3 ms·
If we just didn't subsidize its production, that would be a start.
by seiferteric 6y ago
If we just didn't subsidize its production, that would be a start.
- pengaru 6y agoSure, but if the alternative is banning which is never a good approach, taxing it makes a lot more sense IMHO. I'm no agriculture nerd but isn't much of the US particularly well suited to growing corn, regardless of subsidies?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- kube-system 6y agoIt's a tough situation. Much of the idea behind agriculture subsides is to protect against black-swan events.
- seiferteric 6y agoDoesn't crop insurance exist? Why the need to constantly subsidize?
- kube-system 6y agoYou can't eat insurance money. We are lucky to live in a age of a dramatic global decline in famine, but a large scale war or natural disaster could potentially unravel this progress in a devastating way. Subsidies can do preventative tasks that insurance cannot -- like securing additional capacity of food stores and farm land that farmers wouldn't normally do unless they were being paid to do so.
- seiferteric 6y agoTrue, but the US gov't stockpiles grain, oil and other things for those kind of events. I don't see how subsidies help in those scenarios either.
- kube-system 6y agoYes, but much like the PPE stockpile, those are only a stopgap measure and aren't really enough to be a comprehensive solution on their own.
- Dylan16807 6y agoWe could direct the subsidies more toward ethanol or whatever other corn product, and still be able to get to the raw corn in an emergency.