Remix.run Logo
ggm 12 hours ago

Ag. can't just be about profit. There's a dimension which is national-strategic interest. Food security, the domestic food economy is important.

It is my understanding that a lot of the US ag. sector is making inputs for processing for corn oil, fructose, ethanol, and for exports to markets which in turn target american ag, selling e.g. beef back to the US, fattened on US Soy.

It's a complex web. I don't want US farmers going broke, any more than I want Australian farmers going broke (where I live)

So getting this right, fixing farming sector security, is important.

tananaev 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I recommend checking history of deregulation of agricultural industry in New Zealand. It didn't lose the industry. Actually the opposite happened.

Persistent government subsidies are almost never a good idea long term. I understand that some temporary support might make sense in some cases, but not permanent one. It prevents innovation and optimization. And in the long run it usually makes more damage.

keithnz 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Having been in the NZ ag tech industry for the last 25+ years, US subsidies and tarrifs drove a lot of innovation in NZ (also Europe) and then US manufacturers in the spaces I've been in have pretty much collapsed when faced with better tech as farmers switched to using our ( or the European) tech.

bix6 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Curious what sort of tech? Like better tractors and such?

UltraSane 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Please provide examples

tw04 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It would appear that to remain competitive they had massive consolidation, and with that an increase in animal density leading to major issues with water pollution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CraFarms

So I guess yay deregulation, now with more capitalist privatized profits with socialized costs!

tw04 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Downvoting without engaging in a discussion kind of directly violates both the spirit and rules around here.

I've posted pretty solid evidence that dregulation, did not, in fact improve the agricultural situation for New Zealand. It absolutely made a subset of corporations and mega-farmers extremely rich at the expense of the natural resources the rest of the country shares. Would LOVE to hear the arguments about how that's a good thing for the people of New Zealand or our planet as a whole.

But then again, that would require thoughtful discourse...

mlrtime 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because it goes against the urban popular group think. "Blue States subsidizing Red States" "NZ did it, so US can to"

Provide any real or partial claims this isn't the whole story and it's difficult to change your mind on something that is fundamental to your beliefs. So downvote and move to the next post that validates your beliefs. Happens to everyone including me.

4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
kiba 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Growing excess amount of food is part of food security, but farmers are going bankrupt because they focused on labor efficient agricultural commodity products to the exclusion of everything else. For many farmers, it's not even a full time job

I rather we focus on increasing food security in other way.

Maybe we shouldn't be turning corns into cows as that reduce the amount of energy we are able to access. But how do we keep access to farmlands that we don't use now that we aren't turning corns into cows? I suppose we could just use these lands as pasture.

mlrtime 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>Maybe we shouldn't be turning corns into cows

Why? We like beef. I don't want it to go away.

toomuchtodo 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

~60 million acres of corn and soybean in the US, the size of Oregon, is grown exclusively for biofuels. This is unnecessary as you mention, as are the subsidies to farmers for these row crops.

mlrtime 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Which could be easily converted in one harvest to feed a nation if needed. That option is very valuable.

nickpsecurity 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do those crops contribute to the negative numbers reported since most people don't buy biofuel? Or does it contribute something positive to the numbers with government subsidies guaranteeing returns?

I haven't studied the economics of the biofuel farming.

toomuchtodo 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Corn is turned into ethanol, and is then blended with gasoline. The US consumes ~14B gallons of ethanol per year. It’s a net negative because it’s carbon and water intensive and farmers advocate for more ethanol than is necessary as a subsidy via government mandate.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/dec/03/environm...

https://ethanolrfa.org/media-and-news/category/news-releases...

jerkstate 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Subsidies also lead to surpluses that can help buffer price shocks during supply crises; here is a recent example: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01638-7

groundzeros2015 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Everyone thinks their thing is too special for markets. I’m sure you’ve heard the argument for healthcare, education, energy, water, food, science, infrastructure, etc.

We need to realign on this politically; either we use markets to allocate scarce resources or we don’t.

The answer is probably that the public does not believe in markets. But we haven’t made that explicit, and instead have the worst combinations of policies; with worse service and enabling grifters.

nine_zeros 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

crm9125 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Ag. can't just be about profit."

Somewhere off in the distance I hear billionaires laughing.

This is only important if you care about the future of humans. At least in America, attention spans have shortened, empathy has decreased, and individualism has increased. Billionaires don't care about the future beyond their own life. And unfortunately, one of the worst of them is now the head of the country.