3 ms·

Actually, regulation and subsidies can be good for food production. They give farmers a fighting chance against big food corporations, which helps the food supp

by mtts 18y ago

Actually, regulation and subsidies can be good for food production. They give farmers a fighting chance against big food corporations, which helps the food supply because while a small farm may not be profitable without government subsidies, it is better at producing more calories per square meter of land under cultivation. Take, for example, green house tomatoes. They grow to enormous sizes exceedingly quickly so they're profitable, but, as anyone who's ever grown a single tomato plant on a balcony can testify, they have absolutely zero taste and rather limited nutritional value compared to the real thing. Likewise, as was touched upon in the article, high quality poultry is far more nourishing than industrially produced chicken breasts that consist mostly of water. Government subsidies allow farmers to continue producing high quality produce locally, even if it is in a manner that is, from a free market point of view, inefficient.

anamax 18y ago
How many govt regulations favor the politically weak over the politically powerful? I like computer games more than tomatoes. Why shouldn't the govt subsidize my preferences? I've no objection to you buying whatever food, from whatever source, you'd like, but why shouldn't you pay for it? I'm perfectly willing to take the same deal wrt my food, video games, etc.
- mtts 18y ago
  The point is that food is not video games. Food is a necessity for survival, unlike video games, and one that isn't best produced by the free market. If farmers are not subsidized, you get things like the current food crisis: big companies squeeze out poor third world farmers, then food becomes more expensive to produce so the big companies, who care about profit more than farming, decide to produce less of it to drive up prices, resulting in a food shortage in the third world, one that the third world can't solve anymore because its farmers are bankrupt (short version). Add to that the fact that the food produced by free market forces is often of dubious quality and nutritional value and it becomes clear, to me, that maybe farm subsidies are the lesser of two evils. I agree with you, however, that the government shouldn't subsidize video games. Or most other things.
  - jacobolus 18y ago
    > If farmers are not subsidized, you get things like the current food crisis: Actually one of the biggest problems we face today is that American corn/wheat/soybean farmers are very heavily subsidized, and it threw the whole global agricultural system out of kilter. > big companies, who care about profit more than farming, decide to produce less of it to drive up prices, resulting in a food shortage in the third world, They aren’t intentionally driving up prices, no. But that is the effect of turning large amounts of corn into ethanol. > Add to that the fact that the food produced by free market forces is often of dubious quality and nutritional value None of our current food is “produced by free market forces” so this is merely speculative.
    - mtts 18y ago
      First of all, the corn / ethanol thing. That gets thrown about a lot, but it's not true. Only about 2% of the world's crop yield is used for biofuel production. So that by itself can't explain the current food crisis (which is real, but only if you live in the third world). Second of all, I should have been clearer that I meant that third world farmers should be subsidized. It's the only way for them to survive the onslaught of western multi billion agricultural companies like Monsanto, which for a large part of their production certainly are not subsidized at all (though you're right about American corn/wheat/soybean farmers : American agriculture combines the worst of the European system - aggressive subsidies - with the worst of commercial aggriculture - inefficient production - from a nutritional point of view). Third, American food is in fact produced by free market forces. It's the export to the rest of the world that is subsidized. Locally, small American farmers have been, for a large part, replaced by large agricultural conglomerates simply because those can create a large profit and buy up farm land even if the quality of their produce is at the very least debatable. European subsidies, on the other hand, go directly to farmers, allowing them to at least supply their home markets with plentiful food of often reasonably high quality. The drawback of both systems is that food exports from the west (be they subsidized directly the way American food exports are or indirectly, the way European farm produce is) is that it destroys third world agriculture, which the IMF does not allow its governments to subsidize, either directly or indirectly by slapping import tariffs on food imports to offset the subsidies of the western governments. Seeing as that this is the case (and a major reason for the food crisis) it seems to me not unreasonable to allow third world governments to subsidize as well to make the playing field somewhat level again. A better idea would of course be to not subsidize at all but I don't see the US give up its export subsidies and, especially, the EU give up its farm subsidies anytime soon.
eru 18y ago
The dutch got quite good at growing greenhouse-tomatoes. They have e.g. small very tasty ones that I love. Complicated regulation and subsidies have an inherent drive to benefit anyone who can afford a lawyer. (Not that I find big farming bad in itself.)

by mtts 18y ago

anamax 18y ago

How many govt regulations favor the politically weak over the politically powerful? I like computer games more than tomatoes. Why shouldn't the govt subsidize my preferences? I've no objection to you buying whatever food, from whatever source, you'd like, but why shouldn't you pay for it? I'm perfectly willing to take the same deal wrt my food, video games, etc.

mtts 18y ago
The point is that food is not video games. Food is a necessity for survival, unlike video games, and one that isn't best produced by the free market. If farmers are not subsidized, you get things like the current food crisis: big companies squeeze out poor third world farmers, then food becomes more expensive to produce so the big companies, who care about profit more than farming, decide to produce less of it to drive up prices, resulting in a food shortage in the third world, one that the third world can't solve anymore because its farmers are bankrupt (short version). Add to that the fact that the food produced by free market forces is often of dubious quality and nutritional value and it becomes clear, to me, that maybe farm subsidies are the lesser of two evils. I agree with you, however, that the government shouldn't subsidize video games. Or most other things.
- jacobolus 18y ago
  > If farmers are not subsidized, you get things like the current food crisis: Actually one of the biggest problems we face today is that American corn/wheat/soybean farmers are very heavily subsidized, and it threw the whole global agricultural system out of kilter. > big companies, who care about profit more than farming, decide to produce less of it to drive up prices, resulting in a food shortage in the third world, They aren’t intentionally driving up prices, no. But that is the effect of turning large amounts of corn into ethanol. > Add to that the fact that the food produced by free market forces is often of dubious quality and nutritional value None of our current food is “produced by free market forces” so this is merely speculative.
  - mtts 18y ago
    First of all, the corn / ethanol thing. That gets thrown about a lot, but it's not true. Only about 2% of the world's crop yield is used for biofuel production. So that by itself can't explain the current food crisis (which is real, but only if you live in the third world). Second of all, I should have been clearer that I meant that third world farmers should be subsidized. It's the only way for them to survive the onslaught of western multi billion agricultural companies like Monsanto, which for a large part of their production certainly are not subsidized at all (though you're right about American corn/wheat/soybean farmers : American agriculture combines the worst of the European system - aggressive subsidies - with the worst of commercial aggriculture - inefficient production - from a nutritional point of view). Third, American food is in fact produced by free market forces. It's the export to the rest of the world that is subsidized. Locally, small American farmers have been, for a large part, replaced by large agricultural conglomerates simply because those can create a large profit and buy up farm land even if the quality of their produce is at the very least debatable. European subsidies, on the other hand, go directly to farmers, allowing them to at least supply their home markets with plentiful food of often reasonably high quality. The drawback of both systems is that food exports from the west (be they subsidized directly the way American food exports are or indirectly, the way European farm produce is) is that it destroys third world agriculture, which the IMF does not allow its governments to subsidize, either directly or indirectly by slapping import tariffs on food imports to offset the subsidies of the western governments. Seeing as that this is the case (and a major reason for the food crisis) it seems to me not unreasonable to allow third world governments to subsidize as well to make the playing field somewhat level again. A better idea would of course be to not subsidize at all but I don't see the US give up its export subsidies and, especially, the EU give up its farm subsidies anytime soon.

eru 18y ago

The dutch got quite good at growing greenhouse-tomatoes. They have e.g. small very tasty ones that I love. Complicated regulation and subsidies have an inherent drive to benefit anyone who can afford a lawyer. (Not that I find big farming bad in itself.)