3 ms·
>The consequence of this would be that the subsidized food gets exported to a country that doesn't tax it, at which point you're subsidizing some other country'
by pydry 3y ago
>The consequence of this would be that the subsidized food gets exported to a country that doesn't tax it, at which point you're subsidizing some other country's food.
If theyre smart they won't take this shit either.
Nice of you to let Americans sacrifice their health on $othercountry's behalf though.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago> If theyre smart they won't take this shit either. What do you suppose the chances are of 100% of other countries imposing a similar tax on this type of food? > Nice of you to let Americans sacrifice their health on $othercountry's behalf though. Stop subsidizing it and you don't have to tax the subsidy back out.
- pydry 3y ago>What do you suppose the chances are of 100% of other countries imposing a similar tax Quite high. Agricultural dumping is typically frowned upon even more than regular dumping. Half of the reason for the WTO's existence was to get countries to stop being so trigger happy about doing this.
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoYou think the chances are "quite high" of all other countries doing this? There are several countries that inherently have to import food because they don't have enough arable land to feed their population.
- pydry 3y agoYeah, and they already buy plenty of shit food from America. They aren't going to buy more oreos to these countries just because America can't sell them to America any more.
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoBut of course they are, because the price of that food would go down. If it's still being produced because it's still being subsidized but Americans stop buying it because it's punitively taxed, where do you think it goes?