Subsidies: Beneficial or Detrimental?

Since 1979, the topic of corn subsidies has been a controversial one. According to the following chart, the United States government has given more money to corn subsidies than to any other program in the US since 1995. By 2009, US corn subsidies had totaled to a staggering $73,775,277,671, beating out any other program by at least double. Based on one article that I read, "America's corn farmers have been benefitting from annual federal subsidies of around $6 billion in recent years, all in the name of ethanol used as an additive for the nation's vehicles." To put it simply, our nation's corn farmers are paid annual subsidies to produce mass amounts of corn crop, and are guaranteed to make a profit, even if they produce too much corn, or the market price of the corn is too low to make a profit on its own.

But what is a subsidy?

 A subsidy is "a benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction." (Investopedia.com) Subsidies were first introduced to corn farmers following the ending World War II had ended. During the war, farmers in the US produced mass amounts of food for the entire Allied force. However, once the war ended, there was a surplus of food, causing prices of many crops, including corn, to go down. This hurt the farmers tremendously, so Congress and the President decided to subsidize several crops, including corn, which was subsidized the heaviest. Because of all the farm subsidies, farmers were forced to raise only a single crop, corn for instance. With only one crop to worry about, farmers mass produced, causing corn prices to decline even more, which the prompted the government to subsidize even more, thus creating an endless cycle, which has caused a lot of controversy in the US.

 Just recently, however, the US government ended a three-decade old policy on corn subsidies. The policy was originally put into place during Jimmy Carter's presidency in an effort to increase the use of natural fuels such as corn ethanol and decrease the dependence on the Middle East for oil. However, it has been recently established that corn ethanol is not as environmentally friendly as we think it is. According to Michal Rosenoer, corn ethanol " leads to more climate pollution than conventional gasoline, and it causes deforestation as well as agricultural runoff that pollutes our water." This information pushed Congress to change the policy on corn subsides to be more moderate towards farmers.

 Is it a good idea for the government to decrease corn subsidies? How will this effect the price of corn? Will it help or hurt the economy?

America Runs on... Corn

            I have finally landed on a topic for my junior theme project. In my paper, I plan to explore the impact that corn has on the US economy as well as the farmers. The corn industry itself has become very powerful in the US, especially in the last 50 years. According to the USDA, consumption of corn products has nearly doubled since the 1950s, and consumption of corn sweeteners, such as high fructose corn syrup,(which didn't even exist until the 1970s) has increased by about 700 percent.

Clearly, our economy wouldn’t be the same without corn. However, although corn is used a lot in food, the majority of it is used in ethanol. According to a blog I read, “for every 10 ears of corn grown in the U.S., two are consumed by humans, and the other eight are used for feed and fuel.” So although our nation consumes many more corn products in out diets, we are actually burning right through it a much more rapid rate in the fuel tanks of our cars.

There are many pros and cons to the use of ethanol. Many are included in this video, which should give a clear picture of what ethanol is and the impact that it has or has potential to have on our society.

In summary, ethanol has made a huge impact on our society. Corn production rates have gone through the roof. The US government is also closely considering the sustained production of ethanol as a way to benefit our society.

Why should or shouldn’t the US look at ethanol as a major fuel supply? How will the increased production of ethanol affect the corn industry?

A Fast Food Nation

            For my junior theme, I am planning on investigating the social hierarchies of fast food corporations and tying them back to the slave industry. In an effort to jumpstart my thinking, I decided to watch a movie called Fast Food Nation, a movie about a mock McDonalds company called Mickey’s, which supposedly was using bad meat in their most famous burger, “The Big One.” The movie investigated the lives of a wealthy white marketing manager in the company, teenagers working in the restaurants themselves, and illegal immigrants working in the meat processing plant for Mickey’s. Here’s a preview of the movie to give a better idea of what the movie is all about:

            After actually watching the movie, I was horrified at some of the things that went on, even if this was just a made up story. But, it was all based on real statistics, real facts, and real stories coming from fast food restaurants (hint: McDonalds possibly?). The movie depicts some of the things the immigrants had to go through, such as getting raped or having sex to get a job in the first place, horrible work conditions, one many actually had his leg severed off in the meat mincer, another man got a concussion and other injuries, which unfortunately needed to eventually get paid off by his family who already had no money.

On the other side of things, the marketing manager was given a false taste of reality when he came in. He asked to get a tour of the meat processing plant, and was only shown parts of the plant, or at least the better parts. He was told there was fecal matter in the meat by an expert, but when he went in to the actual plant, he was given no reason to believe such a fact. Luckily, he was able to find another man who actually told him the truth about was going on in there. However, had he not found that man, he would never of known a thing about that plant.

I then began to wonder if this is how all fast food corporations work today. Are there immigrant workers in the meat processing plants of all fast food companies? Do the workers work under as poor of conditions as depicted in the movie? I believe there is a hierarchy in these fast food industries. They had to develop from somewhere, and they seem to mirror the slave industry very closely…

To be continued…

Putting Out the Fire

            I was listening to music this afternoon, when I started listening to a song by Billy Joel, entitled We Didn’t Start the Fire. It had a catchy tune and interesting lyrics. But after listening to the song, I wanted to know more about it, and what the meaning of the song is.

 

            According to one website I went to, the lyrics are “a stream of consciousness list of events” that Joel believed his generation shouldn’t have been blamed for. In the chorus, when he says, “we didn’t start the fire,” he’s saying that all of the societal issues going on during that time weren’t caused by his generation. The phrase, “it was always burning since the world’s been turning” states that these issues were already in place before Joel’s generation was born. Finally, he says, “ but we tried to fight it” to show that although his generation wasn’t the cause of all the social turmoil, they did try to stop it.

            This song was very interesting to me because it made me start to realize that issues in our society today might be blamed on my own generation by the time we become adults. Although these issues might not be our faults, we will have to take on the burden of taking blame for them as well as fixing them. Issues like immigration, poverty, and laws on gay marriage will become our problems to fix. It’s quite daunting to think about.

            Why are different generations blamed for all of the things that went wrong in our country? Will this happen to our own generation?

The Biggest Loser

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	Total
White	10	9	12	15	16	15	16	9	14	15	16	12	18	177
Black	2	2	4	2	3	0	4	5	4	4	4	2	2	38
Hispanic/Latino	0	2	0	0	1	0	0	2	2	1	2	1	0	11
Asian	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	4
Pacific Islander	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	2	0	2	0	0	6
Total	12	13	16	18	20	16	22	16	22	21	24	15	20	236

White: 75%

Black: 16%

Hispanic/Latino: 4%

Asian: 2%

Pacific Islander: 3%

Source

Only for Women

            Today I was watching TV and a commercial came on that reminded me of a fellow classmates blog post. (Unfortunately, I cannot remember who wrote it). Their post was about a Pepsi commercial and it directly related to gender. It talked about how it was “not for women” and “only men can handle the taste of it.” The blog then went on discussing gender related issues as to why companies would use this commercial and try to appeal to men. Well… The commercial I watched compares to the Pepsi commercial in that it appears to appeal to only women. Let’s take a look…

            There is definitely an obvious appeal to women here in this commercial. First we get the tough girl questioning the crystal light girl on her drink of choice because she thinks she’s putting herself at lower standards than men. Then, however, we get a twist in the action when two men on a motorcycle steal her purse and crystal light girl runs after them. Eventually, she catches them, gets the purse back, and scares them away using her “girl power.” This is what has been portrayed to us by this commercial.

            So what are we to make of it? I think the commercial has a direct relation to feminism, and is directly targeting women to buy the product. By seeing this commercial, women will want to be more independent and powerful, triggering them to buy the product. But why only women? Why target just one half of the world essentially, in this commercial? I am yet to understand why companies decided to appeal to only one gender when they are advertising a product…