World History Help! Socialism. Why should the government pay farmers not to grow crops?

First of all, that's not socialism at all. Some people use the word 'socialism' to describe anything they don't like.

For a long time, farming was hit-and-miss. One year you might have a bumper crop, then the next year (or two) you'd get almost nothing. A farmer had to go into debt to buy seed and fertilizer and fuel for his machines, and two or three bad years could cause him to lose his farm! Meanwhile, if he had a huge crop one year, all the other farmers would too, so it was harder for him to make back all he'd lost in the bad years.

So the fed. govt. stepped in to protect farmers. This is not SOCIALISM. When people desperately need something and they can't figure out how to get it any other way, they look to government. The government took charge of prices, setting minimum prices for corn, soybeans, etc. if the market didn't support those prices, the govt. would buy the crops themselves and sell them, basically taking charge of the marketing end of the farmer's business. The govt. might guarantee loans for the farmer at low interest, like they do for student loans today and dozens of other large groups that borrow money.

They found it was cheaper not to overproduce certain crops, so in some cases they'd pay farmers not to grow them for a year or two, just until surplusses could be used up. This was part of a unified agricultural plan whose goal was to stabilize prices and production, so as to keep farmers working, help them hold onto their farms, and also to feed everyone in the country that depended on those crops.

A lot of this happened in the 1930s, which was sort of a 'perfect storm' for farmers. We had a huge recession, and at the same time a serious drought which caused much of the topsoil in the Midwest to just dry up and blow away (partly the result of a century of bad land management). A lot of farmers were just packing up and moving to other parts of the country to find work, but all those other places had desperately high unemployment too. The govt. stepped in to keep people from starving to death on the streets.

Of course the family farm is almost an anachronism these days. More and more farms have been bought up by enormous powerful corporations, just like most other businesses in the US. These big corporations spend hundreds of millions in lobbying, to persuade Congressmen that more big breaks are needed to protect farms, citing the continuing losses of family farms. But of course most of that aid goes to big corporate farms, like other 'corporate welfare'. Funny, conservatives never call that 'socialism'.

"Mel T" and "Smarty pants" are both correct. Farming subsidies are something that is ONLY practiced in CAPITALIST countries like the US and France. It is certainly not something that is done in the Socialist countries of Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Peoples Republic of China, Laos or Cambodia.

Many people misuse the word and call countries like Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Britain and Australia as "socialist" when these countries are capitalist.

You need to google "farming subsidies" or "agricultural subsidies" that's what they're called when you look them up. Tons of stuff out there about why the US should end them, but lot of articles about whey they started. These kind of price controls were engaged in the US using the "commerce clause" in the Constitution, they don't exist solely in socialist countries.

http://www.ehow.com/about_6330049_farmers-subsidiz...

There are no US government programs that pay farmers not to grow crops.