4 ms·

It's not their fault every government in the world subsidizes food and makes prices artificially low so it's impossible to farm for a profit. What's your altern

It's not their fault every government in the world subsidizes food and makes prices artificially low so it's impossible to farm for a profit. What's your alternative? No farmers because its not profitable? Only enough food being grown where people can make profit from? This isn't a bad system we have now, the subsidies are fairly small and food is really cheap because of it. Those farmers also work quite hard and lives suck in general. Farm subsidies are an example of the government actually doing it's job for once.

AngryData 7y ago
I agree, the one thing we could and probably should change is the diversity of crops we subsidize. We want food stability, but we don't need to base that stability on pure corn syrup.
- plankers 7y ago
  Not to mention crop monoculture is terrible for the quality of the soil, forcing farmers to use (literally) tons of synthetic phosphorous, nitrogen, and potassium just to get acceptable yields. It results in lower quality crops than those that result from polyculture, as well. A comment in the top thread mentioned The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan as a good introduction to this issue and I'll second that. A fun read, too. He investigates hunting and amateur mycology as well.
  - numakerg 7y ago
    How do the costs of managing a multiculture field compare to a monoculture one? I'd imagine the planting, maintenance and harvesting procedures benefit significantly from the crop being a single type.
    - GordonS 7y ago
      I guess you're right, but only for so long - different crops add and remove different nutrients from the soil, so if you keep planting the same thing you will eventually deplete the soil of the nutrients to grow that crop.
jayd16 7y ago
We're not subsidizing to get crops grown, were subsidizing to keep approval ratings high.
ecf 7y ago
> Farm subsidies are an example of the government actually doing it's job for once I'm curious to hear more about this idea. To me, it seems to be "subsidies are fine for me, but welfare is bad for thee". I literally grew up living in a house rented in an almond orchard. I have experience with the entitlement of farmers firsthand, I don't feel the same way you do.

AngryData 7y ago

I agree, the one thing we could and probably should change is the diversity of crops we subsidize. We want food stability, but we don't need to base that stability on pure corn syrup.

plankers 7y ago
Not to mention crop monoculture is terrible for the quality of the soil, forcing farmers to use (literally) tons of synthetic phosphorous, nitrogen, and potassium just to get acceptable yields. It results in lower quality crops than those that result from polyculture, as well. A comment in the top thread mentioned The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan as a good introduction to this issue and I'll second that. A fun read, too. He investigates hunting and amateur mycology as well.
- numakerg 7y ago
  How do the costs of managing a multiculture field compare to a monoculture one? I'd imagine the planting, maintenance and harvesting procedures benefit significantly from the crop being a single type.
  - GordonS 7y ago
    I guess you're right, but only for so long - different crops add and remove different nutrients from the soil, so if you keep planting the same thing you will eventually deplete the soil of the nutrients to grow that crop.

jayd16 7y ago

We're not subsidizing to get crops grown, were subsidizing to keep approval ratings high.

ecf 7y ago

> Farm subsidies are an example of the government actually doing it's job for once I'm curious to hear more about this idea. To me, it seems to be "subsidies are fine for me, but welfare is bad for thee". I literally grew up living in a house rented in an almond orchard. I have experience with the entitlement of farmers firsthand, I don't feel the same way you do.