English: Almost everything you read about farm subsidies fails to put them into the context of bottom side farm program market management, (minimum price floors backed up by supply reductions). These other programs are needed because of chronic market failure, where supply and demand don't self-correct or balance out very well at all, (on either the supply or demand sides, under most market conditions,) as in common theories. This leads to chronic low market prices with few exceptions. Price floor programs were reduced, 1953-1995, then ended. So hardly anyone knows that the farm bill reduced market prices prior to giving farmers subsidies, or that subsidies never made up for the reductions. This chart is a guesstimate of what would have happened if parity programs had been continued at parity price levels. No one knows for sure what adjustments would have been needed, or how the mix of crops would have been different. I have roughly estimated additional supply reductions for the parity standard, and used the actual crop acreages and productions of history. A lower standard than 100% parity could be used, such as 80% or 60%, but the results would still be similar. Over all, since 1953, the reductions for 11 crops plus dairy sum up to more than $5 trillion, and if livestock and fruits and vegetables were added, they would likely be more than $9 trillion for U.S. agriculture. If much lower standards reduced this to $4 or $3 trillion, the general results would be the same: farmers got much less, even with the subsidies. Note, the year 2000, used here, was the biggest year for U.S. farm subsidies.