3 ms·

It's completely plausible that even a modest drop in price or increase in volatility would make it unprofitable for anyone in the US to produce wheat (or other

It's completely plausible that even a modest drop in price or increase in volatility would make it unprofitable for anyone in the US to produce wheat (or other staples). In a free market, they will just stop doing so, and production will drop to near zero. You're right that imports would make up the difference, but that's where national security comes in. If you rely on importing your food and your trading partners become adversaries or shipping is disrupted due to war, you're screwed.

scarmig 6y ago
In the context of the USA: We are net exporters of all the major staples. At the very least, we can ratchet down subsidies until we are no longer a net exporter of agricultural products; that level of production is sufficient to handle all our essentials. > If you rely on importing your food and shipping is disrupted due to war, you're screwed. The biggest exporters of agricultural products to the United States are Mexico and Canada, which also have plenty of excess capacity. Even in the unlikely scenario that some geopolitical rival manages to shut down trade across the Pacific and the Atlantic, we wouldn't be in a place where we have to worry about our food. If somehow our rival also had the capacity to shut down transit of goods across our land borders, they also have the capacity to shut down domestic transit of goods. I.e., even having self sufficiency based on farms in Iowa wouldn't help feed anyone on the coasts.
- gobengo 6y ago
  > We are net exporters of all the major staples. At the very least, we can ratchet down subsidies until we are no longer a net exporter of agricultural products; that level of production is sufficient to handle all our essentials. lol not if a world war happens buddy. regardless of whether we export staples or not (and we eat more than staples), staples taste horrible without spices, which we import at net 60%, and we need more of everything when we're defending liberal values from being wiped off the earth.
  - scarmig 6y ago
    The goalposts have shifted from "having enough food to feed ourselves" to "having enough exotic spices." Even if we took that argument as compelling, it doesn't explain why we should subsidize wheat and corn instead of said exotic spices.
    - gobengo 6y ago
      > The goalposts have shifted from "having enough food to feed ourselves" to "having enough exotic spices." boo hoo. I never set the first goal posts, nor the second that you imply. They're all only components of maintaining quality of life for our constituents and fellow citizens in a probability distribution of predictable things, including so-called 'black swan' events. The risk of ending wheat/corn subsidies is so much higher than having them in the first place...
- scotty79 6y ago
  Farm subsidies are a mechanism for transferring tax money to everybody (everybody who eats). It's mostly a form of basic income to provide money to poor masses without the excuse of requiring them to work, so they don't revolt. Overfarming, exports and food waste are just side effects of this mechanism.
shajznnckfke 6y ago
Won’t all the equipment and land (the expensive inputs to farming) still exist if prices drop? Without subsidies, some farmers may become insolvent, but either they will be able to restructure their debt or someone will buy the operation with a cheaper cost structure. Aren’t the same principles at play as in oil extraction or production of any other commodity? If production drops, prices will go back up, and someone will produce to meet the demand. Certainly this would be a cold reality for family farmers, but I don’t see how it results in the US not having any food producers.
- triceratops 6y ago
  The labor and domain knowledge might be lost in a generation. In the same way that the US has lost a ton of manufacturing knowledge, to the point that entire supply chains cannot exist within the country.

scarmig 6y ago

In the context of the USA: We are net exporters of all the major staples. At the very least, we can ratchet down subsidies until we are no longer a net exporter of agricultural products; that level of production is sufficient to handle all our essentials. > If you rely on importing your food and shipping is disrupted due to war, you're screwed. The biggest exporters of agricultural products to the United States are Mexico and Canada, which also have plenty of excess capacity. Even in the unlikely scenario that some geopolitical rival manages to shut down trade across the Pacific and the Atlantic, we wouldn't be in a place where we have to worry about our food. If somehow our rival also had the capacity to shut down transit of goods across our land borders, they also have the capacity to shut down domestic transit of goods. I.e., even having self sufficiency based on farms in Iowa wouldn't help feed anyone on the coasts.

gobengo 6y ago
> We are net exporters of all the major staples. At the very least, we can ratchet down subsidies until we are no longer a net exporter of agricultural products; that level of production is sufficient to handle all our essentials. lol not if a world war happens buddy. regardless of whether we export staples or not (and we eat more than staples), staples taste horrible without spices, which we import at net 60%, and we need more of everything when we're defending liberal values from being wiped off the earth.
- scarmig 6y ago
  The goalposts have shifted from "having enough food to feed ourselves" to "having enough exotic spices." Even if we took that argument as compelling, it doesn't explain why we should subsidize wheat and corn instead of said exotic spices.
  - gobengo 6y ago
    > The goalposts have shifted from "having enough food to feed ourselves" to "having enough exotic spices." boo hoo. I never set the first goal posts, nor the second that you imply. They're all only components of maintaining quality of life for our constituents and fellow citizens in a probability distribution of predictable things, including so-called 'black swan' events. The risk of ending wheat/corn subsidies is so much higher than having them in the first place...
scotty79 6y ago
Farm subsidies are a mechanism for transferring tax money to everybody (everybody who eats). It's mostly a form of basic income to provide money to poor masses without the excuse of requiring them to work, so they don't revolt. Overfarming, exports and food waste are just side effects of this mechanism.

shajznnckfke 6y ago

Won’t all the equipment and land (the expensive inputs to farming) still exist if prices drop? Without subsidies, some farmers may become insolvent, but either they will be able to restructure their debt or someone will buy the operation with a cheaper cost structure. Aren’t the same principles at play as in oil extraction or production of any other commodity? If production drops, prices will go back up, and someone will produce to meet the demand. Certainly this would be a cold reality for family farmers, but I don’t see how it results in the US not having any food producers.

triceratops 6y ago
The labor and domain knowledge might be lost in a generation. In the same way that the US has lost a ton of manufacturing knowledge, to the point that entire supply chains cannot exist within the country.