3 ms·

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 la

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.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  Cash is probably better than food stamps. Food stamps prevent you from directly buying what you actually need/want, but it doesn't prevent you from buying groceries for strangers and trading those groceries for less money so you can actually buy what you need/want. The result is that the same amount of money spent on providing assistance as food stamps doesn't provide as much benefit to the recipients as the cash equivalent. And this doesn't even include the costs of maintaining the infrastructure (including time wasted writing laws that restrict what food you can use food stamps for) required to make food stamps work.

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.
DangitBobby 5y ago
Cash is probably better than food stamps. Food stamps prevent you from directly buying what you actually need/want, but it doesn't prevent you from buying groceries for strangers and trading those groceries for less money so you can actually buy what you need/want. The result is that the same amount of money spent on providing assistance as food stamps doesn't provide as much benefit to the recipients as the cash equivalent. And this doesn't even include the costs of maintaining the infrastructure (including time wasted writing laws that restrict what food you can use food stamps for) required to make food stamps work.