3 ms·

> 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, remov

> 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.
derstander 5y ago
> 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. Domain experts reach consensus and their recommendations aren’t followed in a lot of disciplines. I agree in this case it makes economic sense to stop farm subsidies — which could result in lower domestic food production and greater imports from abroad. And when the world economy is humming along smoothly that’s great. But if there’s a hiccup in the world economy —- e.g., in the case of war in a place where it makes economic sense to grow a lot of wheat or a problem in the logistics network shuttling things from where they’re produced to where they’re consumed then it’s not as clear-cut. My naive view of politics, when they’re running well, is to navigate conflicting priorities from groups, including domain experts, the populace, etc. And I think the farm subsidies could be interpreted to involve national security concerns on top of then economic concerns. If a world war breaks out and we’re on the opposite side from places we normally source our food then they have leverage over us. TL/DR I think there’s more at play than just the economic concern.
- justin66 5y ago
  Regarding the security concerns, I assume the reduction in poverty overseas would have tremendous security benefits here. I also tend not to believe US agriculture would not simply reduce its output to dangerously low levels, but that’s harder to speculate about.

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.

derstander 5y ago

> 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. Domain experts reach consensus and their recommendations aren’t followed in a lot of disciplines. I agree in this case it makes economic sense to stop farm subsidies — which could result in lower domestic food production and greater imports from abroad. And when the world economy is humming along smoothly that’s great. But if there’s a hiccup in the world economy —- e.g., in the case of war in a place where it makes economic sense to grow a lot of wheat or a problem in the logistics network shuttling things from where they’re produced to where they’re consumed then it’s not as clear-cut. My naive view of politics, when they’re running well, is to navigate conflicting priorities from groups, including domain experts, the populace, etc. And I think the farm subsidies could be interpreted to involve national security concerns on top of then economic concerns. If a world war breaks out and we’re on the opposite side from places we normally source our food then they have leverage over us. TL/DR I think there’s more at play than just the economic concern.

justin66 5y ago
Regarding the security concerns, I assume the reduction in poverty overseas would have tremendous security benefits here. I also tend not to believe US agriculture would not simply reduce its output to dangerously low levels, but that’s harder to speculate about.