4 ms·

Or we could just... make sure people don't starve? Subsidizing corn is the worst, least direct way to do that. People don't need more high fructose corn syrup a

by drekk 5y ago

Or we could just... make sure people don't starve? Subsidizing corn is the worst, least direct way to do that. People don't need more high fructose corn syrup and most of that corn is going to feed or ethanol anyways. US produces enough raw food to satiate 10 billion people. The cost is not the issue

ben_w 5y ago
The argument in favour of subsidies is not to generally reduce the cost to the consumer, it is to deliberately encourage overproduction most of the time so that even in bad years you’re still OK. I don’t have the domain knowledge to know if this is or isn’t the reality of any actual subsidy that really exists, all I can say is that the argument seems plausible.
- yakak 5y ago
  Grain reserves store grain in adequate quality for at least a year so subsidizing massive overproduction doesn't make a lot of sense if a bad year is the only concern. IMO a lot of food security policy around overproduction is related to poverty, domestic hunger and international starvation in normal years. (Driving prices down is making food a smaller percentage of the economy, making it more affordable directly to people in poverty and easier to support food programs from charity/tax.)
  - Nasrudith 5y ago
    Stores don't help if someone else is willing to pay more for the grain as infamously demonstrated in famines in productive regions (Irish Potato Famine and Holodomor). Just reserves lead to speculation dynamics in shortages. There is always an expectation of the reserve running out and panics turn it self-fuffilling as infamously demonstrated by supply chain issues or possibility of snowfall. Increased production kills the expected future price.
    - yakak 5y ago
      You seem to be talking about long term underproduction. In the Irish case, the subsistence farmers would have been devastated by a US overproduction even before a famine, similar to subsistence farmers in Africa and India today. Holodomor includes perpetual mismanagement and a political decision not to accept food help or really do anything. No amount of overproduction before Stalin would have prevented food being seized and then rotting in transit. Certainly it's the case that you need at least enough overproduction to drive prices down marginally and to restock a reserve if it is actually used, and make speculation not a sure bet.. I think current subsidies go beyond that and arguably don't work because all that overproduction drove innovations in making food fungible to energy (i.e. as ethenol) and energy is now a more retainable wealth as the major input to proof of work.
jkubicek 5y ago
Subsidized corn has a massive effect on decreasing food prices. People may not need high fructose corn syrup, but they need food and a lot of food has corn syrup in it. Cheaper feed leads to cheaper meat. Cheaper ethanol leads to cheaper fuel which makes everything a little less expensive. I can't vouch for corn subsidies being the best way to lower prices, but it's certainly a powerful lever that decreases food prices across the board.
- orthecreedence 5y ago
  > a lot of food has corn syrup in it Trash food. > Cheaper feed leads to cheaper meat. Great, don't eat meat. It's incredibly expensive, and not just monetarily. If we're facing a food shortage, corn seems like a really bad place to dump money.
  - ouid 5y ago
    In terms of calories per acre, corn is absolutely king. Chickens and pigs turn corn calories into meat calories at a ratio unreasonably close to 1:1, and feeding people without meat is very difficult.
    - Isinlor 5y ago
      You have it backwards. Feeding people with meat is difficult. This is why meat is expensive and why people in less developed countries can't afford as much meat as Americans.
      - ouid 5y ago
        Cow meat is expensive. Chicken costs about as much as potatoes.
        lesuorac 5y ago
        How close do numbers need to be as much and what country? But I also imagine it can't be cheaper to buy X food and feed it to chicken to then eat the chicken compared to just eating X food. https://www.globalproductprices.com/Thailand/ https://www.globalproductprices.com/Thailand/
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
"Making sure people don't starve" means there has to be food. That doesn't just happen; someone has to grow it. The corn subsidy isn't about high fructose corn syrup, not really. It's fundamentally about growing more food than we need, so that, if something bad happens, we still have enough. > US produces enough raw food to satiate 10 billion people. I'm skeptical of that claim. Source?
- Retric 5y ago
  I would also like to see that estimate it seems close, but not quite enough. “Overall production of corn in the U.S. was 15.1 billion bushels for 2021“ * 56 lb per Bushel / 10 billion people = 84.6 lb of corn per person is about 23% of the minimum calories needed per year. But corn is about 37% of all crop land. Fishing, cattle on grassland, and hunting etc might bump that a little, but ~5 billion seems like a better theoretical estimate and presumably lower in practice.
BitwiseFool 5y ago
I wonder how much of our government's deep embrace of corn subsidies might have something to do with the fact that the Iowa Caucuses play such an outsized impact on our presidential elections. That, and how the Midwest has become more and more of a purple battleground region. I know it's not the biggest factor, but I can't help but think it has something to do with it.
- actionfromafar 5y ago
  I always assumed as much. Constant fear of nuclear war is not what has made the corn subsidies constant.
kristjansson 5y ago
I get that you're being a bit glib, but this sort of thinking is pervasive and bothersome so I'll choose to take it seriously. 'make people not starve' is a laudable _goal_. It's a state of the work we want to reach. 'Subsidize corn farming' is a _policy_, it's an intervention that has all sorts of intended and unintended effects on the state of the world. Under that policy, fewer people starve, but also there's more HFCS, some farmers make more money than the would, some make less in inequitable ways, etc. Regardless, if one thinks a policy isn't doing a good job achieving its intended goal, one can't just suggest achieving the goal as an alternative. If it was trivially attainable, why do we have government intervention and policies in pursuit of it? One has to articulate an alternative policy, or at least acknowledge that an alternative is necessary. Why, after all, is it the case that the US produces as much food as it does. Is it in spite of the prevailing farm policy? </rant>
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  > One has to articulate an alternative policy Food stamps are the best way to ensure people don't starve, not specific crop subsidies.
  - chucksta 5y ago
    That helps feed people who can't afford food, but doesn't make food available. Subsidies are insurance for farming risk, you can't use stamps on food they didn't grow.
    - colinmhayes 5y ago
      > but doesn't make food available Yes it does. If people spend more money on food, food prices will go up, and more food will be grown.
      - chucksta 5y ago
        It could make food available later. That is retroactive though, to use the stamp the food has to exist in the first place. It also doesn't relieve any risk to the farmer which is the point of the subsidy.

by drekk 5y ago

ben_w 5y ago

The argument in favour of subsidies is not to generally reduce the cost to the consumer, it is to deliberately encourage overproduction most of the time so that even in bad years you’re still OK. I don’t have the domain knowledge to know if this is or isn’t the reality of any actual subsidy that really exists, all I can say is that the argument seems plausible.

yakak 5y ago
Grain reserves store grain in adequate quality for at least a year so subsidizing massive overproduction doesn't make a lot of sense if a bad year is the only concern. IMO a lot of food security policy around overproduction is related to poverty, domestic hunger and international starvation in normal years. (Driving prices down is making food a smaller percentage of the economy, making it more affordable directly to people in poverty and easier to support food programs from charity/tax.)
- Nasrudith 5y ago
  Stores don't help if someone else is willing to pay more for the grain as infamously demonstrated in famines in productive regions (Irish Potato Famine and Holodomor). Just reserves lead to speculation dynamics in shortages. There is always an expectation of the reserve running out and panics turn it self-fuffilling as infamously demonstrated by supply chain issues or possibility of snowfall. Increased production kills the expected future price.
  - yakak 5y ago
    You seem to be talking about long term underproduction. In the Irish case, the subsistence farmers would have been devastated by a US overproduction even before a famine, similar to subsistence farmers in Africa and India today. Holodomor includes perpetual mismanagement and a political decision not to accept food help or really do anything. No amount of overproduction before Stalin would have prevented food being seized and then rotting in transit. Certainly it's the case that you need at least enough overproduction to drive prices down marginally and to restock a reserve if it is actually used, and make speculation not a sure bet.. I think current subsidies go beyond that and arguably don't work because all that overproduction drove innovations in making food fungible to energy (i.e. as ethenol) and energy is now a more retainable wealth as the major input to proof of work.

jkubicek 5y ago

Subsidized corn has a massive effect on decreasing food prices. People may not need high fructose corn syrup, but they need food and a lot of food has corn syrup in it. Cheaper feed leads to cheaper meat. Cheaper ethanol leads to cheaper fuel which makes everything a little less expensive. I can't vouch for corn subsidies being the best way to lower prices, but it's certainly a powerful lever that decreases food prices across the board.

orthecreedence 5y ago
> a lot of food has corn syrup in it Trash food. > Cheaper feed leads to cheaper meat. Great, don't eat meat. It's incredibly expensive, and not just monetarily. If we're facing a food shortage, corn seems like a really bad place to dump money.
- ouid 5y ago
  In terms of calories per acre, corn is absolutely king. Chickens and pigs turn corn calories into meat calories at a ratio unreasonably close to 1:1, and feeding people without meat is very difficult.
  - Isinlor 5y ago
    You have it backwards. Feeding people with meat is difficult. This is why meat is expensive and why people in less developed countries can't afford as much meat as Americans.
    - ouid 5y ago
      Cow meat is expensive. Chicken costs about as much as potatoes.
      - lesuorac 5y ago
        How close do numbers need to be as much and what country? But I also imagine it can't be cheaper to buy X food and feed it to chicken to then eat the chicken compared to just eating X food. https://www.globalproductprices.com/Thailand/ https://www.globalproductprices.com/Thailand/

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

"Making sure people don't starve" means there has to be food. That doesn't just happen; someone has to grow it. The corn subsidy isn't about high fructose corn syrup, not really. It's fundamentally about growing more food than we need, so that, if something bad happens, we still have enough. > US produces enough raw food to satiate 10 billion people. I'm skeptical of that claim. Source?

Retric 5y ago
I would also like to see that estimate it seems close, but not quite enough. “Overall production of corn in the U.S. was 15.1 billion bushels for 2021“ * 56 lb per Bushel / 10 billion people = 84.6 lb of corn per person is about 23% of the minimum calories needed per year. But corn is about 37% of all crop land. Fishing, cattle on grassland, and hunting etc might bump that a little, but ~5 billion seems like a better theoretical estimate and presumably lower in practice.

BitwiseFool 5y ago

I wonder how much of our government's deep embrace of corn subsidies might have something to do with the fact that the Iowa Caucuses play such an outsized impact on our presidential elections. That, and how the Midwest has become more and more of a purple battleground region. I know it's not the biggest factor, but I can't help but think it has something to do with it.

actionfromafar 5y ago
I always assumed as much. Constant fear of nuclear war is not what has made the corn subsidies constant.

kristjansson 5y ago

I get that you're being a bit glib, but this sort of thinking is pervasive and bothersome so I'll choose to take it seriously. 'make people not starve' is a laudable _goal_. It's a state of the work we want to reach. 'Subsidize corn farming' is a _policy_, it's an intervention that has all sorts of intended and unintended effects on the state of the world. Under that policy, fewer people starve, but also there's more HFCS, some farmers make more money than the would, some make less in inequitable ways, etc. Regardless, if one thinks a policy isn't doing a good job achieving its intended goal, one can't just suggest achieving the goal as an alternative. If it was trivially attainable, why do we have government intervention and policies in pursuit of it? One has to articulate an alternative policy, or at least acknowledge that an alternative is necessary. Why, after all, is it the case that the US produces as much food as it does. Is it in spite of the prevailing farm policy? </rant>

colinmhayes 5y ago
> One has to articulate an alternative policy Food stamps are the best way to ensure people don't starve, not specific crop subsidies.
- chucksta 5y ago
  That helps feed people who can't afford food, but doesn't make food available. Subsidies are insurance for farming risk, you can't use stamps on food they didn't grow.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    > but doesn't make food available Yes it does. If people spend more money on food, food prices will go up, and more food will be grown.
    - chucksta 5y ago
      It could make food available later. That is retroactive though, to use the stamp the food has to exist in the first place. It also doesn't relieve any risk to the farmer which is the point of the subsidy.