Set-a-side discussion from other site
When I saw the post title, I automatically knew a fair number if not most would be shooting down the setaside idea with "Brazil`ll just pick up the business", that is as far as the analysis goes. I`ll go to my stand by devil`s advocate question of "Does John Deere keep producing $200,000 tractors if they aren`t profitable?".
If I recall correctly we had surpluses so large in the 80`s and 90`s that we almost didn`t need to raise the next years crop with a setaside and that`s when the CRP got rolling too. We were covered in grain and Brazil never shut the Cats off clearing more ground.
Maybe Brazil and Ukraine etal will "pick up the slack" but aren`t they already "picking up the slack" with our supposed low prices? I don`t know about you, but I`d rather get higher prices than low if Brazil regardlessly "picks up the slack".
IMO have a voluntary setaside with a price 'carrot" to those participating and only do one year at a time, that way if market conditions change we are only months from putting the hammer down. And if you`re happy with the current $3.60 corn and $8.50 beans then don`t participate and continue with your hammer down.
But with the demographic makeup of the country, I don`t know if the AOCs and Ilhan Omars would support a program that Stephen Colbert would surely describe as "paying farmers not to farm".
Re: Set-a-side discussion from other site
Take the M F P , and have a personal , non- governmental , set - a - side of say 20.20 % , instead of a U S D A ran deal - - -
Just 20% on corn acres and we could be at the 27% level of world production, leaving our current position of the 34% level, a number stated by an Iowa University - - -
Would there be a leveraged savings on crop in$urance, or on input co$t$ - ?