3 ms·
If they can be grown at such a massive scale, why do they need to be subsidized? Wouldn't they get grown anyway? Why not subsidize broccoli and quinoa instead?
by Kluny 11y ago
If they can be grown at such a massive scale, why do they need to be subsidized? Wouldn't they get grown anyway? Why not subsidize broccoli and quinoa instead?
(Yes I know the question is naive but I still hope for a smart answer.)
- ams6110 11y agoSoybeans and corn have many uses and produce many sub-products (oils, tofu, corn starch, corn meal, animal feed, even as raw material for plastics, bio-fuels, etc.) Broccoli is pretty much just something people might eat a few ounces of a couple times a week.
- jonnathanson 11y agoThey can be grown at scale because they are subsidized. Other products suffer at scale because farmers' economic incentives are heavily skewed towards growing the subsidized crops. They carry high opportunity costs. Apologies; I should have made the direction of causality clearer in my original comment.
- Kluny 11y agoThanks for clarifying.
- tptacek 11y agoIs it the case that farmers grow soybeans instead of broccoli because they're subsidized, or is it rather that broccoli is more seasonal, more specialized, harder to grow, and especially difficult logistically, with a value chain that includes more middlemen that suck out more of the value? How many different broccoli farmers or farmer-co-ops are there that have nationwide distribution? Because you can grow soybeans, supply several different industries in doing so, and the commodities markets are more or less set up to directly manage your risks. That's not a public policy priorities issue, it's a "soybeans are a more fundamental output of the agriculture industry than broccoli is" issue.
- tim333 11y agoI think cause and effect may go the other way - being grown at scale allows them to lobby/buy politicians hence subsidies.