7 ms·
> I don't get it. You could argue that the poor need food more than farmers need money. That same argument could be made to any business, though. Why are farmer
by sgift 8y ago
> I don't get it. You could argue that the poor need food more than farmers need money. That same argument could be made to any business, though. Why are farmers more obligated to donate to the poor than anyone else?
One of the arguments for subsidies to farmers is that they are the "feeders of people". Sounds to me like they want privileges, why not a few obligations for a change?
- CivBase 8y agoIf Imperfect Foods's business model works out, it sounds like farmers will see an increase in profits. I don't see why that couldn't coincide with a decrease in subsidies. In an ideal world, we could even redirect that money towards the poor - potentially making up for the impact to food banks.
- datavirtue 8y agoYou don't know shit about subsidies. Kindly shut up.
- asauce 8y agoHey, next time you comment please take a look over HN's comment guidelines[0]. The parent comment brings up a good point about subsidies, however it would be great to also learn if there is a flaw in their reasoning (as you so strongly believe). Comment's like yours just discourage conversation. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 8y agoYikes, posting like this will get you banned on HN. Please don't do that again. If you know more than someone else, the best thing to do is to post correct information, hopefully with a good amount of detail. Then the rest of us can learn something too. Alternatively, you can just not post anything. But no personal attacks, please.
- shawn 8y agoSpeaking of bans, can I be unbanned yet? I'm trying to submit stories like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18128969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18128969 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18135771 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18135771 How about a joke? What do you call a gathering of musically-inclined Lisp programmers? A consert.
- HBlix 8y agoThe subsidies aren’t going anywhere, the lobby is very strong and senators like being re-elected. “Just get rid of the subsidies” sounds great, but it won’t happen. So given that as a baseline reality, and given how much produce is grown by small farmers vs. giant conglomerates, this is really just about more money in the bank and less food in the food bank.
- retsibsi 8y ago> I don't see why that couldn't coincide with a decrease in subsidies. In an ideal world, we could even redirect that money towards the poor - potentially making up for the impact to food banks. This seems true but irrelevant. The claim that things would be better for everyone, were X accompanied by policies Y and Z, is not a real defence of X unless you have good reason to believe that it really will be accompanied by Y and Z.
- lotsofpulp 8y agoInstead of adding opacity to the system, I would rather they remove the subsidies instead.
- avip 8y agoYou will not have agriculture then. It'll be like not having any industry, only much worse.
- thebooktocome 8y agoWe had agriculture before the subsidies.
- textor 8y agoIt was more profitable back then.
- tedivm 8y agoAgriculture, at least in the US, has always been subsidized. As a country we used slave labor (free labor) to subsidize agriculture, and then over time we gave away an epic amount of land to white farmers (via the Land Act of 1820, the Homestead Act, and the Morrill Act of 1862).
- pixl97 8y agoWe also had lots of starvation before subsidies too.
- CydeWeys 8y agoFood has pretty much the most inelastic demand curve imaginable. There's no way that agriculture will disappear without subsidies. Prices might increase, sure. But anyone who has any money will pay whatever prices are necessary when the alternative is literally starving to death. If you're referring to agriculture disappearing from the US, that definitely wouldn't happen either. Some of it might, but not the majority. Most countries don't heavily subsidize farming to the extent that we do, and transportation costs are non-trivial, especially for fresh produce or anything that needs freezing.
- bilbo0s 8y agoHmm. Good point. One question though, are there farmers out there who are not taking the famed agricultural subsidies we give out? Because if there are, (even if there are not that many such farmers), I think those guys should be able to monetize their "ugly" produce or fruit all they want. They're not being supported by tax money at all. But yes, if we are subsidizing a farmer, we certainly have the right to oblige him to give his scraps to us so we can feed our masses. There's nothing unreasonable about that. After all, we're only talking about the little food he's able to sell only to the guys who literally only take "scraps".
- rapnie 8y agoMaybe we shouldn't look at the farmer solely. In NL potato farmers get 9 ct/kilo of potatoes. This is near cost price, sometimes even below. In the supermarket the consumer pays $1.60 for that kilo. And I am talking local produce here.. the potato fields are literally right next to the supermarkets (NL is very small, no long supply lines). With those 9 cts it is clear they need subsidies. The supermarkets set the prices, and something is wrong here.
- TruffleLabs 8y agoThis paper by Dr. Jayson Lusk at Purdue University outlines the valuation of farm support programs (what is being called subsidies in this thread). He also includes analysis of farm support from other countries. http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2016/6/26/impacts-of-usda-programs http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2016/6/26/impacts-of-usda-program...
- greglindahl 8y agoFarmers (at least in the US) don't get any subsidies for vegetables.
- vorpalhex 8y agoErr, is corn not a vegetable?
- kibibyte 8y agoI think it's considered more of a grain than a vegetable.
- HBlix 8y agoCorn is a heavily modified grass, so definitely a grain and not a vegetable.
- munificent 8y agoMore specifically (I looked it up because I was curious): Maize is an annual grass in the family Gramineae, which includes such plants as wheat, rye, barley, rice, sorghum, and sugarcane.
- Retric 8y agoUS farmers do receive non crop based subsidies for growing vegetables. The absolute subsidy is far smaller, but far less land is used for vegetables 2.5 million acres vs 81.8 million acres of corn for grain, 47.8 million acres of wheat, and 89.6 million acres of soybeans. Sources: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/VegeSumm/VegeSumm-02-13-2018.pdf http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/VegeSumm/VegeSu... https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2018/06-29-2018.php https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2018/06-29-2018.php
- hcurtiss 8y agoWhat are these non-crop-based vegetable subsidies you speak of?
- mtgx 8y agoRemove farmer (usually large profitable corporations) subsidies and more directly subsidize the poor maybe?
- go_away_nsa 8y agoThen you get to enjoy one bad harvest caused by drought, hail, etc send a large chunk of your farms into bankruptcy and then enjoy food shortages until it becomes profitable to farm again. The subsidies are there to make farming less boom or bust, worst case scenario your citizens get really cheap food.
- bogomipz 8y agoI think the argument most commonly put forth is not "feeders of the people" but "national security." Proponents of the subsidies say that the ability of a nation to feed itself is a matter of national security. Although in the era of factory farms and big agra it seems like the "national security" is maybe less of a concern that during say the Eisenhower era.
- bogomipz 8y ago>"Sounds to me like they want privileges, why not a few obligations for a change?" Exactly, recipients of those subsidies should be obligated to contribute to food banks for the poor. I don't believe any such strings are attached today. Source: I have a American friend who has farm land as part of a second home but has never grown a single crop, he receives an annual subsidy check and has now for many years.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]