Most farm subsidies are more a benefit to the end consumer more so than the producer. Strange thing about the enemies of crop subsidies is they would be some of the loudest criers if costs of groceries went up 200 - 300 %
That is part of it,you don`t hear much nowadays but from the 40s through the 80s we had what was known as a cheap food policy.
The idea being that if the price of eating became a burden there would be a political fallout.
Now with the stigma of food stamps being erased that is not so much an issue plus society has fundementally changed.
Growing up in the 70s on a small dairy farm and a small community there was not the fascination with "stuff",you still mostly lived to get through the day and life and then success was if you had something to pass along to your kids.
To answer Richs question after having lived it and still am an eyewitness the answer imo is mostly no,the subsidies should not have been put in place as it causes the subsidized product to explode in quantity and then having the opposite affect...lower prices paid to the producer.
It kept my fathers farm barely afloat 25 years longer then it was viable because to try to offset the lower prices one tries to farther increase production and thus cashflow.
The truck always showed and the check was in the mail twice a month.
In the end though prolonging is not preserving and the smallest existing class of farm is eventually squeezed out and then the next existing size and so on until supply decreases and prices go up.
Then the green light comes on and off to the races for the next round.
