3 ms·
This is a weird piece in that it seems to completely ignore the massive subsidies [1] the agriculture sector of most (?) industrialized economies relies on. Th
by einpoklum 6y ago
This is a weird piece in that it seems to completely ignore the massive subsidies [1] the agriculture sector of most (?) industrialized economies relies on.
Then when you read:
> [Someone] estimates that agroforestry systems can create eight times more profit than conventional agriculture.
you have to ask yourself: "Profit after subsidies? But who said you'll get the same subsidies? If you can actually turn a profit, they might not subsidize you at that point?"
----
[1] - For more information on these subsidies (which I'm not opposed to, it's complicated):
* In the EU it's apparently 59 Billion EUR/year , according to this: https://farmsubsidy.org/ https://farmsubsidy.org/
* Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy
- reillyse 6y agoI like the European farm subsidies, I think they are a great example of how to share wealth among a lot of citizens and maintain high quality food. Btw, 59 Billion seems like a large number but compared to the actual GDP of the EU thats a very very small number. Also in the US for example farm subsidies are pretty high and generally funnel to rich people, there is both farm related subsidies that go direct to farmers and insurance companies (among others) and then the farm bill which is another huge subsidy.
- einpoklum 6y agoI actually didn't say I oppose them. However, note that better-off Europeans and US citizens are subsidized, then their products flood the markets elsewhere and farmers all over the world - who also don't have access to appropriate technology - can't compete against it. So the farmers in poorer countries get screwed. Not such a great example of wealth sharing...