Here is some more political history of U.S. Farm Bills and farm programs. It's an awesome history, but a forgotten, erased, history. We greatly need to know this today. Democrats have supported "living wage" or "parity" minimum farm price floors, backed up by supply reductions, as needed to balance supply and demand. No subsidies are needed in these programs. They also supported maximum farm price ceilings, backed up by reserve supplies, as needed to prevent price spikes. While the increasingly Republican farm programs have greatly lowered farm income and subsidized foreign countries with below cost sales, Democrats have favored making a profit on exports. While Republican subsidies, (to compensate farmers for trade wars where the U.S. loses money on exports,) are expensive and irrational, Democratic programs are much cheaper, and sometimes the programs have made a profit for the government, (for example, 1942-1950, during the parity years).
1. By Brad Wilson, 4/23/22. https://www.slideshare.net/bradwilson581525/presentations
Democratic Party Farm Bills
From the Great Depression to the 21st Century.
2. By Brad Wilson, 4/23/22
Parity: A “LivingWage” Standard
Rising Up from the Great Depression; An Economic Stimulus to Fight World War II
3. Maximum Price Ceilings trigger the release of Reserve Supplies, as needed to balance Supply & Demand on the top side,
to protect consumers, livestock farmers and industry.
Floors (& Reductions); Ceilings (& Reserves)
Minimum Price Floors, backed up by Supply Reductions, as needed, to protect farmers.
12. “Freedom to Farm,” the 1996 Republican Farm Bill, (vetoed then signed by Clinton,) was labled “Freedom to Fail” by farmers.
Price Floors Reduced: Starting with Eisenhower
Price Floors & Supply Management Ended in 1996.
13. We’ve seen increasing volatility since the ending of market management programs in 1996.
U.S., Iowa Net Farm Income Fell!
Recently Iowa Net Farm Income fell to only 33% of what it was during the Parity years.
42. Something is missing from this paradigm, leading to myths about farm subsidies.!
See the next slide! (Historical averages, 1980-2005.)
Farm D Gets 1,000x, (C 100x, B 10x) More Subsidies
Why is this story, (so virally told,) radically false?
43. This series of data on 4 farms is based upon averages for 1980 to 2005.
Farm D is 1,000x, (C 100x, B 10x) Bigger!
As average farms growing corn, soybeans and oats, 3 or 30 acres is nowhere close to full time.
44. Date
Each Farm has the same ratio of crops.
This is based on historical averages for the entire period, 1980-2005.
45. Date
Farm D Has 1,000x, (C 100x, B 10x) More Market Income!
Compared to Farm A, (3 acres). Same as on other charts. (Historical averages, 1980-2005.)
50. Date
Assets: x10, x10, x10.
Low Return on Assets (profitability)? Compare the charts below.
51. This kind of calculation can be made using data from the Census of Agriculture.
Profitability: SmallVs. Big Farms
Studies have found that most economies of size are achieved on a 2 person farm.
52. This is similar to, (but somewhat different from,) USDA’s “Rate of Return on Equity from Current Income.
Return on Equity: Way Down
To get long term data I used Net Farm Income divided by Equity.
53. Figured here as Net Farm Income divided by Assets. Note the Decline from the “parity years.”
Return on Assets: Very Low
U.S. Farmers make very little on their investments in land, facilities, machinery, etc.
55. Includes Crop (Revenue) Insurance and other subsidies?
Farmers vs. Insurance Corps.!
Farmers are usually subsidized up to 5%, Insurance Corps. to 18%!
58. When farmers signed up in 2014, and were forced to gamble between ARC & PLC, (risk management,) the price of corn
was $3.71. The PLC subsidy trigger was lower, at $3.70, offering no subsidies. Farmers chose ARC.!
The PLC subsidy trigger was not adjusted for inflation, so it became lower each year, 2013 through 2023.
No ARC Subsidies for 2017 & 2018?
93.4 % of corn farmers signed up for ARC, not PLC. (Figures are nominal, not adjusted for inflation.)