5 ms·

To all of you arguing about how this is a market distortion; about economists who argue about "drain on the exchequer"; and to those logicians arguing about fal

by rs1234 9y ago

To all of you arguing about how this is a market distortion; about economists who argue about "drain on the exchequer"; and to those logicians arguing about fallacious fallacies - did y'all have breakfast this morning? Yes? Good. Well, those people eating in those canteens might not have been able to have breakfast, but for those subsidized canteens. We should not put economics and "the market" on a pedestal. If something is the right thing to do, it is the right thing to do. As someone pointed out, Britain provided subsidized restaurants. US provides farm subsidies. "Market" is good if it does good for the people. Otherwise there is no point in being wedded to an ideology.

cgmg 9y ago
What makes you think that US farm subsidies are a good idea?
- metaphor 9y ago
  The parent never asserted that US farm subsidies are a good idea.
  - csin 9y ago
    As an non-American I would like to ask... For people who are in the "patriotic" group. Your country needs to maintain the infrastructure to self-sustain it's people in a world war. What would be a more effective strategy over food subsidies? Edit: Sorry I meant Farm subsidies, not food stamps.
    - metaphor 9y ago
      The question strikes me as a red herring in that it presumes an optimal solution to the obtuse problem of world war sustainment exists as some one-shot panacea.
    - fencepost 9y ago
      > Your country needs to maintain the infrastructure to self-sustain it's people in a world war. Food wise, logistics wise or technology wise? Because while the US could manage the first two assuming no major internal disruptions, we've pretty much abandoned the third in favor of cheap imports and profits.
      - metaphor 9y ago
        > ...[the US] pretty much abandoned [technology] in favor of cheap imports and profits. From a consumer perspective, sure. From a critical defense perspective, not entirely[1]. [1] https://www.dmea.osd.mil/otherdocs/AccreditedSuppliers.pdf https://www.dmea.osd.mil/otherdocs/AccreditedSuppliers.pdf
        fencepost 9y ago
        Sure, you can get chips within some limitations - in fact I believe some chip fabs have been moving back onshore. Can you get screens? I remember coverage maybe 20 years ago about Zenith closing the last TV manufacturing in the USA, and while that was in the days of CRTs I can't imagine that a lot of new panel manufacturers are here.
        metaphor 9y ago
        Interesting point. I'm not really seeing the bottleneck with respect to defense sustainment though. In terms of critical defense: L-3, Honeywell, Rockwell Collins, and Elbit (Israel) are a few major players off the top of my head that cater to domestic weapon system displays. In terms of consumer displays: Japan, Korea, and Taiwan are allies. Humoring a doomsday isolation scenario with consideration towards America's disposable first-world couch potato culture, there's probably enough TVs/monitors in existing circulation throughout the country to sustain even the most improbably protracted conflict, let alone used surplus being auctioned off by the pallet for pennies on the dollar. Might even resuscitate a dead repair trade and create a few meaningful jobs too. Of course, this all assumes the government doesn't acknowledge a supply deficiency and fails to seed the capability need. Don't get me wrong. I agree that the status quo of domestic technology production isn't exactly a self-lubricating wheel and leaves much to be desired...but it's not exactly dead in the water either.
    - zdragnar 9y ago
      The OP referred to farm subsidies, not food subsidies. The majority of these are in the form of price floors, intended to alleviate poverty among farmers and prevent shortages by encouraging excess supply during all but the leanest of times. The reality is, the majority of these subsidies go to multi-million dollar farms, not the small family farms. As a result, we're effectively paying taxes to raise prices on food, which is very regressive in that it hurts the poor far more than the wealthy. Of course, the flip side of the coin is that without the subsidies, prices would be so low that small farms wouldn't be able to compete anyway. Supply would, assuming the weather cooperates, roughly match demand, and a not insignificant chunk of taxes could go towards other programs (such as subsidizing school breakfasts and lunches). Then, we'd have some bizarre mix of natural disasters that creates a severe shortage of several key crops, causing significant chaos both in markets and in the daily lives of people who like to eat food, and we'd end up right back where we started- demanding the government guarantee that we don't run out of food in lean times, and paying the price for doing so.
  - cgmg 9y ago
    "If something is the right thing to do, it is the right thing to do. As someone pointed out... US provides farm subsidies."

by rs1234 9y ago

cgmg 9y ago

What makes you think that US farm subsidies are a good idea?

metaphor 9y ago
The parent never asserted that US farm subsidies are a good idea.
- csin 9y ago
  As an non-American I would like to ask... For people who are in the "patriotic" group. Your country needs to maintain the infrastructure to self-sustain it's people in a world war. What would be a more effective strategy over food subsidies? Edit: Sorry I meant Farm subsidies, not food stamps.
  - metaphor 9y ago
    The question strikes me as a red herring in that it presumes an optimal solution to the obtuse problem of world war sustainment exists as some one-shot panacea.
  - fencepost 9y ago
    > Your country needs to maintain the infrastructure to self-sustain it's people in a world war. Food wise, logistics wise or technology wise? Because while the US could manage the first two assuming no major internal disruptions, we've pretty much abandoned the third in favor of cheap imports and profits.
    - metaphor 9y ago
      > ...[the US] pretty much abandoned [technology] in favor of cheap imports and profits. From a consumer perspective, sure. From a critical defense perspective, not entirely[1]. [1] https://www.dmea.osd.mil/otherdocs/AccreditedSuppliers.pdf https://www.dmea.osd.mil/otherdocs/AccreditedSuppliers.pdf
      - fencepost 9y ago
        Sure, you can get chips within some limitations - in fact I believe some chip fabs have been moving back onshore. Can you get screens? I remember coverage maybe 20 years ago about Zenith closing the last TV manufacturing in the USA, and while that was in the days of CRTs I can't imagine that a lot of new panel manufacturers are here.
        metaphor 9y ago
        Interesting point. I'm not really seeing the bottleneck with respect to defense sustainment though. In terms of critical defense: L-3, Honeywell, Rockwell Collins, and Elbit (Israel) are a few major players off the top of my head that cater to domestic weapon system displays. In terms of consumer displays: Japan, Korea, and Taiwan are allies. Humoring a doomsday isolation scenario with consideration towards America's disposable first-world couch potato culture, there's probably enough TVs/monitors in existing circulation throughout the country to sustain even the most improbably protracted conflict, let alone used surplus being auctioned off by the pallet for pennies on the dollar. Might even resuscitate a dead repair trade and create a few meaningful jobs too. Of course, this all assumes the government doesn't acknowledge a supply deficiency and fails to seed the capability need. Don't get me wrong. I agree that the status quo of domestic technology production isn't exactly a self-lubricating wheel and leaves much to be desired...but it's not exactly dead in the water either.
  - zdragnar 9y ago
    The OP referred to farm subsidies, not food subsidies. The majority of these are in the form of price floors, intended to alleviate poverty among farmers and prevent shortages by encouraging excess supply during all but the leanest of times. The reality is, the majority of these subsidies go to multi-million dollar farms, not the small family farms. As a result, we're effectively paying taxes to raise prices on food, which is very regressive in that it hurts the poor far more than the wealthy. Of course, the flip side of the coin is that without the subsidies, prices would be so low that small farms wouldn't be able to compete anyway. Supply would, assuming the weather cooperates, roughly match demand, and a not insignificant chunk of taxes could go towards other programs (such as subsidizing school breakfasts and lunches). Then, we'd have some bizarre mix of natural disasters that creates a severe shortage of several key crops, causing significant chaos both in markets and in the daily lives of people who like to eat food, and we'd end up right back where we started- demanding the government guarantee that we don't run out of food in lean times, and paying the price for doing so.
- cgmg 9y ago
  "If something is the right thing to do, it is the right thing to do. As someone pointed out... US provides farm subsidies."