4 ms·

The nightmarish results of agricultural subsidies in the US is an excellent reason to not involve the government in the chip shortage.

only_as_i_fall 5y ago
Sure, but pontificating on government inefficiencies doesn't actually improve supply chain weakness either.
- wuliwong 5y ago
  The comment was a response to a suggestion that the solution to the chip shortage was government intervention. I don't consider giving a evidence to the contrary of an argument as pontificating.
  - only_as_i_fall 5y ago
    Ok but point to the part of that comment which was evidence? Claiming that the results of ag subsidies have been "nightmarish" with no further elaboration or citation does nothing to advance the conversation, it's simply a strongly worded opinion.
bumby 5y ago
Can you elaborate on your point? While I agree there are definitively some downsides to ag subsidies, I think the real question is if the interventionist downsides are worse than the non-subsidized downsides. As bad as they are, I'm not sure that incentivizing unhealthy food is actual worse than famine.
- Causality1 5y ago
  Cratering agricultural prices so margins are so thin small farmers are driven out of business in favor of huge conglomerates, mind-boggling levels of food wastage on the order of billions of pounds sitting in warehouses until they rot. https://reason.com/2019/03/02/thanks-to-decades-of-government-meddling/ https://reason.com/2019/03/02/thanks-to-decades-of-governmen...
  - bumby 5y ago
    I agree, those are all blowback of subsidies. But they are also side effects of food abundance. The downsides of food shortage seems much worse. Maybe there’s an argument that we’ve moved passed the era of food scarcity when those policies were enacted and they should be modified. But I think a blanket claim that food subsidies are an inherent bad policy misses their point.
    - Causality1 5y ago
      That blanket claim was never made. The made claim was that the ineptitude and mishandling of agricultural subsidies is reason to reconsider calling for government involvement in the chip shortage.
      - bumby 5y ago
        This is a bit of a confusing take if you're using ag subsidies as evidence to keep the govt out of chip manufacturing but now denying that the subsidies aren't bad. >The nightmarish results of agricultural subsidies in the US is an excellent reason to not involve the government This sure sounds like you think it's a claim of subsidies being bad policy. >The made claim was that the ineptitude and mishandling of agricultural subsidies is reason to reconsider How do you combine the view that "ag subsidies aren't bad" with "the government shouldn't be in the business of managing subsidies" when the definition of subsidy involves the government? At first take, this comes across as back-peddling to avoid dogmatic cognitive dissonance. But I'll be generous and assume you did not mean that ag subsidies are bad in and of themselves, but the way they are handled is poor. So what do think is a more proper way to handle them? Should the focus be on different products? If so, which ones? The point has already been made that ag subsidies are operating as intended and the downsides you refer to are downsides of abundance. I have a feeling that most people who have actually lived with food scarcity would find them preferable to the actual "nightmarish results" of too little food.
        Causality1 5y ago
        Subsidies in theory can work for some problems. My argument is that the US government is not capable of executing them in a competent manner. The collapse of family-run farms is a "downside of abundance" in the same way drowning is a downside of abundance of water.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
But agricultural studies are working as intended? The U.S. government has decided that it's in our national security interest to remain a net exporter of crops. If World War III broke out and all the borders shut down, America would still be able to feed herself. The U.K. wouldn't. There would be mass starvation in much of the first world, and people would say "the government should've done something." All the diabetes is a pretty rough unintended consequence, I'll give you that, but shifting some chip fabs to our shores as a matter of national security doesn't sound like too bad of an idea.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
  *agricultural subsidies, not studies
guerrilla 5y ago
That's one way to look at it. Another is that those are side effects of having stable and affordable food prices. The solution being talked about in this thread of simply raising prices would literally starve people to death if applied to that case.

only_as_i_fall 5y ago

Sure, but pontificating on government inefficiencies doesn't actually improve supply chain weakness either.

wuliwong 5y ago
The comment was a response to a suggestion that the solution to the chip shortage was government intervention. I don't consider giving a evidence to the contrary of an argument as pontificating.
- only_as_i_fall 5y ago
  Ok but point to the part of that comment which was evidence? Claiming that the results of ag subsidies have been "nightmarish" with no further elaboration or citation does nothing to advance the conversation, it's simply a strongly worded opinion.

bumby 5y ago

Can you elaborate on your point? While I agree there are definitively some downsides to ag subsidies, I think the real question is if the interventionist downsides are worse than the non-subsidized downsides. As bad as they are, I'm not sure that incentivizing unhealthy food is actual worse than famine.

Causality1 5y ago
Cratering agricultural prices so margins are so thin small farmers are driven out of business in favor of huge conglomerates, mind-boggling levels of food wastage on the order of billions of pounds sitting in warehouses until they rot. https://reason.com/2019/03/02/thanks-to-decades-of-government-meddling/ https://reason.com/2019/03/02/thanks-to-decades-of-governmen...
- bumby 5y ago
  I agree, those are all blowback of subsidies. But they are also side effects of food abundance. The downsides of food shortage seems much worse. Maybe there’s an argument that we’ve moved passed the era of food scarcity when those policies were enacted and they should be modified. But I think a blanket claim that food subsidies are an inherent bad policy misses their point.
  - Causality1 5y ago
    That blanket claim was never made. The made claim was that the ineptitude and mishandling of agricultural subsidies is reason to reconsider calling for government involvement in the chip shortage.
    - bumby 5y ago
      This is a bit of a confusing take if you're using ag subsidies as evidence to keep the govt out of chip manufacturing but now denying that the subsidies aren't bad. >The nightmarish results of agricultural subsidies in the US is an excellent reason to not involve the government This sure sounds like you think it's a claim of subsidies being bad policy. >The made claim was that the ineptitude and mishandling of agricultural subsidies is reason to reconsider How do you combine the view that "ag subsidies aren't bad" with "the government shouldn't be in the business of managing subsidies" when the definition of subsidy involves the government? At first take, this comes across as back-peddling to avoid dogmatic cognitive dissonance. But I'll be generous and assume you did not mean that ag subsidies are bad in and of themselves, but the way they are handled is poor. So what do think is a more proper way to handle them? Should the focus be on different products? If so, which ones? The point has already been made that ag subsidies are operating as intended and the downsides you refer to are downsides of abundance. I have a feeling that most people who have actually lived with food scarcity would find them preferable to the actual "nightmarish results" of too little food.
      - Causality1 5y ago
        Subsidies in theory can work for some problems. My argument is that the US government is not capable of executing them in a competent manner. The collapse of family-run farms is a "downside of abundance" in the same way drowning is a downside of abundance of water.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago

But agricultural studies are working as intended? The U.S. government has decided that it's in our national security interest to remain a net exporter of crops. If World War III broke out and all the borders shut down, America would still be able to feed herself. The U.K. wouldn't. There would be mass starvation in much of the first world, and people would say "the government should've done something." All the diabetes is a pretty rough unintended consequence, I'll give you that, but shifting some chip fabs to our shores as a matter of national security doesn't sound like too bad of an idea.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
*agricultural subsidies, not studies

guerrilla 5y ago

That's one way to look at it. Another is that those are side effects of having stable and affordable food prices. The solution being talked about in this thread of simply raising prices would literally starve people to death if applied to that case.