Both the reading passage and the lecturer discuss agricultural subsidies, special payments to farmers based on food production. The lecturer ,however, casts doubt on the author's assertion that agricultural subsidies provide several benefits, by presenting three counter-arguments.
First, the lecturer asserts that agricultural subsidies do not result in increase in food production. For example, farmers grow corns to produce ethanol, not for the purpose of fod supply. This refutes the reading passage's claim that agricultural subsidies will stabilise the food suply through sufficient supply of food from farmers.
Second, the lecturer says that agricultural subsidies rather increase the price of fod. The US public assistance is only for specific harvest, such as wheat and not for other essential food. Thus, farmers will tend to concentrate on harvesting food that are supported by the goverment and reduce production of vegetables or fruits, eventually leading to an increase in price of these. This counters the author's claim that subsidies will reduce the price of food.
Lastly, the lecturer claims that because farming is mechanised, farmers would not higher more workers to increase production. Farmers will purchase machines to increase the production of food. It will not lead to economic growth as the owners will only benefit and not the workers. This refutes the reading passage's claim that subsidies promote economic growth in the society.
|