Do you think the Agricultural Adjustment Act was right?

Question

In 1933 the Agricultural Adjustment Act was passed, do you think it was the right thing to do, why or why not?

Answer 1

It is hard to judge today whether or not the AAA was right or wrong for farmers in the 1930's. Its purpose was to reduce the crop surplus so as to effectively raise the value of crops, thereby giving farmers relative stability again. The farmers were paid subsidies by the federal government for leaving some of their fields unused. The act worked for the time, it raised the income of farmers by about 50% while not increasing the price of food.

So, the AAA worked for the time it was introduced, but it opened up a whole new concept of paying subsidies to farmers that has continued to the present time. This has made farming dependent on the subsidies to survive, and you can't say that it is good for farming now. The price of farm products should be allowed to get back to the supply and demand principles where they started.  The "New Deal" programs started up a whole system of welfare that has continued on and has gotten carried to the extreme, not just in agriculture. The only way out now without destroying the whole economy is a controlled and gradual removing the system.

Answer 2

to  some extent i partially  agree with  4 previous answers..i was born on a farm in the 40's..many farms  were operating well..they  60 ,80 acre plots of land that produced  level earning power for a  hard working  farmer ,this was  in WI. they were able to have a decent standard of living for the time  if they heated their home with their cut wood.  average farm had one tractor,or two, some indoor plumbing..wood heating,average 20  milking cows ..the farmers average day was 14 ?hours  these farmers were excellent recyclers,they were GREEN long before the word cane to be something beside a color!  the  farmers i knew refused the  payments as welfare,,some 20 years later they began to accept payments say 50%....however the  government began to regulate the dairy industry and destroyed the small farners.. creating huge now  polluting farms..

Answer 3

During the depression, regardless of the actual efficacy of the legislation, the New Deal acts helped to give the people a sense that something was being done and that things would be changing. In a struggling economy, even a perceived change can create some improvements.

As for the AAA specifically, it was good because it helped to compensate farmers for their work, and ensuring that one group of workers were earning better wages could potentially trickle down to other workers in the economy. Under the act, however, a lot of crops and livestock had to be destroyed. At a time when the majority of the population was struggling to feed their families, it seems counterproductive to waste available food. It also paved the way for today's farmer subsidies. Without some price regulation on our crops, other nations with cheaper labor would be able to grow the same things for less and undercut our farmers. The subsidies, however, seem to be so misappropriated that it is not actually benefiting the family farmer it was intended to help, but the large corporate farms owned by the wealthy who do not need the help.

Answer 4

Yeah because it helped  us make farms large

Answer 5

This sounds familiar to the CAP policy that I am more familiar with. The stability of Supply, Farm Income and stable food prices were at the core of this. Unrestrained Market forces applied the Agricultural Sector destroys these over time. Sadly with the policy of price support, also fails and can cause other problems that range from World Trade Tariffs on imported cheaper food and dumping excess product, to large amounts of public funding spent on unwanted crops.

The balance is being sought in the EU by replacing price support for 'stewardship of the land' support. Farming is having to diversify into other areas, but its downside is that land is being left fallow. Supermarkets in particular have depressed farm gate prices and the margins squeezed. If farmers have no income the impact will come through in more fallow fields and less food.