The US government should stop providing financial aid to the agricultural industry.

Background

The US government has been extensively supporting the agricultural industry for the past few
decades.

Intervention and disruption of the free market: tariffs, subsidies, import quotas
Tariffs: a certain amount of money taxed on imports
Subsidies: a certain amount of money provided to manufacturers
Import quotas: a limit on the amount of imports

Highly competitively-priced agricultural goods

Agricultural exports can compete with locally produced goods in other countries

Arguments for ending financial aid

1. Intervention discourages innovation and efficiency.

The purpose of intervention is to protect an industry from competition.

Competition is beneficial in the sense that it forces manufacturers to innovate so that they
can capture a larger market share. For example, lots of money is spent on research and
development in technology companies because there is intense competition.
Innovation brings quality-of-life improvements to consumers
Innovation allows manufacturers to produce at a lower cost, allowing society to make
better use of limited resources.

Example: competition between farmers have encouraged the adoption of more efficient
production methods, such as tractors. This has saved a lot more land and resources spent on
producing the same amount of food, allowing the industry to feed more people.

2. Intervention brings great cost to consumers and comes with an opportunity cost.

The lack of innovation means that there won't be much quality improvements in agricultural
products.

Low efficiency also means that the industry is wasting resources like land, water, energy
and manpower.

Low efficiency also means that US consumers have to pay a higher price for agricultural
goods.

This comes with an opportunity cost, for the resources wasted on such inefficient methods
can be better spent on other government-led projects like health-care and education.

3. Intervention brings inequality to developing countries

By protecting inefficient manufacturers from competition, the US government is artificially

making its agricultural exports more competitive against locally produced goods in other
countries.

In developing countries, manufacturers may not be able to compete against US exports,

despite their own lower labor costs. This leads to the closure of manufacturers and
unemployment in developing countries.
This is especially harmful to the economies of developing countries as the agricultural
sector is often the largest one.

The United States, being one of the most developed countries in the world, has a
humanitarian responsibility to improve the well-being of other countries, and certainly
should not worsen their economic problems. Also, the United States is an advocate of free
trade and should uphold its own values.

Possible counter-arguments
1. The government should put the interests of its own citizens first.

This is true, but the fact is that financial aid for the agricultural industry actually leads to
great inefficiency and translates into higher prices for consumers.

Also, the US government has a moral responsibility to not use its economic leverage at the
expense of developing countries.

2. Self-sufficiency is important to the country's security and independence.

One can also argue that interdependence can actually lead to greater integration in the global
economy and prevent hostilities between countries.

The US has high levels of technology and large reserves of land so it should be able to
increase its production of food when necessary.

3. Employment

It is true that cutting down intervention in the market would lead to some unemployment in
the US agricultural industry. However, it is temporary and the benefits of increased
efficiency and better allocation of resources outweigh it. Also, the US agricultural industry
is heavily mechanized, so unemployment will not be as severe as one might expect.