3 ms·

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 fa

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

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.