4 ms·

True in general (well, except your final sentence), but the topic is the US, which has never failed to produce enough food to feed its population and is unlikel

by frank2 6y ago

True in general (well, except your final sentence), but the topic is the US, which has never failed to produce enough food to feed its population and is unlikely to to start failing now.

pm90 6y ago
It doesn’t produce that food magically. A certain section of society needs to be dedicated to growing food and supported with subsidies if they can’t grow food economically.
- frank2 6y ago
  Even in the absence of government subsidies, the US probably would'nt've experienced a shortage of food. I'm not saying that it is impossible for the US to experience a food shortage or even that smart people in and out of government shouldn't worry about that eventuality. I am saying that current and past US programs to subsidize farmers probably do not do / have not done much to reduce that risk and that most of the group collectively deciding to continue the subsidies probably know or strongly suspect that. In my experience, the elected representatives and other influencers arguing for the subsidies don't even use food security as an argument. (Again, like others in the thread, I am restricting myself to US food policy.) Instead, they argue that the family farm is a producer of particularly virtuous individuals, and it would be a shame if all the family farms were to be driven out of business by large corporations. The US Midwest has the largest tract of arable land in the world and twice as large as the second largest. If the people of the world were redistributed among the countries so as to equalize the probability of famine among the countries, the US would probably end up with a population over a billion.
  - jjk166 6y ago
    The farm subsidies started after the great depression when food shortage was a serious possibility and national security was forefront. While the rhetoric has shifted, the real purpose has not. Yes, the US has the geography to produce vast quantities of food, but that's all useless if no one is farming it. Even with subsidies agriculture is neither lucrative nor appealing for the vast majority of individuals. If the few remaining farmers go off and get better jobs, a huge amount of implicit knowledge will be lost and a lot of infrastructure would be left derelict. This might not be a problem in the short term, America is wealthy enough to import food, but should its suppliers ever try to leverage that position then America would not be able to instantly resume producing the food it needs. Every major power heavily subsidizes domestic agriculture for the same reason.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    I've heard it said the US could feed the entire world!

by frank2 6y ago

True in general (well, except your final sentence), but the topic is the US, which has never failed to produce enough food to feed its population and is unlikely to to start failing now.

pm90 6y ago

It doesn’t produce that food magically. A certain section of society needs to be dedicated to growing food and supported with subsidies if they can’t grow food economically.

frank2 6y ago
Even in the absence of government subsidies, the US probably would'nt've experienced a shortage of food. I'm not saying that it is impossible for the US to experience a food shortage or even that smart people in and out of government shouldn't worry about that eventuality. I am saying that current and past US programs to subsidize farmers probably do not do / have not done much to reduce that risk and that most of the group collectively deciding to continue the subsidies probably know or strongly suspect that. In my experience, the elected representatives and other influencers arguing for the subsidies don't even use food security as an argument. (Again, like others in the thread, I am restricting myself to US food policy.) Instead, they argue that the family farm is a producer of particularly virtuous individuals, and it would be a shame if all the family farms were to be driven out of business by large corporations. The US Midwest has the largest tract of arable land in the world and twice as large as the second largest. If the people of the world were redistributed among the countries so as to equalize the probability of famine among the countries, the US would probably end up with a population over a billion.
- jjk166 6y ago
  The farm subsidies started after the great depression when food shortage was a serious possibility and national security was forefront. While the rhetoric has shifted, the real purpose has not. Yes, the US has the geography to produce vast quantities of food, but that's all useless if no one is farming it. Even with subsidies agriculture is neither lucrative nor appealing for the vast majority of individuals. If the few remaining farmers go off and get better jobs, a huge amount of implicit knowledge will be lost and a lot of infrastructure would be left derelict. This might not be a problem in the short term, America is wealthy enough to import food, but should its suppliers ever try to leverage that position then America would not be able to instantly resume producing the food it needs. Every major power heavily subsidizes domestic agriculture for the same reason.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  I've heard it said the US could feed the entire world!