2015 northeast corn temporary storage policy announced on September 18, as expected, temporary Shouchu prices compared with last year have dropped. In 2014, the temporary storage of corn price in Heilongjiang for the 2220 yuan / ton, Jilin 2240 yuan / ton, Liaoning and Inner Mongolia for 2260 yuan / ton, this unified adjustment for 2000 yuan / ton, the maximum decrease of 11.5%. This is the national implementation of the policy of temporary storage of corn in Northeast China since the first cut, purchasing and storage price. In contrast, the 2015 minimum purchase price of rice and wheat is still maintained at the level of 2014, did not cut. Considering that last year had to cancel the temporary storage of soybean grain price support policy, countries have reduced the scope of intent more obvious. Actually, before the release of the temporary storage of corn in the policy, many of the main players in the market even expected this year will be the abolition of the temporary storage of maize, but the country has taken compromise strategy -- policy continued, but the price support greatly weakened the 2016 completely cancel the corn of the temporary storage of foreshadowing.
The reason why a corn and soybean temporary policy for purchasing and stockpiling unsustainable, the reason is very simple, higher than the market price of purchasing and storage of food, also is not willing to sell at the market price, the result is successive into little more than a ", grain stock is more and more high, loss is more and more big game cannot continue to play down. Then is similar to the Thai rice, under the banner of high priced acquisition sold at high prices the abacus, the result is easy high priced acquisition, high priced to sell difficult, accumulation of a large number of rice, the rice backlog on the one hand lead to there is no storage capacity to acquire new grain, more important is money can not return, the Thai government fiscal funds tight, no money to perform originally planned acquisition. The food from the government of Thailand, but do not receive direct word, angry farmers out of the British Prime minister.
Of course, our soybean, corn is not to Thai rice that kind of situation, but minds, save for a rainy day, promptly repair policy, is still very necessary.
Obviously, corn once out of the temporary storage, then with soybean as, target price subsidies will also become new corn policy choice. Target price subsidy phase compared to the temporary storage of a benefit that market prices no longer distorted, the government is no longer the acquisition and sale of Maize to worry about. Target price subsidy is the standard practice of agricultural subsidies in developed countries, but China is still difficult to implement. Mainly is the huge number of Chinese farmers, average plant size is too small, determination of subsidy and payment of costs will than in developed countries is much higher. And this is why we prefer to dealing with the reasons for adopting direct price intervention of government and grain storage and other a handful of subject to more than hundreds of millions of farmers deal obviously easier and more convenient.
The next question is, since soybeans, corn can take the target price approach, rice, wheat? At present, the implementation of rice and wheat is the minimum purchase price policy, nature and a temporary policy for purchasing and stockpiling not any difference and a direct price intervention measures, the future rice and wheat is not also be taken in the target price subsidies?
"The minimum purchase price" is first put forward by in 2004 promulgated the "grain circulation regulations", which Article 28 "when the grain supply and demand relations have undergone significant changes, in order to guarantee the supply of the market, protect the interests of farmers, when necessary can shall be determined by the State Council on the shortage of key grain varieties in major grain producing areas to implement the minimum purchase price." It should be said that the expression of this one is a bit contradictory. According to the statement, the implementation of the minimum purchase price of the object is a shortage of key grain varieties, but the law tells us that the supply and demand, if a food shortage, then its market prices will inevitably rise, or, the extent of the shortage of goods is measured in terms of its price. This means that, for the shortage of grain varieties to implement the minimum purchase price is to make an unnecessary move. In fact, when food is in short supply, the market will automatically protect the interests of farmers in the way of price increases, not too need to protect the minimum purchase price, farmers often need to protect the food supply is often a time when the supply exceeds demand. So, the lowest bid can not achieve the protection of the market supply of the target? Also difficult. In the past 10 years, the minimum purchase price of practice from the point of view, the minimum purchase price implementation leads to starving increasingly concentrated in the hands of the government and market starving less and less, the food supply for the market overall is been strained, which manifests for the past 10 years, domestic food prices continue to rise, domestic and foreign food spread more pull more. Some people may say that, starving the market tension that is because the government did not release the temporary storage of grain, food supply is not true out of the question. That is to say, the minimum purchase price policy for the starving tension is an illusion. In this case, I want to ask: why should we make such an illusion? If you do not implement the lowest purchase price, so even this "illusion" is not, is not better?
Therefore, from a logical point of view, the "minimum purchase price" of the legislative expression is questionable. The lowest purchase price, whether in nature or in practice, is a way to protect the interests of farmers in the supply of food, not in short supply. The lowest purchase price itself has not played a role in the protection of the supply of the market, but artificially created the market supply and demand tension, the illusion, distort the market.
In China's food problem, there are two points: first, the interests of farmers need to protect, the two is the food, especially the grain rations should be based on self-sufficiency. The minimum purchase price (including temporary storage) is a way to achieve these goals. By increasing the minimum purchase price, the income of the farmers has been improved, the enthusiasm of the farmers to get excited and increase domestic food production, food self-sufficiency level raise. But, in front of the analysis, the price is also huge. There is no other way, both can achieve these two consensus can reduce the cost of it? Yes, that's the target price subsidy. Target price subsidies can be in not to distort the grain market man-made starving tension false premise to farmers at subsidized, protect the interests of farmers. And any market, as long as the interests of the producers have been enough protection and compensation, the producer of the production enthusiasm is excited, then the supply will not be a problem. But compared with the minimum purchase price, target price subsidies means national master starving will be greatly reduced, supporting, purchased in the hands of the government of gigatons of temporary reserves will no longer exist in the target price subsidies, starving subject will be fully market-oriented. This time, if the government wants to control the grain market, grain reserves can only rely on conventional. If the government is concerned about the lack of conventional reserves, it can continue to enrich the conventional reserves (not the conventional reserves is not a city, will not distort the market price). In order to achieve a better macroeconomic regulation and control, the government can also choose to sell in the grain wholesale market in general. In short, the target price subsidies to the conventional reserves can be a good alternative to the lowest bid, to achieve the goal of protecting the interests of farmers, to ensure food self-sufficiency.