4 ms·

That's just not true. It's about 15% of net incomes currently, but has hovered around 25% of net (in the US): https://www.agriculture.com/news/business/us-head

That's just not true. It's about 15% of net incomes currently, but has hovered around 25% of net (in the US): https://www.agriculture.com/news/business/us-heads-for-highest-farm-income-in-seven-years#:~:text=The%20USDA%20revised%20its%20estimate,livestock%20revenue%20and%20direct%20payments https://www.agriculture.com/news/business/us-heads-for-highe....

konjin 6y ago
It can be 1% and still be what keeps the majority of farms from going under. 15% is absolutely "I will go bankrupt if I don't have this" territory.
- Retric 6y ago
  If you drop that in one year sure, but remove all subsidies globally over even 10 years and the market would adjust.
  - konjin 6y ago
    By having firms go bankrupt.
    - Retric 6y ago
      Far from 1:1, like everything there are diminishing returns from fertilizer use etc. So the efficiency per unit of corn etc would be pushed up as the effective price* declines. The price gets pushed up if insufficient food supply gets produced, but demand in a world of obesity is somewhat elastic. Net result fewer workers, a shift in which farms are profitable, and a ripple effect up the supply chain, but most bankruptcy would be from farms that do so sooner. Aka they would have been bankrupt in a 10 years and now it happens in 5. *Effective price being the sales price plus total subsidies.
      - konjin 6y ago
        Yes, very impressive high school economics. In the real world you'd be looking at the tax implications of going under and minimizing them. This of course is too complex to model is completely ignored. A lot like ignoring the atmosphere when designing air planes.
        Retric 6y ago
        Modeling such interactions is the entire point of economics. We focus far to much on the math but very complex economic system really can be modeled rather accurately. Farm subsidies have been studied extensively and like all long term subsidies end up being harmful to the overall economy.
        konjin 6y ago
        I wasn't aware economics had solved the halting problem. Good on them.
        Retric 6y ago
        Approximation don’t have issues with the halting problem only exact solution do. Your argument no more meaningful than suggesting useful simulation of fluid flows is impossible as you can’t keep track of all the individual atoms.
        konjin 6y ago
        The difference is that you can bound any macroscopic quantity in fluid dynamics even if you can't solve the equations, however you can't put a bound on iterative processes. Or have economists figured out busy beaver numbers too? I guess it was only a matter of time before economists stopped misunderstanding physics and started misunderstanding computer science. I mean there's not much prestige left in physics since the end of the cold war. Are we going to see a Turing prize in economics like the Nobel prize?

konjin 6y ago

It can be 1% and still be what keeps the majority of farms from going under. 15% is absolutely "I will go bankrupt if I don't have this" territory.

Retric 6y ago
If you drop that in one year sure, but remove all subsidies globally over even 10 years and the market would adjust.
- konjin 6y ago
  By having firms go bankrupt.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Far from 1:1, like everything there are diminishing returns from fertilizer use etc. So the efficiency per unit of corn etc would be pushed up as the effective price* declines. The price gets pushed up if insufficient food supply gets produced, but demand in a world of obesity is somewhat elastic. Net result fewer workers, a shift in which farms are profitable, and a ripple effect up the supply chain, but most bankruptcy would be from farms that do so sooner. Aka they would have been bankrupt in a 10 years and now it happens in 5. *Effective price being the sales price plus total subsidies.
    - konjin 6y ago
      Yes, very impressive high school economics. In the real world you'd be looking at the tax implications of going under and minimizing them. This of course is too complex to model is completely ignored. A lot like ignoring the atmosphere when designing air planes.
      - Retric 6y ago
        Modeling such interactions is the entire point of economics. We focus far to much on the math but very complex economic system really can be modeled rather accurately. Farm subsidies have been studied extensively and like all long term subsidies end up being harmful to the overall economy.
        konjin 6y ago
        I wasn't aware economics had solved the halting problem. Good on them.
        Retric 6y ago
        Approximation don’t have issues with the halting problem only exact solution do. Your argument no more meaningful than suggesting useful simulation of fluid flows is impossible as you can’t keep track of all the individual atoms.
        konjin 6y ago
        The difference is that you can bound any macroscopic quantity in fluid dynamics even if you can't solve the equations, however you can't put a bound on iterative processes. Or have economists figured out busy beaver numbers too? I guess it was only a matter of time before economists stopped misunderstanding physics and started misunderstanding computer science. I mean there's not much prestige left in physics since the end of the cold war. Are we going to see a Turing prize in economics like the Nobel prize?