U.S. agricultural policy aims to keep farming a profitable occupation? T or F?
True or False?
- wildturkey1949Lv 41 decade agoFavorite Answer
Gotta go with FALSE.
Some of the people may intended to keep farmers in business with some of their policies, but the overall goal is "Cheap Food" which means low prices for farm produce and therefore low profit margins which is driving the small farmer out of business.Source(s): grew up on family farm in Texas -- sold out due to low prices
- john hLv 71 decade ago
It is a true statement. The Ag policy AIMS to, the problem is they don't always meet their goals. They aim to help, but sometimes they wind up hurting agriculture. Agriculture support prices and payments to keep farmers in business started with the New Deal policies along with welfare payments to the poor. Both worked at the time, but today, they have increased to the point that farmers and welfare recipients are dependent on them. Both need to be weaned off of government support.
- mtvtoniLv 61 decade ago
The real idea here is that United States has product. A real
update is that states formed around the greater good of the public.
Though eventualities show that trade is more interesting. A mixed
diet is usual for the most productive and healthful people. It is true.
- bikinkawboyLv 71 decade ago
False. US ag policy has always been to keep food cheap for the masses.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
False. They have tried to turn it into a socialist device paying people to not grow and hord what they have to control pricing. The methenal industry is just another cog in the wheel. Using natural gas to turn food into gas.Source(s): My thoughts from growing up on a small farm in OH and working in the pipeline industry now
- 1 decade ago
True for US farmers.
- Loren SLv 71 decade ago
Since the U.S. is the world's largest exporter of cereal grains, its domestic and foreign agricultural policy has a significant impact on the world market.
U.S. agricultural policy is aggressively targeted at building new market share and promoting international reliance on U.S. food exports.
Import dependency undermines international goals (formulated at the 1974 UN World Food Conference and embodied in the International Declaration of Human Rights) to encourage food self-reliance and security from hunger.
U.S. agricultural policymakers have long relied on the world marketplace to serve a diverse agenda–including management of the domestic farm economy, promotion of geopolitical interests, and most prominently, bolstering exports. The U.S. has aggressively pursued agroexport growth since the 1970s, when the nation experienced its first trade deficit of the century and the international community suffered a widespread food crisis.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) oversees export-promotion programs (primarily export subsidies) intended to boost sales of bulk grains and other commodities. Export subsidies–such as food aid and concessional sales (PL-480), credit guarantees (GSM), and direct in-kind and cash “bonuses” paid to agroexporters (EEP)—have helped pry open the doors of closed foreign markets by flooding them with low-priced commodities. In addition, the U.S. has more recently used trade negotiations to break down tariff and nontariff barriers to U.S. agroexports.
U.S. agroexports—now totaling a record $54 billion—help offset the nation’s chronic overall trade deficit. USDA Secretary Dan Glickman observed in 1996 that “American agriculture is currently twice as reliant on international markets as the U.S. economy as a whole, and by the year 2000 it will be 2.5 times as reliant.”
Already the world’s leading exporter of grains, the U.S. in 1996 laid plans to boost agricultural exports and import demand among the world’s low-income countries (LICs) and large emerging markets. With the backing of leading agribusinesses, Congress passed the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIR), which directs USDA to implement measures to: “Increase the value of U.S. agricultural exports each year at a faster rate than the increase in the value of overall world export trade in agricultural products.” As in the past, federal export-promotion programs and trade negotiations are used to achieve this goal.
The adverse effect of U.S. subsidies on the production capacity and overall food security of LICs has been well-documented. Nevertheless, the U.S. government continues to use subsidies to increase the competitive advantage of U.S. agroexporters. The USDA’s Glickman vowed in January 1996 to “work closely with the Congress to protect the export assistance that helps keep [U.S.] agriculture strong.” Several months later, export subsidies were authorized to continue through 2003. Most of these subsidies are subject to little, if any, restriction under GATT Uruguay Round commitments. PL-480 and GSM programs are exempt from all GATT restrictions, while other direct subsidy programs, such as the Export Enhancement Program (EEP) must be reduced 36 percent in value and 21 percent in volume from their 1986-90 levels—a period during which EEP spending levels were historically their highest, making reductions from current spending levels negligible for most commodities.
Although new GATT commitments will impose little restraint on subsidy spending in the near future, new changes in U.S. federal stockholding policies could potentially curtail some in-kind subsidies—such as food aid. The U.S. government, which managed 26 million tons of grain annually on average from 1978-90, completed long-term plans in 1996 to eliminate virtually all its stockholdings by terminating its supply-management and Farmer-Owned-Reserve programs.
With the outlook for in-kind subsidies somewhat uncertain in the long-run due to budget constraints, the U.S. government plans to make more aggressive use of trade negotiations to build food import demand abroad and fuel agricultural export growth. As stated in the FAIR bill, the U.S. will use upcoming bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations to dismantle foreign import tariffs, import quotas, production subsidies, and other “trade barriers.” Many of these were put in place by high- and low-income countries alike following the food crisis of the 1970s (a time of shortages and high prices) in order to foster greater food self-reliance and security in basic food items.
Problems with Current U.S. Policy
* U.S. export-expansion policies have undermined foreign production capacity, altered consumer preference, and consequently created dependence on imports of wheat and other grains.
* Domestic U.S. farm policies aggravate supply and price volatility for wheat and other cereal crops.