9 ms·

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 wasta

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.
      - bumby 5y ago
        Thanks for clarifying, although I disagree that a collapse of family run farms (while bad) is worse than scarcity of food, both at the personal and national security level. I personally wouldn’t want the government to necessarily optimize for “number of family farms” at the expense of other concerns
        Causality1 5y ago
        That's a false dichotomy. The choice isn't between food scarcity and food waste but between a normal industry and decades of enormous waste. Experts were complaining about the subsidies damaging the dairy industry all the way back in 1983 yet those same subsidies are still here forty years later. The US government is happy to smash a problem with a hammer made of other peoples' money but they have zero ability to foresee the consequences of their meddling or to stop themselves from continuing to smash long after the need is gone.
        bumby 5y ago
        I’m not claiming a dichotomy in that family farms and food abundance cannot coexist; I’m saying you are using a metric (family farms) that is not the intended goal (national food security). So again, I’m asking what is the better alternative for implementing subsidies? I don’t know if we’re just talking past each other, but it’s hard to make sense of your stance. If you think subsidies are a viable solution to some problems but the US govt can’t manage subsidies, are you implying the US should not use subsidies, even on the problems they would solve? If so, can you elaborate on govts that have used subsidies to solve similar problems by better implementation? When govt is, by definition, who wields subsidies these are difficult points to reconcile. Pointing out less than perfect implementation isn’t really helpful unless you can figure out a way to improve it. Just saying “the govt is inept” isn’t helpful when they are literally the only organization who provides subsidies. I don’t disagree with the problems you point out but they come across as flippant “see!? See how bad the govt is!?” Dogmatic axioms might make someone feel good without actually addressing the problem. I’ll give an example. I think subsidies need to have clear metrics to measure effectiveness and sunset clauses. This would help prevent things like alpaca subsidies meant to assist in the Korean War somehow staying in place until the mid 1990s. The point of the subsidies was national security, not “protecting the family farmer” or “minimizing food waste.” To that end, they worked.

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.
    - bumby 5y ago
      Thanks for clarifying, although I disagree that a collapse of family run farms (while bad) is worse than scarcity of food, both at the personal and national security level. I personally wouldn’t want the government to necessarily optimize for “number of family farms” at the expense of other concerns
      - Causality1 5y ago
        That's a false dichotomy. The choice isn't between food scarcity and food waste but between a normal industry and decades of enormous waste. Experts were complaining about the subsidies damaging the dairy industry all the way back in 1983 yet those same subsidies are still here forty years later. The US government is happy to smash a problem with a hammer made of other peoples' money but they have zero ability to foresee the consequences of their meddling or to stop themselves from continuing to smash long after the need is gone.
        bumby 5y ago
        I’m not claiming a dichotomy in that family farms and food abundance cannot coexist; I’m saying you are using a metric (family farms) that is not the intended goal (national food security). So again, I’m asking what is the better alternative for implementing subsidies? I don’t know if we’re just talking past each other, but it’s hard to make sense of your stance. If you think subsidies are a viable solution to some problems but the US govt can’t manage subsidies, are you implying the US should not use subsidies, even on the problems they would solve? If so, can you elaborate on govts that have used subsidies to solve similar problems by better implementation? When govt is, by definition, who wields subsidies these are difficult points to reconcile. Pointing out less than perfect implementation isn’t really helpful unless you can figure out a way to improve it. Just saying “the govt is inept” isn’t helpful when they are literally the only organization who provides subsidies. I don’t disagree with the problems you point out but they come across as flippant “see!? See how bad the govt is!?” Dogmatic axioms might make someone feel good without actually addressing the problem. I’ll give an example. I think subsidies need to have clear metrics to measure effectiveness and sunset clauses. This would help prevent things like alpaca subsidies meant to assist in the Korean War somehow staying in place until the mid 1990s. The point of the subsidies was national security, not “protecting the family farmer” or “minimizing food waste.” To that end, they worked.