Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"As a result, taxpayers have spent billions of dollars over the last 30 years subsidizing the production of corn ethanol, while at the same time creating unintended costs for consumers and the environment.
To start, the farm bill, a massive piece of legislation covering topics ranging from nutrition assistance to broadband internet, provides government subsidies for the now-mature ethanol industry, including corporate agribusiness giants such as Archer Daniels Midland."
Should US taxpayer money subsidize (pay) Archer Daniels Midland and others in 2018 and beyond?
And what are the unintended costs associated with these subsidies?
US Taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize any industry. If there isn't enough demand for it and it can't stand up on its own, it shouldn't be artificially propped up.
Countries that can feed themselves have an immense advantage over countries that cannot. That supply has to be stable. The corn being grown that can go into ethanol also can go into a myriad of other things. Whether it's your corn flakes, corn syrup or animal feed. Cheap feed allows for cheap milk, leather, meat, jello....all of which allow cheaper inputs into other areas. Even with the subsidies pushing the price up, America remains the cheapest place in the world to buy corn, and often is the cheapest place to buy soybeans.
If the world opened its markets, then America could sell its grains overseas, but most countries limit this in an effort to protect their own farmers. The Dutch actually license by the animal how many cows you can have, and the cost for product is much higher and must be subsidized down for the consumer.
One of the reasons China became the new industrial center is they decided to heavily subsidize steel and sell it at a loss. At the time of their rise, many countries could offer cheap labor, but China could offer cheap labor and cheap steel, as they had no intention of making money from their steel, but rather moving up the supply chain to get the world's manufacturing.
Also, when you think of a supply chain, a corn growing area won't consume most of its own product at harvest. It needs to be shipped and stored in giant elevators to make an efficient supply chain. If each little farm is growing something different, this infrastructure cannot be made for each one, and costs rise.
So, there is a line item cost on the budget for farmer subsidies. It may seem wasteful, but it's done each year because not doing it would be even more expensive.
US Taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize any industry. If there isn't enough demand for it and it can't stand up on its own, it shouldn't be artificially propped up.
At this point, there is so much special-interests wrapped-up in this issue, good luck on touching it.
But yeah, corn and a bazillion other things Fedgov spends money on, like being able to buy pure junkfood with foodstamps, should be stopped..............never will happen though.
I think the world is too complex to say that an industry should be solely propped up by demand and not subsidized. It sounds nice in the context of a free market, but I'm not sure how much progress or how well a society could be able to compete without propping up less profitable industries. In the sector of religion, can you imagine a world where the only standing institutions would be one with a large endowment (Catholic church) and "prosperity preaching" groups (Scientology, TBN, etc). Imagine how limited the education system would be without subsidies.
As to corn, I think the ethanol mandate should be diminished proportional to the fuel economy increases. With electric vehicles become increasingly viable in metro areas, I don't think ethanol makes sense as a bridge fuel. Generally I think it's an easy position to say some subsidies, but less subsidies.
Subsidizing corn is the reason pork roast is $2 a pound and beef roast is $5 a pound. So I say yes. Buy pork roast and get your subsidy back in your own wallet.
Welfare for US citizens needing to raise their families is more logical and better use of tax payer dollars than welfare for corn which is what a subsidy is. Our nation is obese as a result of corn infiltrating our food, a la Earl Butz.
While I do oppose corn subsidies, the obesity issue could have been delt with through a law banning Hig Fructose Corn Syrup.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
