Clarkson Energy Homes

Some farm subsidy myths are dispelled by Karl Beitel in US Farm Subsidies and the Farm Economy: Myths, Realities, Alternatives. Frankly, I didn’t know about the myths so the article was informative from both the discovery of the myths and from reading why they were myths.

Mr. Beitel has some funny notions about the free market, however. Free market mechanisms are not the same as bound market mechanisms. Emphasis added.

Pursuing such alternatives is an urgent necessity. Market liberalization does not, in itself, launch developing countries on a path of sustainable long-term growth capable of lifting their populations out of poverty. In fact the market, left to operate free from government intervention, will only exacerbate economic pressures in large segments of the rural farm sector, both in the US and globally. The farm sector has historically been subjected to extensive regulatory controls, which are needed to compensate for the market’s inherent failures. An alternative to crippling free market policies exists: what is required is the political will to bring it about. Progressive agricultural and trade groups North and South must move beyond the subsidy debate and unite in support of alternatives that will sustain the world’s farmers and ecosystems.

If the farm sector has always had so much regulatory control, how do you know the free market will fail? It seems to me that it hasn’t been tried. If it had been tried you wouldn’t have made the extensive regulatory controls statement. Mr. Beitel is also operating under some myths.

Myth 1: Free markets favor large over small to medium sized farmers.

Free markets participants tend to reward innovation and efficiency. If more innovation comes form larger firms in a given sector then those firms will be rewarded most. Many large farm groups are more efficient and innovative than many small to medium sized farmers. That’s how they became large farming groups.

Myth 2: Free markets need to have goals.

Deregulating this market further—which is what eliminating subsidies would entail—will not and cannot defend the existence of small- to medium-sized family farms, either in the US or abroad.

Free markets are free. Free of centralized planning and free of specific goals. Of course free markets do not protect one portion of a particular industry. They are not meant to. Freedom means both freedom to succeed and freedom to fail. Removing subsidies is just part of a huge list of regulations whose removal will lead to a farming industry that can survive, not because central planners want it to, but because consumers do. Without the heavy regulatory controls small farmers have just as much a chance of succeeding as large farmers, assuming they can run lean operations which innovate. If they cannot, why are they in business?

Myth 3: Farm subsidies cannot be better spent somewhere else.

This is the crux of the Centrists argument. Only they have the insight to determine where money is best spent. All governments must tax to raise revenues. Subsidies are tax revenues taken from citizens which are unlikely to spend those taxes on critical items the Centrists deems worthy. Free markets say, he who earns the money gets to say where it gets spent.

Henry Hazlitt said that we need to look at the whole picture, not just a small view. If we subsidize farmers who are not efficient or innovative enough to survive on their own, then we are using money which might go to industry participants which are efficient and innovative. We are shooting ourselves in the foot. Trading poorly run businesses for well run businesses. The more we subsidize poorly run businesses the less capital we have available to expand and create well run businesses.

The taxpayer, having actually earned the money otherwise used for subsidies, is more likely to invest his hard earned money in sound firms than in unsound ones. The Centrist is guaranteed to invest a portion of the subsidies in unsound firms. They even boast when they set such a goal.

The only way to stabilize farmers’ incomes and preserve a viable, diverse agricultural system is through some combination of price supports and supply management.

Agricultural is best when government gets out of the way and innovation is allowed to reign free. Arbitrary goals such as diversity or preservation do not help any industry. Get this through your skull. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. Free markets demand that you persuade others to your position through cooperation, not that you cram it down their throat through coercion.

Mr. Beitel, yours is an ages old argument. Like many Statists, your ego is sufficiently large for you to determine that you are right and that you cannot be expected to convince others of your position peaceably. Instead you are willing to force others to believe (or at least behave) as you do. Disguise coercion in any costume you wish. It is still coercion.

Free markets allow you to rally support for small- to medium-sized family farms, too. If your goal truly has merit, it will gain support and you can administer subsidies till your heart is content. We all win when we are free.