> 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...

> 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.