Subsidies...

I am interested to hear what other people in this forum think of subsidies.

I am of two minds on this issue. Subsidies are extremely hard on third world countries because they keep our prices artificially low. This makes it extremely hard for farmers from other countries to compete.

On the other hand, the small family farmer has it hard enough without taking away the subsidy.

I am really torn on this issue, and would like to hear what others have to say.

It is almost impossible to separate out of our economy what exactly a subsidy is anymore, besides direct payments to prop up basic commodity prices. Tax breaks to any industry are subsidies. Federal government help in marketing your products overseas are subsidies. Workers in other countries that do not make a living wage subsidize those that control the means of production. A person that works in a steel mill in India or China that is paid ten cents an hour subsidizes the steel that takes away good-paying jobs in this country. If the farmer in a third world country cannot compete in the global marketplace anymore that, I am afraid, is Darwinian economic theory at work. We as a nation are extremely efficient at raising food, and government subsidies can act as an insurance policy against economic disaster for the small farmer; keeping him in business is a very important goal. Any nation or government that ceases to be able to feed its' populace will not survive for very long. Hungry people revolt. One thing good that the current regime did do was put the monetary cap in place for the largest recipients of aid; that really blindsided the huge corporate farms. Made me chuckle.

. . . are great, and can often help small family farms survive. But when those same subsidies are also given to large, corporate farming interests, the opposite is true.

In that case, most of the real benefits accrue to large corporate farmers, middlemen and food processors, not the small farmer in this country. If anything, subsidy programs in this country are geared to driving small farmers out of business.

The problem with third-world countries is not one of subsidies offered in this country--it's unfavorable trade and loan agreements which force third-world countries to eliminate tariffs which have traditionally protected their own economies, and which overwhelm them with debt for development projects which don't improve their economies.

With tariffs in place, those third-world economies would be protected from the invasion of subsidized staples from this country. But, as long as they incur debt through the IMF and the World Bank, they are forced to eliminate tariffs and gear their own economies toward exports--through exploitation by foreign capital--rather than internal economic development.

Cheers.