3 ms·

Without enough domestic farms and oil fields the US would be extremely vulnerable to foreign sanctions etc. in times of conflict. The subsidies are intended to

by aianus 9y ago

Without enough domestic farms and oil fields the US would be extremely vulnerable to foreign sanctions etc. in times of conflict. The subsidies are intended to keep some of these unprofitable operations running domestically.

stuaxo 9y ago
Maybe that would be an incentive against conflict ?
- ufmace 9y ago
  Only if everybody in the world did it. Otherwise, it makes whoever did do it vulnerable to anyone who didn't. Unless of course one subscribes to rather silly and naive notions like that the USA is the primary source of conflict in the world.
justin66 9y ago
> Without enough domestic farms and oil fields the US would be extremely vulnerable to foreign sanctions etc. in times of conflict. By treating agriculture as a free market, without protectionism and subsidies, we'd allow the developing world to actually develop, reducing the frequency of "times of conflict." As a practical matter, the argument you've given is just a (common enough) red herring. Stopping the United States from trading with its primary trading partners would be somewhat less practical than trying to keep Rome at its peak from importing grain from Egypt.
- DamnYuppie 9y ago
  I would not consider it a red herring. There are very few places in the world that can sustain large scale agricultural out put. For clarification I speak of the Nile Delta, Ukraine, Mekong Delta, and the Midwest of the United States. This is nothing new, this has been true since the dawn of human history. With the exception of the Midwest of the Unite States those areas have also been fought over continuously since the dawn of human history. Your comment seems to indicated that it is less develop countries that are to be feared in times of conflict. This is not the case, with very few exceptions it has been the more developed countries that seek to exploit those regions. As a policy I am for the United States keeping it agricultural engine online and working as I don't wish my countries food supply to be dependent on, nor easily manipulated or controlled, by others.

by aianus 9y ago

stuaxo 9y ago

Maybe that would be an incentive against conflict ?

ufmace 9y ago
Only if everybody in the world did it. Otherwise, it makes whoever did do it vulnerable to anyone who didn't. Unless of course one subscribes to rather silly and naive notions like that the USA is the primary source of conflict in the world.

justin66 9y ago

> Without enough domestic farms and oil fields the US would be extremely vulnerable to foreign sanctions etc. in times of conflict. By treating agriculture as a free market, without protectionism and subsidies, we'd allow the developing world to actually develop, reducing the frequency of "times of conflict." As a practical matter, the argument you've given is just a (common enough) red herring. Stopping the United States from trading with its primary trading partners would be somewhat less practical than trying to keep Rome at its peak from importing grain from Egypt.

DamnYuppie 9y ago
I would not consider it a red herring. There are very few places in the world that can sustain large scale agricultural out put. For clarification I speak of the Nile Delta, Ukraine, Mekong Delta, and the Midwest of the United States. This is nothing new, this has been true since the dawn of human history. With the exception of the Midwest of the Unite States those areas have also been fought over continuously since the dawn of human history. Your comment seems to indicated that it is less develop countries that are to be feared in times of conflict. This is not the case, with very few exceptions it has been the more developed countries that seek to exploit those regions. As a policy I am for the United States keeping it agricultural engine online and working as I don't wish my countries food supply to be dependent on, nor easily manipulated or controlled, by others.