The following is a CBC commentary I recently ran across:
For decades, farm leaders and politicians have told us that we need subsidies to “preserve the family farm.” But if you check the numbers, you'll find that farm subsidies have been a shocking failure.
Cash crop grain farmers have been dropping like flies, only one-third of our dairy farms are left since supply management appeared in the 1970s, and there are fewer poultry farmers today than ever in the history of our nation.
In fact, you could argue that subsidies are actually driving down the number of family farms.
That's certainly the view of Brian Chamberlain, past president of the Federated Farmers of New Zealand. He says the large-scale operators capture most of the subsidy loot and use
it to grow even bigger at the expense of other farms. But in New Zealand, where subsidies went out in the mid-1980s, farm numbers have held steady.
And there are lots of other problems that arise when governments meddle in free markets.
For example, when Scotland offered subsidies to expand grain production, farmers plowed up pastures and put their sheep on marginal lands higher up in the hills. And when the government realized there was too much grain, it offered another set of incentives to farmers to retire land. Guess what happened? The best pasture land in Scotland was retired. The
marginal hillsides remain in sheep.
Those who want subsidies admit they can cause problems, but they say, ‘We need them to stave off absolute disaster.’ That's also what they said in New Zealand. Even the government figured 8,000 farmers would bite the dust when it ended subsidies. In truth, only 800 went under.
The new round of World Trade Organization negotiations is a golden opportunity to shed our farm subsidies and the trade barriers which allow supply management to exist.
I believe we have some exceptionally bright and hard-working farmers and we certainly have an abundance of tremendous resources. We will benefit more from the elimination of subsidies and trade barriers than from continuing on with policies that are a proven failure.
What do you think of these comments?
For decades, farm leaders and politicians have told us that we need subsidies to “preserve the family farm.” But if you check the numbers, you'll find that farm subsidies have been a shocking failure.
Cash crop grain farmers have been dropping like flies, only one-third of our dairy farms are left since supply management appeared in the 1970s, and there are fewer poultry farmers today than ever in the history of our nation.
In fact, you could argue that subsidies are actually driving down the number of family farms.
That's certainly the view of Brian Chamberlain, past president of the Federated Farmers of New Zealand. He says the large-scale operators capture most of the subsidy loot and use
it to grow even bigger at the expense of other farms. But in New Zealand, where subsidies went out in the mid-1980s, farm numbers have held steady.
And there are lots of other problems that arise when governments meddle in free markets.
For example, when Scotland offered subsidies to expand grain production, farmers plowed up pastures and put their sheep on marginal lands higher up in the hills. And when the government realized there was too much grain, it offered another set of incentives to farmers to retire land. Guess what happened? The best pasture land in Scotland was retired. The
marginal hillsides remain in sheep.
Those who want subsidies admit they can cause problems, but they say, ‘We need them to stave off absolute disaster.’ That's also what they said in New Zealand. Even the government figured 8,000 farmers would bite the dust when it ended subsidies. In truth, only 800 went under.
The new round of World Trade Organization negotiations is a golden opportunity to shed our farm subsidies and the trade barriers which allow supply management to exist.
I believe we have some exceptionally bright and hard-working farmers and we certainly have an abundance of tremendous resources. We will benefit more from the elimination of subsidies and trade barriers than from continuing on with policies that are a proven failure.
What do you think of these comments?
Comment