4 ms·

> Rural productivity is vital to urban concentration. Raw material does not come from the depths of the subway system, nor do the land and seaports magically pr

> Rural productivity is vital to urban concentration. Raw material does not come from the depths of the subway system, nor do the land and seaports magically produce goods. Food, fiber, fuel, etc come from the rural reaches. We pay a premium to buy food from the rural US in the form of common import tariffs that stifle or eliminate competition at the expense of the consumer and to the benefit of agricultural interests, and of course, taxes that subsidize agriculture. Large volumes of food need to come from some rural area, but if left to its own devices, the market would never demand that so much of it come from the rural US, or that the rural US make so much from the crops it produces. That's presumably some of what the OP was hinting at.

TulliusCicero 5y ago
Exactly. It's bizarre how often you see people arguing as if a lack of rural or farm subsidies would suddenly mean food disappearing.
- ochoseis 5y ago
  The core function of the government is to provide basic necessities to its constituents. In other words, guaranteeing a food supply is a critical national interest and there’s no better way than to incentivize home-grown food.
  - landemva 5y ago
    The primary function of government was to protect liberty. The USA liberty experiment is nearly done.
    - gameman144 5y ago
      These two go hand-in-hand. As a whole-cloth believer in government's main goal being the protection of rights, I'd propose that it's pretty tough to guarantee those rights if you have invading armies or revolting citizens. Guaranteeing stability for the nation (in economic, military, and civic spaces) is needed, even if only as a means to protect liberty.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- nitrogen 5y ago
  Consider this scenario: 1. The US drops all agricultural subsidies and tariffs. 2. The US begins importing most of its food from elsewhere. 3. "Elsewhere" goes to war with a US ally and stops selling food to the US. 4. The US then wishes it hadn't given up its abilty to grow food.
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    The prime growing areas will just move north where there is already plenty of rural land not being used.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    The amount of “the worlds economy is so interdependent that no country would go to war” argumentation seems to have died somehow. Also I don’t know how “we will get food from even further away rural communities argues against food coming from rural communities”.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    > 2. The US begins importing most of its food from elsewhere Gonna stop you there. This wouldn't happen, because the US has plenty of growing acreage and plenty of demand. The farming industry doesn't need subsidies, and removing them would affect total output only slightly on average. Now, if we were more like Japan and had issues with enough space for farming, then yeah I'd agree with you.
    - ungamedplayer 5y ago
      Unless medium to large scale farming in the US is significantly different than the rest of the world, Land availability and demand are only tiny parts of the puzzle and not even the hardest issues to solve when farming. The need for immediate scale for any kind of shortage is guaranteed to cause significant shortages + massive price hikes starvation in the short term.
      - TulliusCicero 5y ago
        Lol, just how big do you think the farm subsidies are? This is some big-time Clancychat you're throwing out there.
briHass 5y ago
One of the main points of the parent posts was the impact of climate change and/or subsidies for fuel. Our local agricultural system is already hopelessly dependent on fossil fuels, and you propose that this situation is improved if the US starts importing most of its food?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
TZubiri 5y ago
So the US would stop producing food and import it instead? First, why? Second, from an ecological perspective this wouldn't change anything, just shift shit around. Ridiculous, stop.
- rdtwo 5y ago
  The food you eat as a wealthy person is probably in a good part produced in other parts of the world due to cheap labor. Sure we provide lots of corn and and soy but a lot of that is for export fuel and meat production
- justin66 5y ago
  > So the US would stop producing food and import it instead? Is that how US agricultural interests would react if they had to compete on the free market? They would simply give up and let the land lie fallow?
  - TZubiri 5y ago
    You just said government would lift tariffs. Most of the land would go to a monoculture for export. The only land that would grow diverse foods for domestic consumption would be to cater to the demand for local consumption. And in the world where government lifted tariffs, we must assume that they acted in representation of the people, so that demand mustn't be so high. This is pretty basic.
giantg2 5y ago
"Large volumes of food need to come from some rural area, but if left to its own devices, the market would never demand that so much of it come from the rural US, or that the rural US make so much from the crops it produces." Why not? The US exports a lot a food and consumes a lot of food (per capita). If we were to cease exports and even some domestic production, then prices will rise. The worldwide demand isn't going anywhere but up, while arable land is the same or shrinking. In a way I do think that many farm subsidies should be examined and maybe done away with, but in another way I realize that we can't compete globally (exports), and many likely can't afford to pay the the true cost of domestic production. Not to mention if we become an importer because of this, we could outbid other nations and instigate famine in the poorer nations.
- justin66 5y ago
  > Why not? The US exports a lot a food and consumes a lot of food (per capita). If we were to cease exports and even some domestic production To clarify, removing tariffs and agricultural subsidies might not affect our overall agricultural output much (I wouldn't want to make a prediction on that) but it would lower the cost of goods which were previously subsidized with taxes or tariffs. > Not to mention if we become an importer because of this, we could outbid other nations and instigate famine in the poorer nations. It's worth pointing out that almost all economists of all political leanings are opposed to agricultural subsidies (it's one of the rare political things economists agree on) and one of the commonly cited reasons is that buying food produced by third-world economies at a true market price would be a natural and valuable step in helping those countries develop and grow out of poverty. The number of powerful people (including people who would normally give lip service to free markets) who, when confronted by this consensus among economists, basically don't give a shit is... disheartening.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I think that would be true and work, but only if our output wasn't reduced enough to interfere with other nations (supply needs to exceed nutritional need as it does today, and the distribution and supply chain also needs to be unaffected or improved). No idea of it would normally or not. But I'm guessing the high inflation and potential food crisis from the war in Ukraine would make this a unlikely candidate for a time to make that switch.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

Exactly. It's bizarre how often you see people arguing as if a lack of rural or farm subsidies would suddenly mean food disappearing.

ochoseis 5y ago
The core function of the government is to provide basic necessities to its constituents. In other words, guaranteeing a food supply is a critical national interest and there’s no better way than to incentivize home-grown food.
- landemva 5y ago
  The primary function of government was to protect liberty. The USA liberty experiment is nearly done.
  - gameman144 5y ago
    These two go hand-in-hand. As a whole-cloth believer in government's main goal being the protection of rights, I'd propose that it's pretty tough to guarantee those rights if you have invading armies or revolting citizens. Guaranteeing stability for the nation (in economic, military, and civic spaces) is needed, even if only as a means to protect liberty.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
nitrogen 5y ago
Consider this scenario: 1. The US drops all agricultural subsidies and tariffs. 2. The US begins importing most of its food from elsewhere. 3. "Elsewhere" goes to war with a US ally and stops selling food to the US. 4. The US then wishes it hadn't given up its abilty to grow food.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  The prime growing areas will just move north where there is already plenty of rural land not being used.
- bombcar 5y ago
  The amount of “the worlds economy is so interdependent that no country would go to war” argumentation seems to have died somehow. Also I don’t know how “we will get food from even further away rural communities argues against food coming from rural communities”.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  > 2. The US begins importing most of its food from elsewhere Gonna stop you there. This wouldn't happen, because the US has plenty of growing acreage and plenty of demand. The farming industry doesn't need subsidies, and removing them would affect total output only slightly on average. Now, if we were more like Japan and had issues with enough space for farming, then yeah I'd agree with you.
  - ungamedplayer 5y ago
    Unless medium to large scale farming in the US is significantly different than the rest of the world, Land availability and demand are only tiny parts of the puzzle and not even the hardest issues to solve when farming. The need for immediate scale for any kind of shortage is guaranteed to cause significant shortages + massive price hikes starvation in the short term.
    - TulliusCicero 5y ago
      Lol, just how big do you think the farm subsidies are? This is some big-time Clancychat you're throwing out there.

briHass 5y ago

One of the main points of the parent posts was the impact of climate change and/or subsidies for fuel. Our local agricultural system is already hopelessly dependent on fossil fuels, and you propose that this situation is improved if the US starts importing most of its food?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

TZubiri 5y ago

So the US would stop producing food and import it instead? First, why? Second, from an ecological perspective this wouldn't change anything, just shift shit around. Ridiculous, stop.

rdtwo 5y ago
The food you eat as a wealthy person is probably in a good part produced in other parts of the world due to cheap labor. Sure we provide lots of corn and and soy but a lot of that is for export fuel and meat production
justin66 5y ago
> So the US would stop producing food and import it instead? Is that how US agricultural interests would react if they had to compete on the free market? They would simply give up and let the land lie fallow?
- TZubiri 5y ago
  You just said government would lift tariffs. Most of the land would go to a monoculture for export. The only land that would grow diverse foods for domestic consumption would be to cater to the demand for local consumption. And in the world where government lifted tariffs, we must assume that they acted in representation of the people, so that demand mustn't be so high. This is pretty basic.

giantg2 5y ago

"Large volumes of food need to come from some rural area, but if left to its own devices, the market would never demand that so much of it come from the rural US, or that the rural US make so much from the crops it produces." Why not? The US exports a lot a food and consumes a lot of food (per capita). If we were to cease exports and even some domestic production, then prices will rise. The worldwide demand isn't going anywhere but up, while arable land is the same or shrinking. In a way I do think that many farm subsidies should be examined and maybe done away with, but in another way I realize that we can't compete globally (exports), and many likely can't afford to pay the the true cost of domestic production. Not to mention if we become an importer because of this, we could outbid other nations and instigate famine in the poorer nations.

justin66 5y ago
> Why not? The US exports a lot a food and consumes a lot of food (per capita). If we were to cease exports and even some domestic production To clarify, removing tariffs and agricultural subsidies might not affect our overall agricultural output much (I wouldn't want to make a prediction on that) but it would lower the cost of goods which were previously subsidized with taxes or tariffs. > Not to mention if we become an importer because of this, we could outbid other nations and instigate famine in the poorer nations. It's worth pointing out that almost all economists of all political leanings are opposed to agricultural subsidies (it's one of the rare political things economists agree on) and one of the commonly cited reasons is that buying food produced by third-world economies at a true market price would be a natural and valuable step in helping those countries develop and grow out of poverty. The number of powerful people (including people who would normally give lip service to free markets) who, when confronted by this consensus among economists, basically don't give a shit is... disheartening.
- giantg2 5y ago
  I think that would be true and work, but only if our output wasn't reduced enough to interfere with other nations (supply needs to exceed nutritional need as it does today, and the distribution and supply chain also needs to be unaffected or improved). No idea of it would normally or not. But I'm guessing the high inflation and potential food crisis from the war in Ukraine would make this a unlikely candidate for a time to make that switch.