5 ms·

Market distortions are unilateral evil only under a ton of economic assumptions. I don't know enough about the US agriculture foods market (let alone how exactl

by raquo 16y ago

Market distortions are unilateral evil only under a ton of economic assumptions. I don't know enough about the US agriculture foods market (let alone how exactly is it subsidized) but I would imagine it to be reasonable to provide your farmers with some kind of protectionism against foreign suppliers because the latter definitely have lower costs, with cheap labor, less legalities, whatever. You really don't want to depend on some China for your food supply.

marvin 16y ago
...and also you want to make sure that you have a fair bit of domestic food production in case war or some other geopolitical event causes imports to become expensive or unavailable. It's potentially a life-and-death question. You Americans don't have a lot of history with this, but Europeans have.
- CapitalistCartr 16y ago
  The USA is a major producer and exporter of food, most of which doesn't get subsidies. Reducing or eliminating the subsidies on corn, sugar, peanuts, and milk wouldn't make that change. We are the most successful agricultural producer on Earth.
- vilhelm_s 16y ago
  Conversely, you may _want_ interdependence for exactly this reason. If two countries are dependent on each other for basic needs, they will not be able to go to war. This kind of reasoning was the seed for the European Union: by joining the coal and steel industries of France and Germany into a single entity, the European Coal and Steel Community was thought to make further wars in West Europe practically impossible.
- quanticle 16y ago
  The US is the worlds largest exporter of grain. I think we'll have enough even without subsidies that strangle African farmers.
tomjen3 16y ago
Its one thing to do protectionism (if you want to ensure a base level on quality, codify that in law and put harsh enough penalties on it that people follow them), but the way the US does it is that they subsidize corn production, but put protection in against foreign sugar which means sugar is very expensive, but corn is cheap and so is used as a substitute.
- tesseract 16y ago
  Not to mention it's used as a substitute for other, less well subsidized US grown produce.
CapitalistCartr 16y ago
We protect the Sugar industry from Brazilian sugar mostly because the Florida Sugar growers have clout. We subsidize the corn industry to make fuel at 3 times the cost Brazilian sugar would cost because the Presidential elections start in Corn country. We protect the peanut farmers for God knows what reason, and we subsidize the cotton producers because that area also is critical in early elections. We depress the price of milk, too, mostly because it plays well with Middle America.
- ericd 16y ago
  And to top it off, it's distorted the food we produce. Corn seems to have become the go-to crop for almost everything, where possible, even when it wouldn't normally make sense. It has made sugary diets more affordable than they would be otherwise, which has had bad consequences for Americans' diets, which feeds into the extremely high medical costs we face, lowered productivity, and a host of other problems. I would say the farm subsidies are one of the worst government programs in place today, in terms of the well being of the US populace and economy. Biofuels are another example of a disastrous subsidy program, but not on quite the same level.
  - eru 16y ago
    Actually corn hasn't made sugary-diets more affordable. Look up the prices. Corn-syrup couldn't compete with Brazilian cane sugar, even with subsidies if it weren't tariffs. I agree though. Corn syrup is probably worse than cane sugar. Biofuels from corn are very wasteful. Biofuels from, say, Brazilian sugar cane, again, are much better energy for money.
    - ericd 16y ago
      Ah I didn't realize that sugar was more expensive than unsubsidized corn syrup because of tariffs. Good to know, thanks.
quanticle 16y ago
Not really. In fact the subsidies you're talking about usually don't even benefit the group they're purported to target. For example, take the gasoline subsidies in Iran. The group the subsidy purportedly helps is the poor. Yet, if you look at the demographic and vehicle usage data, the middle class and rich have more cars and drive more, hence claiming most of the benefit from the subsidy. If the government of Iran really wanted to help ameliorate the cost of fuel for their poor, they'd hand out coupons for free gasoline/diesel directly to the poor. This also applies to American farm subsidies. The only reason they're in place is because politicians claim to be protecting "family farmers". Yet, if you look at the statistics, family farms haven't been the primary form of American agriculture for almost three generations now. The vast majority of the subsidy goes to helping corporate farms, simply because the vast majority of all farms in America are owned by corporations. If the government really wanted to protect family farmers it would simply write them a check for the amount of the subsidy every year. No, I'm with the parent. These subsidies do nothing but distort the market in favor of entities that don't need the help in the first place. Let them go.

by raquo 16y ago

marvin 16y ago

...and also you want to make sure that you have a fair bit of domestic food production in case war or some other geopolitical event causes imports to become expensive or unavailable. It's potentially a life-and-death question. You Americans don't have a lot of history with this, but Europeans have.

CapitalistCartr 16y ago
The USA is a major producer and exporter of food, most of which doesn't get subsidies. Reducing or eliminating the subsidies on corn, sugar, peanuts, and milk wouldn't make that change. We are the most successful agricultural producer on Earth.
vilhelm_s 16y ago
Conversely, you may _want_ interdependence for exactly this reason. If two countries are dependent on each other for basic needs, they will not be able to go to war. This kind of reasoning was the seed for the European Union: by joining the coal and steel industries of France and Germany into a single entity, the European Coal and Steel Community was thought to make further wars in West Europe practically impossible.
quanticle 16y ago
The US is the worlds largest exporter of grain. I think we'll have enough even without subsidies that strangle African farmers.

tomjen3 16y ago

Its one thing to do protectionism (if you want to ensure a base level on quality, codify that in law and put harsh enough penalties on it that people follow them), but the way the US does it is that they subsidize corn production, but put protection in against foreign sugar which means sugar is very expensive, but corn is cheap and so is used as a substitute.

tesseract 16y ago
Not to mention it's used as a substitute for other, less well subsidized US grown produce.

CapitalistCartr 16y ago

We protect the Sugar industry from Brazilian sugar mostly because the Florida Sugar growers have clout. We subsidize the corn industry to make fuel at 3 times the cost Brazilian sugar would cost because the Presidential elections start in Corn country. We protect the peanut farmers for God knows what reason, and we subsidize the cotton producers because that area also is critical in early elections. We depress the price of milk, too, mostly because it plays well with Middle America.

ericd 16y ago
And to top it off, it's distorted the food we produce. Corn seems to have become the go-to crop for almost everything, where possible, even when it wouldn't normally make sense. It has made sugary diets more affordable than they would be otherwise, which has had bad consequences for Americans' diets, which feeds into the extremely high medical costs we face, lowered productivity, and a host of other problems. I would say the farm subsidies are one of the worst government programs in place today, in terms of the well being of the US populace and economy. Biofuels are another example of a disastrous subsidy program, but not on quite the same level.
- eru 16y ago
  Actually corn hasn't made sugary-diets more affordable. Look up the prices. Corn-syrup couldn't compete with Brazilian cane sugar, even with subsidies if it weren't tariffs. I agree though. Corn syrup is probably worse than cane sugar. Biofuels from corn are very wasteful. Biofuels from, say, Brazilian sugar cane, again, are much better energy for money.
  - ericd 16y ago
    Ah I didn't realize that sugar was more expensive than unsubsidized corn syrup because of tariffs. Good to know, thanks.

quanticle 16y ago

Not really. In fact the subsidies you're talking about usually don't even benefit the group they're purported to target. For example, take the gasoline subsidies in Iran. The group the subsidy purportedly helps is the poor. Yet, if you look at the demographic and vehicle usage data, the middle class and rich have more cars and drive more, hence claiming most of the benefit from the subsidy. If the government of Iran really wanted to help ameliorate the cost of fuel for their poor, they'd hand out coupons for free gasoline/diesel directly to the poor. This also applies to American farm subsidies. The only reason they're in place is because politicians claim to be protecting "family farmers". Yet, if you look at the statistics, family farms haven't been the primary form of American agriculture for almost three generations now. The vast majority of the subsidy goes to helping corporate farms, simply because the vast majority of all farms in America are owned by corporations. If the government really wanted to protect family farmers it would simply write them a check for the amount of the subsidy every year. No, I'm with the parent. These subsidies do nothing but distort the market in favor of entities that don't need the help in the first place. Let them go.