[Hoot Gibson]

I didnt imply anything, I just said demand went down. As prices go up, supply goes up (law of supply). As prices go up, demand goes down (law of demand).

Not exactly. What you said was...

This is not true. More corn will be grown (the government still pays for peeps not to grow corn), resulting in more supply. This will make the demand go down, and in turn, costs for consumers.

...which is not true. If the government stopped paying subsidies, then farmers would not be paid to not grow corn because that would be a subsidy by definition. You also said...

Yes, demand will go down. As supply (corn) increases, the demand for it will decrease. It may be by just a little bit since corn is relatively inelastic, but the demand will go down.

...which is also wrong. Increasing supply will not decrease the demand for corn. Cattle will still need to eat and increasing supply translates to a reduction in price, which would result in a greater consumption of corn. You may have meant to stipulate that the increase in supply was precipitated by an increase in price but you did not do so.

Growing corn is a cyclical process. Growing corn is not like manufacturing widgets because the cycle time to produce corn is much longer.

Market conditions can change drastically from the time that crops are planted to when they are harvested. A large corn surplus is more likely to occur because of favorable weather over the course of a growing season than because of an increase in the acreage planted.

I support eliminating subsidies but such an elimination should be coupled with extensive deregulation of American agriculture. Our farmers are the most productive in the world but they need a level playing field to compete globally without subsidies.