According to this article, http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/25/demand-strong-for-government-program-paying-farmers-not-to-plant-crops/?mod=yahoo_hs,
the USDA just contracted to pay farmers for not planting an additional 3.9
million acres of farmland. This new
acreage is in addition to the current 30 million acres of idled farmland. My initial response was outrage, since I'm
already seeing higher prices on everything at the grocery store, and idling
more farmland means less production, and higher prices again. And as if that isn't enough, the farmers are
being paid to do this with my tax money.
The article goes on to say that there are environmental
benefits to the program, so I guess it isn't all bad. Then again, it could just as easily be said
that there are environmental benefits to unemployment, so that's not all bad
either. Kind of like the article I read
not too long ago where someone (the name eludes me at the moment) tried to spin
unemployment into some kind of growth strategy.
In the end, I just think the government needs to decide
whether they actually believe that capitalism works and, if it does, let it
work. In this case, we would let farmers
decide what and how much to plant based on what they believe the supply and
demand will be, and what prices they can expect to get. Economics suggests that we would eventually
reach an equilibrium price and quantity, and there would be no need to pay any
one to not produce; the farmers would only be producing at the level that was
economically feasible. True, it would
likely mean that some farmers would leave the industry; and it would likely
mean that some farmland would be used for other purposes. But that is precisely how a market economy is
supposed to work. I suggest the
government stop attempting to fix the economy, and just let it work like it's
supposed to.
Posts
