▶ Your Answer :
The lecture argues that US government
should not maintain special payment which is paying more to farmers who have
more outputs, while the reading states that we can conclusively say that it is necessary
for farmers.
To
begin with, the professor supports that it does not stabilize the food supply,
because some crops like corns are used for extracting oils, and it is not
increasing the amount of food supplied to people. However, the reading does not
agree with the lecture. Since farming is highly depended on the weather, the
amount of output can be vary. As farmers can get benefits from it, they tend to
work hard to grow more crops, and it results in balanced food supply.
Besides,
the lecture suggests that it actually increases the price of some of the crops instead
of lowering it. The professor states that it does lower the price as the reading
contended, but as the government only gives benefit for certain crops such as corns,
and wheat, farmers only cultivate these a lot. So, the overall price rises with
few exceptions.
Finally,
the lecture notes that it does not help economic growth. In contrast, the
reading argues that farmers hire many workers during the land cultivation and
it can help people in financial hardship and supports economic growth, but the
professor’s final point provides an alternative explanation that farmers buy
more machine instead of hiring more people, and it only benefits owners.
In conclusion, it is controversial
whether US government should maintain special payments for farmers, but the
lecturer suggests that it is not necessary for farmers because of the following
reasons I mentioned above.
|