. My grandfather became a farmer in Maryland after he moved to the US in 1935. The govt paid him not to farm in the sixties and 70s. that's why we had so much time and room for exotic pets and animals!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidies

They do it to help prop up the price of crops. If too many people grow a crop, its price will drop low enough that the farms will all go under financially. Personally I think the subsidies are a waste of taxpayer dollars. It's one of the single biggest pork line items in our national budget.

You can't just give away massive amounts of crops overseas, either, because of various world trade regulations and anti-dumping laws. No other countries want their crop prices to collapse either.

Cookiely wrote:

Regit wrote:Farm subsidies are complicated, but it's all economical. It's partly redistributive to benefit working farmers (though wealthy farm owners also benefit), and it also helps keep food prices down. In the US it also helps domestic farmers compete with their international counterparts.

In the case of paying not to plant crops, it's just the government's attempt to control the market and prevent flooding.

Let me see if I understand this. If say the farmers have a gazillion bushels of corn, the price of corn would go down, and the farmers wouldn't make as much money? So they pay them not to plant to keep the price of the corn up? Why can't they instead pay a subsidy to the farmers for the corn and give it to starving people overseas?

The amount of food we give to starving people overseas is very significant. There is also a strong school of thought which views this as bad. It certainly harms third world farmers and leads to a cycle of dependency. When your workers are doing nothing more than snatching bags of USAID grains off of the conveyor belt there is a deeper problem than malnutrition affecting that place.

But the reason why we pay people to not plant corn instead of just sending their food away and paying them is because markets are global. You'd still be putting a ton of commodity into the world, lowering the price.

Frankly I am against subsidies since the family farm died years ago. US subsidies and the European CAP do create a lot of ill will among the third world countries, and cost significant amounts of money. There is a strong political lobby in favor of them remaining both in the US and then in the European case, France. The EU spends roughly 1/3 of their budget on the Common Agricultural Policy.

...and I imagine that farmers and kindred industries are a powerful constituency in many states.
That plus Americans are not willing to give up the tradition (or myth) of the family farm.
Once agriculture becomes completely in the domain of big business, we lose a bit of our national heritage and identity.


Hey, we pay farmers to not produce to keep prices high, and we give food stamps to the poor to make food affordable.
The gov't pays both groups to do nothing. Our nation is doomed.

I had a similar sentiment after studying CAP and other subsidies. Essentially agriculture is an industry now, which the West is far better than the third world in terms of efficiency. Yet their labor is so cheap that it makes more economic sense for Ethiopians to hand pick cotton and send it in trucks to airports than it does to own a few hundred acres of land in the American South and farm cotton with machinery. The economies of scale necessary to allow the West to compete in the world market is absurd, because our standard of living is relatively so expensive.

But I wish the family farm wasn't dead or dying. I spent my childhood up in the apple orchards of western NY, visiting my grandparents' farm that had stood for a hundred and seventy years, and then I saw the farm auctioned and turned into a few apartments. When agriculture becomes industry I think we as a society or even civilization lose a bit of our vitality. People are increasingly distant from the very things that sustain them.

coriolis wrote:

Cookiely wrote:

Regit wrote:Farm subsidies are complicated, but it's all economical. It's partly redistributive to benefit working farmers (though wealthy farm owners also benefit), and it also helps keep food prices down. In the US it also helps domestic farmers compete with their international counterparts.

In the case of paying not to plant crops, it's just the government's attempt to control the market and prevent flooding.

Let me see if I understand this. If say the farmers have a gazillion bushels of corn, the price of corn would go down, and the farmers wouldn't make as much money? So they pay them not to plant to keep the price of the corn up? Why can't they instead pay a subsidy to the farmers for the corn and give it to starving people overseas?

Why don't you do some research on it and give us a report?

I tried to google some info but I guess it was too technical and my hands got numb trying to find something I could understand. You know I can learn more from the Storm2K family that a hundred links. We all have such diverse backgrounds, I knew someone would be able to answer my question and they certainly have. That's really what's so nice about this site. Everyone sharing their knowledge and life experiences.

very true Cookiely. I belong to a history forum and a lot of people come on it asking questions for a school assignment. They want the members to do their homework for them. Of course this is frowned-on. I just have a habit of telling people to do their own homework! I need to control myself on S2K because this is a different place. Sorry for jumping on you.