Want this question answered?
true
To a large degree it does. However farmers grow crops for profit. If they are not going to get paid for their work then they will not grow them. Which is reasonable.
The Indian farmers were forced to grow Indigo and Cotton crops and were also paid less
It paid farmers to plant crops that protected the soil.
Under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Franklin Roosevelt initiated a program where the government would pay the farmers NOT to raise certain livestock, such as hogs, and NOT to grow certain crops, such as corn, cotton, wheat, and tobacco. With the money from this program, poor farmers could pay off their debts from World War I and get back on there own feet. They would be paid, while also not having to pay for supplies to grow their crops. By raising crop prices
In history: Farmers would probably have paid their taxes in produce - crops, animals, etc.
1 billion dollars muhahahahahaha
the civilian consevation corps paid the farmers with brazilian prostitutes
It costs less to grow crops with slaves who don't have to be paid, than it does to grow crops by hiring people to work on your plantation.
Tenant farmers
The crops were sold to other people and they paid the farmers so the crops are a big part of the economy
When farmers are paid not to cultivate land less crops are produced. This will keep prices up so that the farmers can actually have money for the planting in the following year.