3 ms·

The US is far from the only country with farm subsidies. Some of those countries (e.g., Switzerland) are in fact not self-sufficient.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> US is far from the only country with farm subsidies Democracies with lots of farmland, i.e. ones with reduced food security risk, have farm subsidies because they have lots of voting farmers.
- Natsu 6y ago
  It's sort of like how you shouldn't let the national reserve of masks go empty, even if they had not been needed for about 100 years. The thing about farms is that you can't just start producing stuff right away. It takes months to actually grow out a crop, you need a seed stock ready, and you just can't deal with sudden shocks. So you have to be always prepared because if you're not, even just for a few years, it can bite you in the ass.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    There is no evidence that continuous farm subsidies maintain agricultural output. (That’s mostly correlated to political stability and trade policy.) Periodic stability mechanisms, yes. But that is the vast minority of farm subsidies. And the whole amount of farm subsidies that go to alfalfa and cotton and tobacco fail to rise to this argument. Farm subsidies are about buying off a voting bloc. (Disclaimer: I own farmland as an investment.)
    - Natsu 6y ago
      I don't think anyone is arguing that there are some subsidies like that or that some are wasteful--you can see as much in the first few posts. They're arguing that the idea isn't categorically absurd.
      - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        I’m not arguing they’re absurd. They’re always going to be present in democracies with agricultural sectors. But if you don’t own farmland, farm subsidies are principally (to the tune of something like 85%, in America, more in Japan and Switzerland) a transfer mechanism. Not national security spending. That said, they’re political gold and so very reliable. Hence why I own farmland. (It doesn’t grow anything.)

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> US is far from the only country with farm subsidies Democracies with lots of farmland, i.e. ones with reduced food security risk, have farm subsidies because they have lots of voting farmers.

Natsu 6y ago
It's sort of like how you shouldn't let the national reserve of masks go empty, even if they had not been needed for about 100 years. The thing about farms is that you can't just start producing stuff right away. It takes months to actually grow out a crop, you need a seed stock ready, and you just can't deal with sudden shocks. So you have to be always prepared because if you're not, even just for a few years, it can bite you in the ass.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  There is no evidence that continuous farm subsidies maintain agricultural output. (That’s mostly correlated to political stability and trade policy.) Periodic stability mechanisms, yes. But that is the vast minority of farm subsidies. And the whole amount of farm subsidies that go to alfalfa and cotton and tobacco fail to rise to this argument. Farm subsidies are about buying off a voting bloc. (Disclaimer: I own farmland as an investment.)
  - Natsu 6y ago
    I don't think anyone is arguing that there are some subsidies like that or that some are wasteful--you can see as much in the first few posts. They're arguing that the idea isn't categorically absurd.
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      I’m not arguing they’re absurd. They’re always going to be present in democracies with agricultural sectors. But if you don’t own farmland, farm subsidies are principally (to the tune of something like 85%, in America, more in Japan and Switzerland) a transfer mechanism. Not national security spending. That said, they’re political gold and so very reliable. Hence why I own farmland. (It doesn’t grow anything.)