A series of bumper crops in the United States could lead to the federal government’s having more wheat in storage than was grown by American farmers all year. In India, it was reported in 2002 that the Indian government was spending more on storage of its surplus produce than on rural development, irrigation and flood control combined.{80} It was a classic example of a misallocation of scare resources which have alternative uses, especially in a poor country. #90 в контекст | | |
So long as the market price of the agricultural product covered by price controls stays above the level at which the government is legally obligated to buy it, the product is sold in the market at a price determined by supply and demand. But, when there is either a sufficient increase in the amount supplied or a sufficient reduction in the amount demanded, the resulting lower price can fall to a level at which the government buys what the market is unwilling to buy. For example, when powdered milk was selling in the United States for about $2.20 a pound in 2007, it was sold in the market but, when the price fell to 80 cents a pound in 2008, the U.S. Department of Agriculture found itself legally obligated to buy about 112 million pounds of powdered milk at a total cost exceeding $90 million.{81} #91 в контекст | | |
None of this is peculiar to the United States or to India. The countries of the European Union spent $39 billion in direct subsidies in 2002 and their consumers spent twice as much as that in the inflated food prices created by these agricultural programs.{82} Meanwhile, the surplus food has been sold below cost on the world market, driving down the prices that Third World farmers could get for their produce. In all these countries, not only the government but also the consumers are paying for agricultural price-support programs—the government directly in payments to farmers and storage companies, and the consumers in inflated food prices. As of 2001, American consumers were paying $1.9 billion a year in artificially higher prices, just for products containing sugar, while the government was paying $1.4 million per month just to store the surplus sugar. Meanwhile, the New York Times reported that sugar producers were “big donors to both Republicans and Democrats” and that the costly sugar price support program had “bipartisan support.”{83} #92 в контекст | | |
Sugar producers are even more heavily subsidized in the European Union countries than in the United States, and the price of sugar in these countries is among the highest in the world. In 2009, the New York Times reported that sugar subsidies in the European Union were “so lavish it even prompted cold-weather Finland to start producing more sugar,”{84} even though sugar can be produced from cane grown in the tropics for much lower costs than from sugar beets grown in Europe. #93 в контекст | | |
In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed a farm subsidy bill that was estimated to cost the average American family more than $4,000 over the following decade in taxes and inflated food prices.{85} Nor was this a new development. During the mid-1980s, when the price of sugar on the world market was four cents a pound, the wholesale price within the United States was 20 cents a pound.{86} The government was subsidizing the production of something that Americans could have gotten cheaper by not producing it at all, and buying it from countries in the tropics. This has been true of sugar for decades. Moreover, sugar is not unique in this respect, nor is the United States. In the nations of the European Union, the prices of lamb, butter, and sugar are all more than twice as high as their world market prices.{87} As a writer for the Wall Street Journal put it, every cow in the European Union gets more subsidies per day than most sub-Saharan Africans have to live on.{88} #94 в контекст | | |
Although the original rationale for the American price-support programs was to save family farms, in practice more of the money went to big agricultural corporations, some of which received millions of dollars each, while the average farm received only a few hundred dollars. Most of the money from the 2002 bipartisan farm bill will likewise go to the wealthiest 10 percent of farmers—including David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, and a dozen companies on the Fortune 500 list.{89} In Mexico as well, 85 percent of agricultural subsidies go to the largest 15 percent of farmers.{90} #95 в контекст | | |
What is crucial from the standpoint of understanding the role of prices in the economy is that persistent surpluses are as much a result of keeping prices artificially high as persistent shortages are of keeping prices artificially low. Nor were the losses simply the sums of money extracted from the taxpayers or the consumers for the benefit of agricultural corporations and farmers. These are internal transfers within a nation, which do not directly reduce the total wealth of the country. The real losses to the country as a whole come from the misallocation of scarce resources which have alternative uses. #96 в контекст | | |
Scarce resources such as land, labor, fertilizer, and machinery are needlessly used to produce more food than the consumers are willing to consume at the artificially high prices decreed by the government. All the vast resources used to produce sugar in the United States are wasted when sugar can be imported from countries in the tropics, where it is produced much more cheaply in a natural environment more conducive to its growth. Poor people, who spend an especially high percentage of their income on food, are forced to pay far more than necessary to get the amount of food they receive, leaving them with less money for other things. Those on food stamps are able to buy less food with those stamps when food prices are artificially inflated. #97 в контекст | | |
From a purely economic standpoint, it is working at cross purposes to subsidize farmers by forcing food prices up and then subsidize some consumers by bringing down their particular costs of food with subsidies—as is done in both India and the United States. However, from a political standpoint, it makes perfect sense to gain the support of two different sets of voters, especially since most of them do not understand the full economic implications of the policies. #98 в контекст | | |
Even when agricultural subsidies and price controls originated during hard times as a humanitarian measure, they have persisted long past those times because they developed an organized constituency which threatened to create political trouble if these subsidies and controls were removed or even reduced. Farmers have blocked the streets of Paris with their farm machinery when the French government showed signs of scaling back its agricultural programs or allowing more foreign farm produce to be imported. In Canada, farmers protesting low wheat prices blocked highways and formed a motorcade of tractors to the capital city of Ottawa. #99 в контекст | | |
While only about one-tenth of farm income in the United States comes from government subsidies, about half of farm income in South Korea comes from such subsidies, as does 60 percent in Norway.{91} #100 в контекст | | |
| | |
Simple as basic economic principles may be, their ramifications can be quite complex, as we have seen with the various effects of rent control laws and agricultural price support laws. However, even this basic level of economics is seldom understood by the public, which often demands political “solutions” that turn out to make matters worse. Nor is this a new phenomenon of modern times in democratic countries. #102 в контекст | | |
When a Spanish blockade in the sixteenth century tried to starve Spain’s rebellious subjects in Antwerp into surrender, the resulting high prices of food within Antwerp caused others to smuggle food into the city, even through the blockade, enabling the inhabitants to continue to hold out. However, the authorities within Antwerp decided to solve the problem of high food prices by laws fixing the maximum price to be allowed to be charged for given food items and providing severe penalties for anyone violating those laws. #103 в контекст | | |
There followed the classic consequences of price control—a larger consumption of the artificially lower-priced goods and a reduction in the supply of such goods, since suppliers were less willing to run the risk of sending food through the Spanish blockade without the additional incentive of higher prices. Therefore, the net effect of price control was that “the city lived in high spirits until all at once provisions gave out” and Antwerp had no choice but to surrender to the Spaniards.{92} #104 в контекст | | |
Halfway around the world, in eighteenth-century India, a local famine in Bengal brought a government crackdown on food dealers and speculators, imposing price controls on rice. Here the resulting shortages led to widespread deaths by starvation. However, when another famine struck India in the nineteenth century, now under the colonial rule of British officials and during the heyday of free market economics, opposite policies were followed, with opposite results: #105 в контекст | | |
In the earlier famine one could hardly engage in the grain trade without becoming amenable to the law. In 1866 respectable men in vast numbers went into the trade; for the Government, by publishing weekly returns of the rates in every district, rendered the traffic both easy and safe. Everyone knew where to buy grain cheapest and where to sell it dearest and food was accordingly bought from the districts which could best spare it and carried to those which most urgently needed it.{93} #106 в контекст | | |
As elementary as all this may seem, in terms of economic principles, it was made possible politically only because the British colonial government was not accountable to local public opinion. In an era of democratic politics, the same actions would require either a public familiar with basic economics or political leaders willing to risk their careers to do what needed to be done. It is hard to know which is less likely. #107 в контекст | | |
Politically, price controls are always a tempting “quick fix” for inflation, and certainly easier than getting the government to cut back on its own spending that is often behind the inflation. It may be considered especially important to keep the prices of food from rising. Accordingly, Argentina put price controls on wheat in the early twenty-first century. Predictably, Argentine farmers reduced the amount of land that they planted with wheat, from 15 million acres in 2000 to 9 million acres in 2012.{94} Since there is a large international market for wheat, where the price is higher than the price permitted domestically in Argentina, the government also found it necessary to block wheat exports that would have made the domestic wheat shortage worse. #108 в контекст | | |
The greater the difference between free market prices and the prices decreed by price control laws, the more severe the consequences of price control. In 2007, Zimbabwe’s government responded to runaway inflation by ordering sellers to cut prices in half or more. Just a month later, the New York Times reported, “Zimbabwe’s economy is at a halt.” It detailed some specifics: #109 в контекст | | |
Bread, sugar and cornmeal, staples of every Zimbabwean’s diet, have vanished, seized by mobs who denuded stores like locusts in wheat fields. Meat is virtually nonexistent, even for members of the middle class who have money to buy it on the black market. Gasoline is nearly unobtainable. Hospital patients are dying for lack of basic medical supplies. Power blackouts and water cutoffs are endemic.{95} #110 в контекст | | |
As with price controls in other times and places, price controls were viewed favorably by the public when they were first imposed in Zimbabwe. “Ordinary citizens initially greeted the price cuts with a euphoric—and short-lived—shopping spree,” according to the New York Times.{96} Both the initial reactions and the later consequences were much as they had been in Antwerp, centuries earlier. #111 в контекст | | |
When a local area is devastated by a hurricane or some other natural disaster, many people consider it unconscionable if businesses in that area suddenly raise the prices of such things as bottled water, flashlights or gasoline—or if local hotels double or triple the prices of their rooms when there are many local people suddenly made homeless who are seeking temporary shelter. Often price controls are regarded as a necessary quick fix in this situation. #112 в контекст | | |
The political response has often been to pass laws against “price gouging” to stop such unpopular practices. Yet the role of prices in allocating scarce resources is even more urgently needed when local resources have suddenly become more scarce than usual, relative to the increased demand from people suddenly deprived of the resources normally available to them, as a result of the destruction created by storms or wildfires or some other natural disaster. #113 в контекст | | |
Where homes have been destroyed, for example, the demand for local hotel rooms may rise suddenly, while the supply of hotel rooms at best remains the same, assuming that none of these hotels has been damaged or destroyed. When the local population wants more hotel rooms than there are available locally, these rooms will have to be rationed, one way or another, whether by prices or in some other way. #114 в контекст | | |
If the prices of hotel rooms remain what they have been in normal times, those who happen to arrive at the hotels first will take all the rooms, and those who arrive later will either have to sleep outdoors, or in damaged homes that may offer little protection from the weather, or else leave the local area and thus leave their homes vulnerable to looters. But, if hotel prices rise sharply, people will have incentives to ration themselves. A couple with children, who might rent one hotel room for themselves and another for their children, when the prices are kept down to their normal level, will have incentives to rent just one room for the whole family when the rents are abnormally high—that is, when there is “price gouging.” #115 в контекст | | |
Similar principles apply when there are local shortages of other things suddenly in higher demand in the local area. If electric power has been knocked out locally, the demand for flashlights may greatly exceed the supply. If the prices of flashlights remain the same as before, those who arrive first at stores selling flashlights may quickly exhaust the local supply, so that those who arrive later are unable to find any more flashlights available. However, if the prices of flashlights skyrocket, a family that might otherwise buy multiple flashlights for its members is more likely to make do with just one of the unusually expensive flashlights—which means that there will be more flashlights left for others. #116 в контекст | | |
If there is an increased demand for gasoline, whether for electric generators or to drive automobiles to other areas to shop for things in short supply locally, or to move out of the stricken local area entirely, this can create a shortage of gasoline until new supplies can arrive at filling stations or until electric power is fully restored, so that the pumps at more filling stations can operate. If the price of gasoline remains what it has been in normal times, those who get to the filling stations first may fill up their gas tanks and exhaust the local supply, leaving those who arrive later with no gasoline to buy. But, if the price of gasoline skyrockets, motorists who arrive earlier may buy just enough of the unusually expensive gasoline to get them out of the area of local destruction, so that they can then fill up their gas tanks much less expensively in places less affected by the natural disaster. That leaves more gasoline available locally for others. #117 в контекст | | |
When local prices spike, that affects supply as well, both before and after the natural disaster. The arrival of a hurricane is usually foreseen by meteorologists, and their predictions of approaching hurricanes are usually widely reported. Supplies of all sorts of things that are usually needed after a hurricane strikes—flashlights, bottled water, gasoline and lumber, for example—are more likely to be rushed to the area where the hurricane is likely to strike, before the hurricane actually gets there, if suppliers anticipate higher prices. This means that shortages can be mitigated in advance. But if only the usual prices in normal times can be expected, there is less incentive to incur the extra costs of rushing things to an area where disaster is expected to strike. #118 в контекст | | |
Similar incentives exist after a hurricane or other disaster has struck. To replenish supplies in a devastated area can cost more, due to damaged roads and highways, debris and congested traffic from people fleeing the area. Skyrocketing local prices can overcome the reluctance to take on these local obstacles that entail additional costs. Moreover, each supplier has incentives to try to be the first to arrive on the scene, since that is when prices will be highest, before additional suppliers arrive and their competition drives prices back down. Time is also of great importance to people in a disaster area, who need a continuous supply of food and other necessities. #119 в контекст | | |
Prices are not the only way to ration scarce resources, either in normal times or in times of sudden increases in scarcity. But the question is whether alternative systems of rationing are usually better or worse. History shows repeatedly the effect of price controls on food in creating hunger or even starvation. It might be possible for sellers to ration how much they will sell to one buyer. But this puts the seller in the unenviable role of offending some of his customers by refusing to let them buy as much as they want—and he may lose some of those customers after things return to normal. Few sellers may be willing to risk that. #120 в контекст | | |
The net result of having neither price rationing nor non-price rationing may well be the situation described in the wake of the super storm “Sandy” in 2012, as reported in the Wall Street Journal: #121 в контекст | | |
At one New Jersey supermarket, shoppers barely paused for a public loudspeaker announcement urging them to buy only the provisions needed for a couple of days of suburban paralysis. None seemed to be deterred as they loaded their carts to the gunwales with enough canned tuna to last six weeks. A can of Bumblebee will keep for years: Shoppers take no risk in buying out a store’s entire supply at the normal price.{97} #122 в контекст | | |
Appeals to people to limit their purchases during an emergency, like other forms of non-price rationing, are seldom as effective as raising prices. #123 в контекст | | |
