5 ms·

> The government system of subsidizing production is a good thing. How is that a good thing, shouldnt the free market take care of it? If there is shortage of

by sumedh 7y ago

> The government system of subsidizing production is a good thing. How is that a good thing, shouldnt the free market take care of it? If there is shortage of wheat why cant wheat be imported from other countries to take care of the shortage?

username90 7y ago
> If there is shortage of wheat why cant wheat be imported from other countries to take care of the shortage? What if there was a wheat recession and there was no more wheat anywhere? Or what if there was a trade war and they refuse to trade? At least I think it is a good thing that people no longer starve to death during recessions.
- sumedh 7y ago
  What is the point of talking about hypotheticals? People in the US die because they cannot afford medical costs, the US is perfectly happy with that.
  - nosianu 7y ago
    It's not a hypothetical at all. This is bound to happen sooner or later. You don't want it to happen even once. Food reserves only go so far - and if you use them for this very foreseeable problem (you just don't know when exactly) you leave yourself more open to the unforeseeable catastrophes. And yes, there is a very good point talking about hypotheticals on such literally vitally important topics. > People in the US die because they cannot afford medical costs, the US is perfectly happy with that. Maybe the difference is that sick people don't riot? If I remember the already mentioned "The Omnivore's Dilemma" correctly the current agricultural policies among other factors mentioned there also were created because of civil unrest due to food shortages, to prevent it from happening again. I can find plenty of sources for food riots, I have not read about anything similar caused by medical costs.
    - sumedh 7y ago
      > It's not a hypothetical at all. This is bound to happen sooner or later. Based on your hypothesis? > Maybe the difference is that sick people don't riot? So people dying is ok its just that they should not riot?
      - objectivetruth 7y ago
        The person you're arguing with NEVER said that they approve of the US healthcare system. It seems weird to me that you keep bringing that up, since it is unrelated to the economics and politics of subsidized corn farming. And for the record, the person you're arguing with is also correct that food security is a major national security concern for every nation. No sane country with any alternatives thinks "Oh, we can just not have agriculture and just buy our country's food on the market instead."
      - tehjoker 7y ago
        Their family and friends do!
matchbok 7y ago
Because every country needs to be able to produce food. Importing all your food is a huge security risk.
- sumedh 7y ago
  We are not talking about importing all the food though.
tehjoker 7y ago
The subsidies were started because the free market encouraged farmers to destroy their crops to raise prices during a famine. We now have overproduction, which is far better than underproduction.

by sumedh 7y ago

username90 7y ago

> If there is shortage of wheat why cant wheat be imported from other countries to take care of the shortage? What if there was a wheat recession and there was no more wheat anywhere? Or what if there was a trade war and they refuse to trade? At least I think it is a good thing that people no longer starve to death during recessions.

sumedh 7y ago
What is the point of talking about hypotheticals? People in the US die because they cannot afford medical costs, the US is perfectly happy with that.
- nosianu 7y ago
  It's not a hypothetical at all. This is bound to happen sooner or later. You don't want it to happen even once. Food reserves only go so far - and if you use them for this very foreseeable problem (you just don't know when exactly) you leave yourself more open to the unforeseeable catastrophes. And yes, there is a very good point talking about hypotheticals on such literally vitally important topics. > People in the US die because they cannot afford medical costs, the US is perfectly happy with that. Maybe the difference is that sick people don't riot? If I remember the already mentioned "The Omnivore's Dilemma" correctly the current agricultural policies among other factors mentioned there also were created because of civil unrest due to food shortages, to prevent it from happening again. I can find plenty of sources for food riots, I have not read about anything similar caused by medical costs.
  - sumedh 7y ago
    > It's not a hypothetical at all. This is bound to happen sooner or later. Based on your hypothesis? > Maybe the difference is that sick people don't riot? So people dying is ok its just that they should not riot?
    - objectivetruth 7y ago
      The person you're arguing with NEVER said that they approve of the US healthcare system. It seems weird to me that you keep bringing that up, since it is unrelated to the economics and politics of subsidized corn farming. And for the record, the person you're arguing with is also correct that food security is a major national security concern for every nation. No sane country with any alternatives thinks "Oh, we can just not have agriculture and just buy our country's food on the market instead."
    - tehjoker 7y ago
      Their family and friends do!

matchbok 7y ago

Because every country needs to be able to produce food. Importing all your food is a huge security risk.

sumedh 7y ago
We are not talking about importing all the food though.

tehjoker 7y ago

The subsidies were started because the free market encouraged farmers to destroy their crops to raise prices during a famine. We now have overproduction, which is far better than underproduction.