Doesn't the government still pay farmers to NOT grow food as part of a subsidy program to reduce supply and thereby artificially raise prices?
I'm a libertarian and hate subsidies, but having many farmers as relatives, feel I have to correct your misinformation.
Lets say the price of corn hits something insanely high like $10/per bushel.
You might think to yourself "I should get into this corn farming thing" and invest money in starting up a farm.
As you do that starting a farm is expensive. Equipment for farming corn is unique and can't be used for something like Peas. But the price of corn is so high, it's worth it.
After you harvest you get your money... whew! What a good investment! But by the 2nd year you realize a lot of other people had the same idea you did and they started corn farms as well. The market is glutted with corn, the price crashes to $1/bushel
But you notice Peas are selling really high so you switch to farming peas. It costs you a fortune for new equipment but you get your peas planted...
and 2 years later, you run into the same problem, everyone switched crops at the same time you did, Pea prices fall through the floor and you're trying to buy back your corn equipment.
This happened at the turn of the century a LOT. No individual farmer can be expected to accurately predict the price of corn the following season. So the feds do it for them. They offer a floor on the price of their crops, and they pay farmers not to plant. This stabilizes the market, prevents over-saturation and allows farmers to be more efficient. The cost to the government is actually a net profit because those wild swings in the market price cost them a lot of tax revenue.