The food example, is the exact reason for large farming subsidies in the European Union. These were implemented as a founding initiative, due to the experience of food shortages during the second world war. A great number of things could be considered critical. Due to the nature of when access could be cut off, the main thing countries likely worry about being able to access, is things humans need to stay alive, and things needed to wage war.

▲

0x3f a day ago | parent [-]

Farming subsidies are one of the most criticized parts of the EU. My comment isn't in support of it. But even so, subsidy is quite different from compulsory purchase. The question is: why is steel special. Not in a no-action-vs-some-action way, but why so aggressive?

Ironically I think it's the same for both steel and farmers: they provide votes.

▲

XorNot a day ago | parent | next [-]

Because like, every basic war machine is made from it? Like how is this a question?

There's been two world wars and access to or stockpiling of steel has been a critical strategic factor in both.

Most consumable military assets are made from steel, for example and it underpins most machine tools and factory components as well.

	▲	lazide 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Also all non-flying forms of transport.

▲

handelaar a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For lots of reasons but if you're the UK and you're honest with yourself and you are only allowed to pick exactly one reason that steel is absolutely critical?

Royal Navy.

	▲	t0mpr1c3 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Ezcept that the shipyards closed in the 1970s.

▲

AngryData 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Farming subsidies are the only way to prevent famine, the granary system sort of works, but regularly resulted in shortages and famines throughout every empire in history. Even not accounting for longer term climate trends, yield due to weather can vary up to 30% in a year, so it only makes sense to pay for a bit of over production so in the event of a couple bad years your food output is merely break even, and not 70% of needs.

Its better to pay 5 cents more for a loaf now than pay $20 a loaf with rationing later, or if we went back to granary system possibly getting moldy food.

▲

benj111 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Isn't the point of rationing to prevent the loaf going to $20.

	▲	lazide 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Usually no one tolerates rationing until it’s already at $20 a loaf.