Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: farm subsidies

foreign investment, world, 16467_11.12_000007395743XSmall

Oddly, some US farm subsidies go to Brazil.

Imagine a safety net when you think of a subsidy. If prices are too low, then growers get money from the federal government. During the 1930s Great Depression, the goal of subsidies was to sustain a farmer’s purchasing power when he had a bad year.

Fast forward to 2013. Because the US is the world’s leading cotton exporter, our farmers depend on the world price. if that price is too low, they get a subsidy.

This is where Brazil enters the picture. Because US subsidies lower production costs, they depress world cotton prices for Brazilian farmers. Complaining to the WTO, a World Trade Organization composed of 151 countries that include the US and Brazil, Brazil said US cotton subsidies violated WTO rules. A WTO panel agreed.

However, Brazil still had a problem. Because WTO decisions are not enforceable and the US Congress was not about to eliminate subsidies voluntarily, the panel’s decision was virtually meaningless. Then though, Brazil threatened retaliatory measures that would include ignoring US pharmaceutical patents and music copyrights. It worked. Faced with WTO condemnation, angry Brazilians, US firms fearing retaliation, and subsidized US farmers, the US government devised a unique solution. As of 2010, through the Brazilian Cotton Institute, we would pay Brazilian farmers $147.3 million every year–$12.275 million monthly–until an acceptable farm bill is passed.

The farm bill is still being debated.

Our bottom line? Subsidies, like tariffs and quotas, are barriers that diminish the efficiencies of free international trade. As barriers, they obstruct David Ricardo’s comparative advantage and the ability of nations to produce goods and services for which they have the lower opportunity cost..

Sources and Resources: NPR’s Planet Money explains the US/Brazil cotton dispute in one wonderful 30 minute podcast. But then, for more of the specifics, I recommend this 2011 report from the Congressional Research Service. To complete the picture, this Slate column provides all you want to know about the Farm Bill that the US Congress is considering. (Econlife looked at the bill’s impact on the dairy industry here.)

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16516_11.11_000012487089XSmall

Maybe the market is more powerful than the Congress.

First, some history

Hoping that farmers would earn a living wage, in 1933, the U.S. government decided to subsidize crop prices. The goal was “parity,” a level of purchasing power that equaled what farmers could buy during their golden age, 1909-1914. To achieve parity farmers could receive a check that elevated market price to a target price.

Fast forward to 2011.

Farm income is soaring. Consequently, for many commodities, target prices are way below the market price. The target price of corn is $2.63 while its market price is near $7. For soybeans, $6 is the target and $13 the market. Translated into federal spending, farm subsidy totals are down by one half, from $22 billion to $11 billion.

Why? The power of the market. 

The Economic Lesson

Involving demand and supply, a market is a process that determines price and quantity.  For corn, you have ethanol, emerging economies, and China on the demand side. They are shoving corn’s demand curve to the right. No one person or government is making the decision. It is all about the interaction of many consumers and many producers.

So, when the Congress says it wants to cut spending, maybe the market can help.

An Economic Question: How would crop subsidies affect the quantity that the market supplies and demands?

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment