7 ms·

Flip it around. Why is subsidizing corn a good thing?

imglorp 7y ago
It's great if you're trying to win a PR show against a cold war rival and bankrupt them. That was the original purpose of the USDA including roads, marketing, and subsidies.
- SamBam 7y ago
  These days its mostly because Iowa has an outsized role in our elections.
- jacobush 7y ago
  Not just PR. To have a stockpile of carbohydrates in case of Total War.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
It's better to produce too much food and keep it cheap than to risk a shortage and have people starve.
- serpix 7y ago
  In nature nothing is ever produced in a vacuum. There is a bill to pay for overproducing and the effects are coming for us.
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    I know you are alluding to climate change, but paying money for security is perfectly fine.
    - greglindahl 7y ago
      The US produces far more corn than is needed for a secure supply of human food for the US population.
    - zeckalpha 7y ago
      Or immigration.
drak0n1c 7y ago
Besides the benefits to American agriculture and rural industry - cheap corn offers the world an environmentally better option compared to the alternatives of palm oil and other slash and burn crops.
aianus 7y ago
I imagine if food production was not subsidized, much of it would naturally move to other countries with cheaper labour forces. The USA doesn't want to be dependent on other countries for basic goods like food; imagine if there was an "OPEC" of food in 1973 and they decided to cut off the food supply to protest US support of Israel.
- nostrademons 7y ago
  Most agriculture is not particularly labor-intensive now. We have robot tractors and ploughs and industrial scale feedlots and slaughterhouses. The average farmer cultivates over 300 acres, and that number is distorted downwards by large numbers of family farmers. Pure agribusiness can cultivate many square miles with basically no people. The exception are soft fruits like strawberries, avocados, or apricots, where harvesting them mechanically will bruise them beyond what a consumer's willing to eat. These are luxuries, not staples, though. Things like wheat, corn, and other grains get harvested by giant machines and require little labor input.
  - aianus 7y ago
    It's still cheaper to export those machines to Brazil or something and have someone poorer drive the tractors and combine harvesters around and maintain them. No winter either so the utilization would be higher.
    - nostrademons 7y ago
      Not when you figure in transportation costs. Food is perishable, bulky, and labor-intensive to ship. Even with modern automated railroads and containerization (which aren't necessarily present in countries with cheaper labor), you can very easily spend more in transit than you do in growing & harvesting the food.
- lunchables 7y ago
  I'd rather tariff external corn than subsidize internal corn. That would mean we make enough to support ourselves but don't pay tax dollars to support someone selling their corn to other countries.

It's great if you're trying to win a PR show against a cold war rival and bankrupt them. That was the original purpose of the USDA including roads, marketing, and subsidies.

SamBam 7y ago
These days its mostly because Iowa has an outsized role in our elections.
jacobush 7y ago
Not just PR. To have a stockpile of carbohydrates in case of Total War.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

It's better to produce too much food and keep it cheap than to risk a shortage and have people starve.

serpix 7y ago
In nature nothing is ever produced in a vacuum. There is a bill to pay for overproducing and the effects are coming for us.
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  I know you are alluding to climate change, but paying money for security is perfectly fine.
  - greglindahl 7y ago
    The US produces far more corn than is needed for a secure supply of human food for the US population.
  - zeckalpha 7y ago
    Or immigration.

drak0n1c 7y ago

Besides the benefits to American agriculture and rural industry - cheap corn offers the world an environmentally better option compared to the alternatives of palm oil and other slash and burn crops.

aianus 7y ago

I imagine if food production was not subsidized, much of it would naturally move to other countries with cheaper labour forces. The USA doesn't want to be dependent on other countries for basic goods like food; imagine if there was an "OPEC" of food in 1973 and they decided to cut off the food supply to protest US support of Israel.

nostrademons 7y ago
Most agriculture is not particularly labor-intensive now. We have robot tractors and ploughs and industrial scale feedlots and slaughterhouses. The average farmer cultivates over 300 acres, and that number is distorted downwards by large numbers of family farmers. Pure agribusiness can cultivate many square miles with basically no people. The exception are soft fruits like strawberries, avocados, or apricots, where harvesting them mechanically will bruise them beyond what a consumer's willing to eat. These are luxuries, not staples, though. Things like wheat, corn, and other grains get harvested by giant machines and require little labor input.
- aianus 7y ago
  It's still cheaper to export those machines to Brazil or something and have someone poorer drive the tractors and combine harvesters around and maintain them. No winter either so the utilization would be higher.
  - nostrademons 7y ago
    Not when you figure in transportation costs. Food is perishable, bulky, and labor-intensive to ship. Even with modern automated railroads and containerization (which aren't necessarily present in countries with cheaper labor), you can very easily spend more in transit than you do in growing & harvesting the food.
lunchables 7y ago
I'd rather tariff external corn than subsidize internal corn. That would mean we make enough to support ourselves but don't pay tax dollars to support someone selling their corn to other countries.