|
| in the past the argument against taking land out of production was that our foreign competitors would just take that vacuum in supply and take our market share. and that was probably true, but we are in a new ballgame "this time". brazil is increasing acres/hectares 4% next year like they always do and probably always will do.
why race to the bottom? i wouldn`t be opposed to at least looking at taking 10 million acres out of production, maybe not have juicy bids, with the farm economy as such perhaps $180/acre would get to 10 million acres for a 5 year term. there would have to be guard rails like tariffs on imported foreign commodities. that would raise domestic markets enough that there shouldn`t be need for ad hoc payments that everyone claims to hate.
if we are set up to absolutely have to export 25% of our soybeans, instead of pounding the pavement around the world for markets that will eventually be filled by south america, why tread through the cobra pit hoping that you won`t get bitten?
there would be objection to "paying farmers not to farm" but look at the alternatives. programs that "pay farmer to farm" adds to supply and cuts the farmer`s throat, to let nature take it`s course results in 1/3 or so bankrupt farmers.
it`s fall, we could get a crp expansion up for the 2026 crop, as details would come out, it would raise the value of the 2025 (not to mention what`s left of 2024 crop that partly still held). the tree hugger aspect of crp should have as much bi-partisan support as any policy can get these days. maybe have a haying and grazing option for a lesser payment to incentivize cow/calf expansion?
admittedly it`s at best a less bad answer to a problem that has only bad solutions. | |
|
a case for expanding crp
