EC Nebraska | Dust88 - 9/9/2025 20:13
I see 2 problems, 1 is recurring between many types of insurance.
1) It seems people often forget what insurance does or what it's for. It's to save you in a disaster. It's not supposed to provide a return year over year. Most are probably better off if they never collect. It's not an investment. It is possible to over or under insure. It's also possible to self insure.
2) Would this subsidy paid directly to you not immediately be eaten by inputs, whether new iron higher seed or the neighbor bidding up rent? Costs will rise proportional to this subsidy, we're back at square one with no disaster relief, everybody is still pissed at the farmers and each other and the checks are still going out. Just get rid of it if that's the best we can do.
I don't think that costs would rise proportionally IF, and only if, the govt. stuck to the "no more" clause.
The instant there's another ad hoc payment, it'd all get bid into land and machinery.
Otherwise, yes, there will be many who bid it away. And when their area has a problem, they go out of business and some guy who can manage the money takes over.
That only happens if the govt holds the line. |
Crop Insurance Subsidies
