|
| ▲ | ls612 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| To not produce in ordinary times. The thinking is that in time of war it’s easy to then say “go wild” and ensure your food supply is abundant. |
|
| ▲ | EdwardDiego 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And in the US, a lot of the subsidies flow towards food that isn't edible without processing - soybeans and field corn as opposed to sweet corn. Why? Because they've always grown it. So the subsidies encourage them to keep on growing it instead of diversifying into more competitive or higher value crops. |
| |
| ▲ | 9rx 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The subsidy is received by way of reduced insurance premiums. While that does make insurance affordable where it mightn't otherwise be, the rate of reduction is the same across all crops, so the insurance is made equally affordable no matter which crop you grow. Thus, for all intents and purposes, we can completely ignore the subsidy and simply focus on the insurance as that is ultimately what you are suggesting is significant. After all, if the subsidies were taken away, all it would really mean that you theoretically couldn't afford insurance anymore and would do without. But what is significant about insurance? Since no good discussion is complete without a car analogy, let's go there. Say you always drove a truck. By your logic, auto insurance encourages you to keep driving trucks. Which suggests that if you could no longer get auto insurance, you would start driving a bus/van/car/whatever instead. But what makes you think that? If auto insurance disappeared for some reason, why wouldn't you still keep driving trucks as opposed to buses/vans/cars/whatever? There is probably a reason why you started driving trucks in the first place that doesn't go away even if insurance did. In the case of corn and soybeans, there is a really good reason why they are grown so much: Because that's where the market is. It is what people want to buy. They are the most competitive and highest value crops in the regions they are grown. | | |
| ▲ | EdwardDiego 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > In the case of corn and soybeans, there is a really good reason why they are grown so much: Because that's where the market is. It is what people want to buy. They are the most competitive and highest value crops in the regions they are grown. Given the fact that they're subsidised, I doubt that they're the most competitive crops. Competitive crops don't need to be subsidised. Also, if they're so competitive, then why has the demolition of USAID caused them economic harm? A competitive product doesn't rely on a taxpayer subsidised buyer to make their market. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/19/1232435535/how-usaid-cuts-hur... | | |
| ▲ | 9rx 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Given the fact that they're subsidised, I doubt that they're the most competitive crops. Every crop is subsidized. > Competitive crops don't need to be subsidised. Then no crop is competitive, so what is this alternative product that you are picturing? Stones? Who is going to buy those stones? > then why has the demolition of USAID caused them economic harm? John Deere's stock price is basically at its highest point ever. What economic harm are you talking about? When they are warning of imminent bankruptcy, then we can talk about there being economic harm. Some people sitting around complaining about something being different isn't real economic harm, just talk. Actions speak louder than words. | | |
| ▲ | EdwardDiego 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Every crop is subsidized. Then there is no free market, so the real value of any of those crops can't be determined. |
|
| |
| ▲ | EdwardDiego 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | https://usafacts.org/articles/federal-farm-subsidies-what-da... | | |
| ▲ | 9rx 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Literally tells that the subsidy is insurance. Again, what is significant about insurance in the manner you have presented it? |
|
| |
| ▲ | bluGill 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What subsidies? | | |
|
|
| ▲ | pseudo0 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A lot of it also gets turned into biofuels or sent to third-world countries as food aid. That could easily be rerouted in a crisis scenario, if domestic food security became an issue. |
| |
| ▲ | EdwardDiego 4 days ago | parent [-] | | The corn that gets turned into biofuel isn't edible without further processing into maize derived products, so in a crisis scenario, hope you can still highly process corn. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | rcxdude 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The subsidies are generally to have spare production capacity, so as to reduce the risk of famine that can occur from the capitalistic incentives of optimising the system for efficiency above resilience. (Not that the subsidies are always actually the most sensibly set out: but the general idea of subsidizing farming is an important one) |
| |
| ▲ | cpursley 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > The subsidies are generally to have spare production capacity Maybe originally, but not anymore. Exhibit A: See America's waistline and the reason behind it (hint: farm subsidies and SNAP, two sides of the same coin). |
|
