Agricultural Subsidies are a waste

thank you.R1I do concur that taxpayer money is given to farmers who are paid not to plant but they are also given to farmers so they can plant more. my opponent makes an assumption and says I am making a concession to equating surplus with such an overproduction of crops that the crops themselves have no cost, I can see how he made that jump (wait no I can't). The US made a reform to farm policy in 1996 establishing a subsidy programs in which their are payments made to farmers once prices fall below a floor price aka the loan rate, which is set by our law makers (congress). My opponent is saying that these payments encourage overproduction, generating surpluses that are then dumped on the market at prices well below the cost of production. My opponent then I would say reasons that reducing subsidies would curb overproduction and boost prices. Inflation in the US is a problem even with farmers when we take a look at the farm sector over say a bunch of years (60) a few things stand out that prices have declined steadily over the sixty years and that the price decline since 1996 has been far less severe than in previous years, this suggest that their are other factors contributing to the decline. In 1998 a upsurge occurred in subsidy payments in response to falling prices, not the other way around. And prices fell not because of subsidies but remaining vestiges of supply management programs were phased out in 1996 this lead to increased competitive pressure on the supply side of the market. Overproduction refers to a situation in which current supply exceeds current demand. Excess inventories accumulate, and prices fall. If overproduction caused the longer-term price decline, we would expect to see excess inventories rising as prices fall. But inventories (in relation to usage) have remained constant or fallen for all major commodity crops (corn, rice, wheat, soy, and cotton) since the early 1980s. Thus falling prices do not appear to be caused by overproduction, either before or after the 1996 subsidies were enacted. And (with the possible exception of cotton), this data offers no compelling evidence that subsidies as such are causing stocks to rise.A business would observe another business getting to know it's competition. they tend to avoid price competition, using non-price means to increase their market share. However the farm sector is different. they will not, as a rule, respond to falling prices by taking land out of production that is, working to raise prices by limiting supply. Just the opposite: confronted with falling prices, farmers will attempt to increase output in hopes of offsetting falling per-unit revenues by a higher total volume of unit sales. Failure to do so will put them out of business sooner rather than later.So the normal operation of the market which aggregates the decisions of many individuals is for lower prices to trigger higher output, leading to even lower prices. The farmer’s imperative to cover fixed costs, and the fact that farmers generally do not coordinate their individual actions prior to bringing their goods to market, gives rise to the seeming irrationality of farmers’ responding to falling prices by trying to increase output. And since the demand for most food goods is relatively unresponsive to price, a significant decline in price may be required to clear the market of excess supply. Thus the overall price level tends consistently downwards and buyers’ expectations of what they will have to pay adjust ever downward, too.R2"Agricultural" or "farming" are a general terms used to refer to things that are produced on a farm. Agricultural subsidies also go to purely dairy farms as well as farms that produce purely crops. $295 Million dollars are appropriated toward diary farms in the US. These farms produce the methane gas and water pollution that was mentioned in the opening round, thus they are relevant in the statement that agriculture can be a negative externality."Ok so I concede that it is a negative externality how is it a waste though that's what this debate is about. And agricultural pollution is caused not by all farms or most farms but by the biggest farms the 20% of them that usually get favor to subsidies. A small farm however they devote about 17% of their land area to woodlands and keep as much of their land in soil improving uses. They maintain soil fertility on the farm which means an active interest in long term sustainability.-deadness-The process you're referring to I assume is eutrophication which their is a "boom" in the feed of algea (nitrates and phosphates) so they reproduce like wabbits. So algae increases and the river look reddish for a while until they die and that's bad because they are literally took up all the dissolved oxygen when they die they take the oxygen with them. While this is very sad and very bad. Why is it important to this debate? why is it at all relevant? the topic is "Agriculutural subsidies are a waste." Paying for something that has no benefit and is actually harmful is a waste. They are not necessary for anything and my opponent has not given even the smallest amount of evidence that they are necessary for anything.