08.08.2015 Views

Economic Report of the President

Report - The American Presidency Project

Report - The American Presidency Project

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

unlikely to happen in <strong>the</strong> future in part because <strong>of</strong> energy. In 1975,when data first became available, energy-intensive inputs (excludingfertilizer) accounted for 23 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> variable cost <strong>of</strong> producingan acre <strong>of</strong> corn. Those same inputs accounted for 31 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>variable cost in 1980. Higher real prices for <strong>the</strong>se inputs will be adisincentive to <strong>the</strong>ir use and intensify <strong>the</strong> pressure to use additionalland and water resources. These resources are also more limited. In1972, for example, more than 16 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cropland base wasbeing withheld from production by government policies. None isbeing withheld today. To raise production fur<strong>the</strong>r, land will have tobe diverted from o<strong>the</strong>r uses and developed for crop production. Thecost <strong>of</strong> doing so will be reflected in higher agricultural prices.Changes in policy, however, could help to ameliorate future increasesin food prices. Certain land-use patterns remain fixed byacreage allotments. Fruit and vegetable growers sometimes restrictoutput or o<strong>the</strong>rwise control marketing to enhance prices and <strong>the</strong>nseek restrictive trade policies to protect those higher prices. Certainregulatory procedures now impose economic penalties on <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong>technologies that would raise productivity in <strong>the</strong> food system. Suchpolicies deny both producers and consumers <strong>the</strong> benefits <strong>of</strong> technologicalchange. Finally, certain price support decisions continue to bestatutorily dependent on movements in an outdated parity index thathas little relation to product-specific costs <strong>of</strong> production. The dairyprice support program is perhaps <strong>the</strong> best known example here. Suchpolicies enhance <strong>the</strong> economic position <strong>of</strong> some farmers, while <strong>the</strong>yperpetuate existing—but not necessarily efficient—patterns <strong>of</strong> resourceuse. Such inefficiency is particularly costly in a period <strong>of</strong> relativeresource scarcity and limits agriculture's potential contribution toeconomic growth.POLICY DIRECTIONS FOR THE 1980sSignificant progress has been made over <strong>the</strong> past 30 years in adjustingU.S. agricultural policies to a changing world. More importancehas been placed on <strong>the</strong> allocative function that can be performedby prices, and <strong>the</strong>re is significantly less direct government interferencewith producer decisionmaking.This Administration's farm policies have contributed to <strong>the</strong> evolutionaryprocess. The implementation <strong>of</strong> a farmer-owned grain reserveprogram stands out because <strong>of</strong> its flexibility and its success in moderatingprice fluctuations stemming from changes in production andconsumption levels. Additionally, <strong>the</strong> recent formation <strong>of</strong> a government-ownedfood reserve increases <strong>the</strong> likelihood that food will beavailable to foreign nations during emergency situations, even whenworld prices are high and commercial supplies are limited. The 1980passage <strong>of</strong> a statute permitting <strong>the</strong> creation <strong>of</strong> a partially subsidized,122

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!