5 ms·

The farm subsidies could be spent to buy them out permanently, which would probably be better for everyone. Right now the government treats this as an expense,

The farm subsidies could be spent to buy them out permanently, which would probably be better for everyone. Right now the government treats this as an expense, instead of an investment. Low farm prices mean supply outruns demand, so something needs to be done to lower that supply. Instead of annual subsidies, the government could instead have a fund that buys farms and converts it to a park. That would be a win-win strategy: more parkland would be good for the environment (imagine I write all necessary qualifiers here) and the total supply of farm land would be reduced, permanently, thus bringing supply and demand closer to an equilibrium point.

stevenwoo 8y ago
I was under the impression most farm subsidies (> 2/3) in the US go to extremely large corporations - they want the annual subsidies because it keeps them in business every year and can afford the lobbyists/PACs to pressure congresspeople to vote for the subsidies in Congress.
- palisade 8y ago
  Nope, even small farms receive them. And, most of the farms in the U.S. are actually owned by rural families, not large corporations. Edit: When I think of evil megacorp PACs and their lobbyists, I don't think of agriculture at all. Farmers have it rough; droughts, infestations, blights, hedging bets, fabricated news / inaccurate prices to keep exports flowing that eat their bottom lines, high machinery and supplies costs and the already tough job of growing something from nothing while meeting stiff competition. Not to mention being a thankless job. Few care or understand how the food ends up on their table.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    But isn't most of the land managed by companies? Does 'most of the farms' mean lots of small holdings?
    - palisade 8y ago
      Yes, a lot of small land holdings. There are large corps and also government owned/run farms, but a vast majority of agriculture in the u.s. is family run. Which is not a bad thing, because they love what they do and we need them as a society. My family owns a farm producing corn / wheat / soy / green beans / etc, mostly run by my Dad and the work rented out to another local farmer. Some of the corn is used for fuel production. The rest of us have moved into suburbia/cities in various roles; managers, business owners, software, bartenders, etc. I develop software for example, myself.
      - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
        This article says something otherwise: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/16/the-decline-of-the-small-american-family-farm-in-one-chart/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fa5ad5fdd294 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/16/the-d... Its another top-2%-owns-everything situation. Most land is in megafarms. So 'family owned' in both number and land area seems to be a myth
palisade 8y ago
I think you misunderstand the purpose of the subsidies. It isn't that the government wants these farms to completely stop producing. Soil conservation is about preventing dust storms by rotating different crops between fields and then letting overused fields be overtaken by nature again before coming back and reseeding them again years later. Edit: Also, there is never enough food to contribute to solving world hunger or supplying the ever growing demand of a rising human population, and their pets mind you who also consume part of the production. You do -not- want to "permanently reduce" farmland.
- lkrubner 8y ago
  This is incorrect: "there is never enough food to contribute to solving world hunger" There is an abundance of food. There is no need for more food. The OECD countries work to suppress production, and they destroy surplus food, all in an effort to support agricultural prices. There is plenty of food to feed everyone. Where there is hunger, it is because of political factors.
  - palisade 8y ago
    Food is perishable. The population rises exponentially. I don't personally believe anyone is purposely destroying food for political reasons that I'm aware of. A great deal is shipped to 3rd world countries in an attempt to help feed their populations where possible. And, even here at home many grocery stores attempt to redistribute food that is about to expire to homeless and poor communities. More can be and should be done. I don't mean to come off as confrontational. If you have some articles that point to this I'd like to read them. That is clearly wrong and shouldn't be happening if it is. Edit: I'd like to point out though, it seems odd that you are arguing for limiting/destroying production by turning farmland into parks. But then go on to suggest that OECD countries are attempting to limit production unfairly? Very confusing. Edit 2: My dad was also part of a charitable group that helped provide seeds and training to other countries in need in an attempt to help them to establish their own self-sustaining agricultural industry.
    - lkrubner 8y ago

stevenwoo 8y ago

I was under the impression most farm subsidies (> 2/3) in the US go to extremely large corporations - they want the annual subsidies because it keeps them in business every year and can afford the lobbyists/PACs to pressure congresspeople to vote for the subsidies in Congress.

palisade 8y ago
Nope, even small farms receive them. And, most of the farms in the U.S. are actually owned by rural families, not large corporations. Edit: When I think of evil megacorp PACs and their lobbyists, I don't think of agriculture at all. Farmers have it rough; droughts, infestations, blights, hedging bets, fabricated news / inaccurate prices to keep exports flowing that eat their bottom lines, high machinery and supplies costs and the already tough job of growing something from nothing while meeting stiff competition. Not to mention being a thankless job. Few care or understand how the food ends up on their table.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  But isn't most of the land managed by companies? Does 'most of the farms' mean lots of small holdings?
  - palisade 8y ago
    Yes, a lot of small land holdings. There are large corps and also government owned/run farms, but a vast majority of agriculture in the u.s. is family run. Which is not a bad thing, because they love what they do and we need them as a society. My family owns a farm producing corn / wheat / soy / green beans / etc, mostly run by my Dad and the work rented out to another local farmer. Some of the corn is used for fuel production. The rest of us have moved into suburbia/cities in various roles; managers, business owners, software, bartenders, etc. I develop software for example, myself.
    - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
      This article says something otherwise: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/16/the-decline-of-the-small-american-family-farm-in-one-chart/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fa5ad5fdd294 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/16/the-d... Its another top-2%-owns-everything situation. Most land is in megafarms. So 'family owned' in both number and land area seems to be a myth

palisade 8y ago

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the subsidies. It isn't that the government wants these farms to completely stop producing. Soil conservation is about preventing dust storms by rotating different crops between fields and then letting overused fields be overtaken by nature again before coming back and reseeding them again years later. Edit: Also, there is never enough food to contribute to solving world hunger or supplying the ever growing demand of a rising human population, and their pets mind you who also consume part of the production. You do -not- want to "permanently reduce" farmland.

lkrubner 8y ago
This is incorrect: "there is never enough food to contribute to solving world hunger" There is an abundance of food. There is no need for more food. The OECD countries work to suppress production, and they destroy surplus food, all in an effort to support agricultural prices. There is plenty of food to feed everyone. Where there is hunger, it is because of political factors.
- palisade 8y ago
  Food is perishable. The population rises exponentially. I don't personally believe anyone is purposely destroying food for political reasons that I'm aware of. A great deal is shipped to 3rd world countries in an attempt to help feed their populations where possible. And, even here at home many grocery stores attempt to redistribute food that is about to expire to homeless and poor communities. More can be and should be done. I don't mean to come off as confrontational. If you have some articles that point to this I'd like to read them. That is clearly wrong and shouldn't be happening if it is. Edit: I'd like to point out though, it seems odd that you are arguing for limiting/destroying production by turning farmland into parks. But then go on to suggest that OECD countries are attempting to limit production unfairly? Very confusing. Edit 2: My dad was also part of a charitable group that helped provide seeds and training to other countries in need in an attempt to help them to establish their own self-sustaining agricultural industry.
  - lkrubner 8y ago