The Ethanol Papers - Paperturn manuscript - Flipbook - Page 604
If there wasn’t a known demand for the corn (demand equals money) the farmers would not grow it, or at least not nearly so much of it. They would grow
something else, or they just wouldn’t grow anything. If the farmers don’t grow
anything they would be unemployed. So then the farmers would get some kind
of public assistance, which in itself is a subsidy. If the farmers chose to grow
something else it could cause a glut on the market, causing prices to fall, which
would hurt even more farmers. The government may still have to step in with
some financial assistance or pay the farmers to not grow anything (which has
happened many times in the past). This is a subsidy. If you don’t like subsidies,
why would this subsidy be more acceptable?
The bottom line is that the use of the starving African children imagery is just a
ruse to tug at the heartstrings of people who are or would like to be socially
conscientious. The solution for the starving people is to teach them how to grow
corn or wheat or cucumbers themselves. And this has been tried, of course.
However, a peculiar thing has happened. In the effort to get some of our surplus
produce in the hands of people in third world countries, the lower price (and
often no-price) of the items wind up under-cutting similar locally grown produce.
This makes it unprofitable for the local farmer to continue in business, and it
drives him out.
CLICK image to play video
