6 ms·

>And what happens when the US phases out subsidies and other countries don’t? Then American consumers basically get fed at the expense of the rest of the world

>And what happens when the US phases out subsidies and other countries don’t? Then American consumers basically get fed at the expense of the rest of the world. Not ideal for the world, but great for those getting the cheap food. Labor directed in agriculture instead get focused into other industries we have a competitive advantage in.

scarface74 5y ago
Any industry has a competitive advantage internationally when your government is subsidizing it going out and imposing tariffs coming in. As soon as the US industry is destroyed, the other countries remove subsidies and prices rise and we can do nothing about it. Again, there are no easy answers. Either we subsidize farmers and pay more in taxes or we impose tariffs to level the playing field. Either way, we pay more than we should.
- notch656a 5y ago
  > Either we subsidize farmers and pay more in taxes or we impose tariffs to level the playing field. Both of these don't level the playing field, they distort the playing field. >As soon as the US industry is destroyed, the other countries remove subsidies and prices rise and we can do nothing about it. Arguably it is subsidies that destroy farming industry, not the reverse. Farming can tolerate a lot more inefficiencies, bad practices, poor resource allocation and unreasonable crop selection when subsidies influence the market. This could be see India for example in the 70s where textile subsidies meant many people were working in sweatshops weaving with hand operated machines instead of maintaining well capitalized fully mechanized looms. Eliminating these subsidies gradually will allow farmers to develop techniques that make them more competitive on the international stage if these other countries "remove subsidies" (which is your prediction).
  - scarface74 5y ago
    Distorting and leveling is a matter of perspective. Yes tariffs (inbound) and subsidies (outbound) both distort the playing field. But no country can unilaterally disarm.

scarface74 5y ago

Any industry has a competitive advantage internationally when your government is subsidizing it going out and imposing tariffs coming in. As soon as the US industry is destroyed, the other countries remove subsidies and prices rise and we can do nothing about it. Again, there are no easy answers. Either we subsidize farmers and pay more in taxes or we impose tariffs to level the playing field. Either way, we pay more than we should.

notch656a 5y ago
> Either we subsidize farmers and pay more in taxes or we impose tariffs to level the playing field. Both of these don't level the playing field, they distort the playing field. >As soon as the US industry is destroyed, the other countries remove subsidies and prices rise and we can do nothing about it. Arguably it is subsidies that destroy farming industry, not the reverse. Farming can tolerate a lot more inefficiencies, bad practices, poor resource allocation and unreasonable crop selection when subsidies influence the market. This could be see India for example in the 70s where textile subsidies meant many people were working in sweatshops weaving with hand operated machines instead of maintaining well capitalized fully mechanized looms. Eliminating these subsidies gradually will allow farmers to develop techniques that make them more competitive on the international stage if these other countries "remove subsidies" (which is your prediction).
- scarface74 5y ago
  Distorting and leveling is a matter of perspective. Yes tariffs (inbound) and subsidies (outbound) both distort the playing field. But no country can unilaterally disarm.