3 ms·

Switching to more productive crops wouldn't end subsidies. In face, we'd - at first - need more just to make sure folks have the proper equipment. If you curren

Switching to more productive crops wouldn't end subsidies. In face, we'd - at first - need more just to make sure folks have the proper equipment. If you currently grow corn and soybeans* then your equipment will be specialized for them, generally. I don't know about the current landscape, as it has been years since I've lived in the states, let alone mingled with farmers in the US, but at one point, they would pay farmers to allow a field to be unplanted. I find this to be a viable option when mixed with the above and the farmers I knew didn't complain either. *Corn and soybeans are generally grown together, generally (but not always) in alternating years. Corn tends to deplete nutrients in soil, soy puts them back.

the_other 5y ago
> Switching to more productive crops wouldn't end subsidies. In face, we'd - at first - need more just to make sure folks have the proper equipment. If you currently grow corn and soybeans* then your equipment will be specialized for them, generally. So what you’re saying is that the market doesn’t work?
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  "So what you’re saying is that the market doesn’t work?" I definitely do not back unregulated markets, and in general, do not think markets for food work. It isn't just food, but other things that are general necessities for the modern times. Utilities, roads, and medical care are other examples.
M2Ys4U 5y ago
>Switching to more productive crops wouldn't end subsidies. In face, we'd - at first - need more I don't think anyone arguing that subsidies in general are bad, just that subsidising corn is bad...
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  My point is that we can't simply change subsidies from corn to other things without thinking about the other things that would need funding in order to do that. I personally don't think all of it is bad: It is a food and feed crop, after all, but I think we could do with more variety in such crops (not so much reliance on corn, and definitely not for ethanol)

the_other 5y ago

> Switching to more productive crops wouldn't end subsidies. In face, we'd - at first - need more just to make sure folks have the proper equipment. If you currently grow corn and soybeans* then your equipment will be specialized for them, generally. So what you’re saying is that the market doesn’t work?

Broken_Hippo 5y ago
"So what you’re saying is that the market doesn’t work?" I definitely do not back unregulated markets, and in general, do not think markets for food work. It isn't just food, but other things that are general necessities for the modern times. Utilities, roads, and medical care are other examples.

M2Ys4U 5y ago

>Switching to more productive crops wouldn't end subsidies. In face, we'd - at first - need more I don't think anyone arguing that subsidies in general are bad, just that subsidising corn is bad...

Broken_Hippo 5y ago
My point is that we can't simply change subsidies from corn to other things without thinking about the other things that would need funding in order to do that. I personally don't think all of it is bad: It is a food and feed crop, after all, but I think we could do with more variety in such crops (not so much reliance on corn, and definitely not for ethanol)