5 ms·

To be fair, country living also subsidizes the population centers, in that New York and San Francisco are not self-sustaining in terms of food production, not t

To be fair, country living also subsidizes the population centers, in that New York and San Francisco are not self-sustaining in terms of food production, not to mention the strategic value (to both the coastal cities involved and the country as a whole) in not having undeveloped wilderness in between major population centers. It seems unfair to say that there is some immoral wealth transfer from urban to rural.

pkaye 7y ago
That is not a subsidy since people are paying for that food. There are benefits to both sides.
- chabes 7y ago
  This seems a tad unbalanced.. Farmers get paid almost nothing for the food they produce
  - pkaye 7y ago
    The definition of subsidy is "a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive." How does that fit in this context? The fact that farmers get paid little is due to supply vs demand. Agriculture has been optimized to a great level but food transportation is expensive.
  - spaced-out 7y ago
    They don't just get paid for the food they produce, they also get to claim subsidies for food they don't grow but could have.
  - stale2002 7y ago
    That's how markets work. They get paid a low amount, because the actual real costs to produce the food is low.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- criley2 7y ago
  It's actually a subsidy in reverse: 1) The so-called "Farm Bill" provides hundreds of billions of dollars in what is essentially farmer socialism, incredible sums of money to protect farmers livelihoods from the free market. Prices too low? Government will pay you to not grow anything to inflate prices. (This doesn't include Trumps tens of billions in more farmer socialism to help protect them from his trade wars) 2) Welfare in general, generally speaking blue/liberal states and cities pay astronomically more into welfare programs (food stamps, unemployment, social security) than they draw, while red states/conservative states draw astronomically more in benefits from the federal gov than they pay. So in two hundred-billion-plus ways, the liberal cities subsidize the rural farmers and their farms. And then we buy our produce from central and south america anyway...
  - radicalbyte 7y ago
    You need to keep those farms in a position where they could actually produce said food if imports were to stop.
    - criley2 7y ago
      All of those farms are just one season away from producing food no matter who we pay transfer payments to. Considering many of those fields are left without any crops anyway, I think you overstate how reliant we are on them
  - ericd 7y ago
    Food is one of those things you really don't want to leave to the free market. That's how you get feast and famine cycles, and massive civil unrest.
    - strken 7y ago
      Australia mostly leaves food to the market, in the sense that it has some of the lowest agricultural subsidies in the developed world, and it's a net exporter of food with no famine and no civil unrest. I'm not sure that subsidies are the best government intervention, either. Strategic grain reserves are probably more useful and less distortionary.
- tathougies 7y ago
  Sure... if you're willing to pay the true cost of food (which I think we should!), then yes, there are benefits to both sides.
pm90 7y ago
Are all rural dwellers engaged in food production? If not this is not a good argument.
- zdragnar 7y ago
  Many are, and many of those who are not are working to support them. Farmers need things like gas, clothing, housing goods and raw materials, foods they dont grow, mechanical services and other goods and services too.
  - pm90 7y ago
    https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/newsroom/blogs/2016/12/beyond-the-farm/fig01-type-industry.jpg https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/newsroom/blogs/201... Less than 10% of people living in rural areas are engaged in agriculture. It seems like a ridiculous way to spend money, when good education and health facilities can be provided at much less expense near or in dense urban centers.
- bearjaws 7y ago
  Not to mention America produces way more food than it consumes. Meaning we could potentially have fewer farmers.
Dylan16807 7y ago
We don't want just wilderness, but we could use more wilderness than we have right now.
- ghaff 7y ago
  Although we actually have quite a bit. Federal land is about 28% of the area of the US. Some of that is military but a lot is National Forest etc. and that also doesn't include state and local parks and conservation lands. (And private land owned by logging companies, etc. that allow various recreational use.) Don't disagree with the general point that having wilderness areas is good (especially areas that are particularly useful for wildlife and/or recreation) but there's a lot that is not particularly constrained by people living in less populated areas.

pkaye 7y ago

That is not a subsidy since people are paying for that food. There are benefits to both sides.

chabes 7y ago
This seems a tad unbalanced.. Farmers get paid almost nothing for the food they produce
- pkaye 7y ago
  The definition of subsidy is "a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive." How does that fit in this context? The fact that farmers get paid little is due to supply vs demand. Agriculture has been optimized to a great level but food transportation is expensive.
- spaced-out 7y ago
  They don't just get paid for the food they produce, they also get to claim subsidies for food they don't grow but could have.
- stale2002 7y ago
  That's how markets work. They get paid a low amount, because the actual real costs to produce the food is low.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
criley2 7y ago
It's actually a subsidy in reverse: 1) The so-called "Farm Bill" provides hundreds of billions of dollars in what is essentially farmer socialism, incredible sums of money to protect farmers livelihoods from the free market. Prices too low? Government will pay you to not grow anything to inflate prices. (This doesn't include Trumps tens of billions in more farmer socialism to help protect them from his trade wars) 2) Welfare in general, generally speaking blue/liberal states and cities pay astronomically more into welfare programs (food stamps, unemployment, social security) than they draw, while red states/conservative states draw astronomically more in benefits from the federal gov than they pay. So in two hundred-billion-plus ways, the liberal cities subsidize the rural farmers and their farms. And then we buy our produce from central and south america anyway...
- radicalbyte 7y ago
  You need to keep those farms in a position where they could actually produce said food if imports were to stop.
  - criley2 7y ago
    All of those farms are just one season away from producing food no matter who we pay transfer payments to. Considering many of those fields are left without any crops anyway, I think you overstate how reliant we are on them
- ericd 7y ago
  Food is one of those things you really don't want to leave to the free market. That's how you get feast and famine cycles, and massive civil unrest.
  - strken 7y ago
    Australia mostly leaves food to the market, in the sense that it has some of the lowest agricultural subsidies in the developed world, and it's a net exporter of food with no famine and no civil unrest. I'm not sure that subsidies are the best government intervention, either. Strategic grain reserves are probably more useful and less distortionary.
tathougies 7y ago
Sure... if you're willing to pay the true cost of food (which I think we should!), then yes, there are benefits to both sides.

pm90 7y ago

Are all rural dwellers engaged in food production? If not this is not a good argument.

zdragnar 7y ago
Many are, and many of those who are not are working to support them. Farmers need things like gas, clothing, housing goods and raw materials, foods they dont grow, mechanical services and other goods and services too.
- pm90 7y ago
  https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/newsroom/blogs/2016/12/beyond-the-farm/fig01-type-industry.jpg https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/newsroom/blogs/201... Less than 10% of people living in rural areas are engaged in agriculture. It seems like a ridiculous way to spend money, when good education and health facilities can be provided at much less expense near or in dense urban centers.
bearjaws 7y ago
Not to mention America produces way more food than it consumes. Meaning we could potentially have fewer farmers.

Dylan16807 7y ago

We don't want just wilderness, but we could use more wilderness than we have right now.

ghaff 7y ago
Although we actually have quite a bit. Federal land is about 28% of the area of the US. Some of that is military but a lot is National Forest etc. and that also doesn't include state and local parks and conservation lands. (And private land owned by logging companies, etc. that allow various recreational use.) Don't disagree with the general point that having wilderness areas is good (especially areas that are particularly useful for wildlife and/or recreation) but there's a lot that is not particularly constrained by people living in less populated areas.