The original purpose of my blog was to create a place where I can give myself homework and store the information (and maybe discuss it with other people too). Here's a new assignment.
Last night at the Forum we discussed food. The Forum is a group that was started by my friend Dan Parris (see below) so that we can share expertise with each other and discuss topics. My friend Kate talked last night about food (mostly citing Michael Pollan and the documentary 'Food, Inc.'). Through the discussion I realized that I need to know more about the way our government subsidizes crops. The reason this is important is because the government makes it profitable to grow crops (like corn) which normally wouldn't be profitable (because there isn't as much demand as there is supply). So when powerful governments institute crop subsides, it changes the world price of certain foods. This whole thing also has a big impact on illegal immigration (which is the next thing that I need to get a handle on).
- Overseas Development Institute, "Toward 'smart' subsidies in agriculture? Lessons in recent experience in Malawi"
- NYtimes, "Surviving without subsidies"
- Washington Post, "Farm Subsidies over time"
Books:
- A Billion Dollars a Day: the Economics and Politics of Agricultural Subsidies by E. Wesley F. Peterson
wish me luck! give me more resources!
In your look at subsidies, you may want to consider two other factors:
ReplyDelete1. Timing -- With the current state of the US economy, any change in agricultural subsidies would need to be VERY gradual. On top of a slumping manufacturing sector and a ravaged construction industry, adding turmoil to agriculture may only exacerbate an weakened economic situation. One could argue that the initial shock of reducing or eliminating subsidies would subside over time, as in the case of NZ. However, it is a question of how much shock the US economy (and its trading partners) can handle, and my guess is that at this time a disruption in agriculture would be a huge shock.
2. Globalization -- Even if we are to remove a crutch from American agriculture, larger global actors would pick up the slack. While agricultural subsidies help farmers, the idea of a small farmer is somewhat antiquated outside of niche markets. The truth is that most of these farmers are in quasi-feudal service to large, transnational agri-business conglomerates. If transnational corporations cannot get access to cheap American corn, they will get it elsewhere (and they will make up the cost with questionably modified seed lines, weaker environmental oversight, and a demanding use of human labor). Reports of China and other global powers buying up large swaths of arable African land are easy to find online (the Economist had a great article a while back). So if the Chinese can get cheap cash-crops out of Africa to feed their population and ship surplus to the US, removing subsidies really hasn't altered our food landscape. The exception will be that much more food will be outside the jurisdiction of US law. (While tariffs and safety restrictions could be enforced, does the US government really want to start a trade war with what is now the 2nd largest economy in the world, or drive up food prices?)
I am neither an economist nor the son of an economist, but those were two aspects of agricultural subsidies and the larger business of food that I think need to be considered. (The economics of genetically modified seed is also important here.) Hopefully, the current cultural concern over food isn't just faddishness.
Who will save us from this body of death?
In your look at subsidies, you may want to consider two other factors:
ReplyDelete1. Timing -- With the current state of the US economy, any change in agricultural subsidies would need to be VERY gradual. On top of a slumping manufacturing sector and a ravaged construction industry, adding turmoil to agriculture may only exacerbate an weakened economic situation. One could argue that the initial shock of reducing or eliminating subsidies would subside over time, as in the case of NZ. However, it is a question of how much shock the US economy (and its trading partners) can handle, and my guess is that at this time a disruption in agriculture would be a huge shock.
2. Globalization -- Even if we are to remove a crutch from American agriculture, larger global actors would pick up the slack. While agricultural subsidies help farmers, the idea of a small farmer is somewhat antiquated outside of niche markets. The truth is that most of these farmers are in quasi-feudal service to large, transnational agri-business conglomerates. If transnational corporations cannot get access to cheap American corn, they will get it elsewhere (and they will make up the cost with questionably modified seed lines, weaker environmental oversight, and a demanding use of human labor). Reports of China and other global powers buying up large swaths of arable African land are easy to find online (the Economist had a great article a while back). So if the Chinese can get cheap cash-crops out of Africa to feed their population and ship surplus to the US, removing subsidies really hasn't altered our food landscape. The exception will be that much more food will be outside the jurisdiction of US law. (While tariffs and safety restrictions could be enforced, does the US government really want to start a trade war with what is now the 2nd largest economy in the world, or drive up food prices?)
I am neither an economist nor the son of an economist, but those were two aspects of agricultural subsidies and the larger business of food that I think need to be considered. (The economics of genetically modified seed is also important here.) Hopefully, the current cultural concern over food isn't just faddishness.
Who will save us from this body of death?