4 ms·

Having a functioning farm sector a food reserve is sooooo much better than having any amount of food in storage. You can only store so much, it won't last long

Having a functioning farm sector a food reserve is sooooo much better than having any amount of food in storage. You can only store so much, it won't last long given the huge amount needed every day. Disruptions that last years rather than weeks or months look more likely now than in the past century. That can be generalized and of course is not limited to farming.

moonchrome 5y ago
Maybe on the US level it makes sense, but I live in a small country and I hear this argument a lot and it makes 0 sense : a) our agricultural sector isn't diverse or strong enough anyway, if we get cut off from imports we are fucked even with subsidies b) ramping up basic agriculture doesn't seem that hard, as in that's an easier crisis scenario to handle c) on the market if global food prices jumped (has happened in the past) the subsidized farmers were quick to export to richer markets at a higher price, I believe US also saw similar price jump effects when China was affected by pork shortages IIRC Best case scenario is government just increases the emergency supplies they already have to cover the period it would take the production to ramp up
- nosianu 5y ago
  > Maybe on the US level it makes sense, but I live in a small country In case you missed it, this entire discussion here is about the US situation. The "U.S:" even is in the article's subtitle (once you click on the article) and the US and NAFTA are all over the article and this discussion.
  - zeckalpha 5y ago
    Mexico
    - nosianu 5y ago
      The country talked about as the one subsidizing their products, leading to the problem elsewhere, is not Mexico. Not sure what you were reading here. It's the USA. And apparently, see the current topic, Mexico too thinks having a functioning farming sector is more important than having access to the cheapest goods. Other wise they would welcome that the US pays for them being able to import the products more cheaply because of the subsidies. So, given that, I'm not sure why you think pointing to Mexico refutes my point?

moonchrome 5y ago

Maybe on the US level it makes sense, but I live in a small country and I hear this argument a lot and it makes 0 sense : a) our agricultural sector isn't diverse or strong enough anyway, if we get cut off from imports we are fucked even with subsidies b) ramping up basic agriculture doesn't seem that hard, as in that's an easier crisis scenario to handle c) on the market if global food prices jumped (has happened in the past) the subsidized farmers were quick to export to richer markets at a higher price, I believe US also saw similar price jump effects when China was affected by pork shortages IIRC Best case scenario is government just increases the emergency supplies they already have to cover the period it would take the production to ramp up

nosianu 5y ago
> Maybe on the US level it makes sense, but I live in a small country In case you missed it, this entire discussion here is about the US situation. The "U.S:" even is in the article's subtitle (once you click on the article) and the US and NAFTA are all over the article and this discussion.
- zeckalpha 5y ago
  Mexico
  - nosianu 5y ago
    The country talked about as the one subsidizing their products, leading to the problem elsewhere, is not Mexico. Not sure what you were reading here. It's the USA. And apparently, see the current topic, Mexico too thinks having a functioning farming sector is more important than having access to the cheapest goods. Other wise they would welcome that the US pays for them being able to import the products more cheaply because of the subsidies. So, given that, I'm not sure why you think pointing to Mexico refutes my point?