3 ms·

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 farmer

by 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.
  - anamax 18y ago
    (1) Where are these third world countries supposed to get the money to subsidize agriculture? Is spending it on agriculture subsidies really the best thing that they could do? (2) Unless they're also paying the subsidy, a subsidy from the consumer's point of view is exactly the same as buying from a more efficient producer who passes on the savings. Lower costs allow said consumer to spend money on other things. This is good. The US became better off when it needed fewer people to produce food because those people produced wealth. If the US and the EU insist on providing cheap food, third world countries can use the savings to produce other things that they need.
    - eru 18y ago
      Yes. That's exactly the reason why each country can and should get rid of subsidies and tariffs on its own.
- eru 18y ago
  > 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. So are and were the European farmers. And that is before you factor in all that recent bio-fuel hype.
anamax 18y ago
We're not talking about survival food, we're talking about your demand for subsidized tomato orgasms. > 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. Wrong. Your complaint is that you can't get tomatos that you like for the price that you'd like to pay. That's not a free market problem, that's you being cheap. BTW - What is it with folks and tomatos anyway? The ones from my garden reduced some folks to gibbering puddles, but I quit growing them because I didn't see the point. However, if someone wanted to pay me enough, that would be different. Here's your chance to prove that you're willing to pay what it costs to get what you want. BTW - Subsidies don't make anything cheaper. They merely change who is paying for it. They move the cost from the consumer to some poor sap who didn't have the political pull to avoid having his pocket picked. Remind me how demanding subsidies for your tomato orgasms makes you a friend of the oppressed.

by mtts 18y ago

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.
- anamax 18y ago
  (1) Where are these third world countries supposed to get the money to subsidize agriculture? Is spending it on agriculture subsidies really the best thing that they could do? (2) Unless they're also paying the subsidy, a subsidy from the consumer's point of view is exactly the same as buying from a more efficient producer who passes on the savings. Lower costs allow said consumer to spend money on other things. This is good. The US became better off when it needed fewer people to produce food because those people produced wealth. If the US and the EU insist on providing cheap food, third world countries can use the savings to produce other things that they need.
  - eru 18y ago
    Yes. That's exactly the reason why each country can and should get rid of subsidies and tariffs on its own.
eru 18y ago
> 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. So are and were the European farmers. And that is before you factor in all that recent bio-fuel hype.

anamax 18y ago

We're not talking about survival food, we're talking about your demand for subsidized tomato orgasms. > 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. Wrong. Your complaint is that you can't get tomatos that you like for the price that you'd like to pay. That's not a free market problem, that's you being cheap. BTW - What is it with folks and tomatos anyway? The ones from my garden reduced some folks to gibbering puddles, but I quit growing them because I didn't see the point. However, if someone wanted to pay me enough, that would be different. Here's your chance to prove that you're willing to pay what it costs to get what you want. BTW - Subsidies don't make anything cheaper. They merely change who is paying for it. They move the cost from the consumer to some poor sap who didn't have the political pull to avoid having his pocket picked. Remind me how demanding subsidies for your tomato orgasms makes you a friend of the oppressed.