3 ms·

That’s not really how the world works. Most governments already massively subsidises their agricultural sectors to create some desired eating habits in their po

That’s not really how the world works. Most governments already massively subsidises their agricultural sectors to create some desired eating habits in their population. The market just adjusts prices around those subsidies. If all subsidies were removed - in order to avoid the influence of moralising politicians - people would eat a lot more potatoes, and a lot less beef.

stinkbeetle 1y ago
> That’s not really how the world works. Most governments already massively subsidises their agricultural sectors to create some desired eating habits in their population. The market just adjusts prices around those subsidies. By global average, under 15% of farm revenue is derived from government subsidies. USA is below that, at about 10%. Not sure if I'd call that massive, but that's semantics so it's a little hard to argue against. Does potato agriculture get massive subsidies? > If all subsidies were removed - in order to avoid the influence of moralising politicians - people would eat a lot more potatoes, and a lot less beef. The assumptions being that 1. potato farming get relatively much less subsidies as beef (and other meat) farming; 2. cost is such a factor in consumption that price change would cause "a lot" of difference. I don't think either are very safe, and as a general statement it doesn't follow that just reducing agricultural subsidies increases ratio of beef to potato (or meat to vegetable): EU subsidies are much higher than US, but USA eats far more beef per capita.
- jkestner 1y ago
  https://usafacts.org/articles/federal-farm-subsidies-what-data-says/ https://usafacts.org/articles/federal-farm-subsidies-what-da... Subsidies go mostly to corn and soybeans. Think those are multipurpose but corn is used to feed livestock, of course. 10 or 15% may be a lot in a low-margin industry, and I don't know how it's split among crops. No all subsidies are direct. For example, water costs too little in Arizona so foreign companies grow feed stock there to ship home.
- OtherShrezzing 1y ago
  Given that most farms globally have profit margins below 10%, a 10-15% subsidy is what I'd consider "massive". Definitely enough to influence growing decisions. If your farm is the recipient of a 15% subsidy, and your margin is only 10%, then the subsidy disappearing means you cannot continue producing the same stock going forward, as you'll be making a 5% loss.
  - stinkbeetle 1y ago
    Still, getting rid of them would not move major calorie consumption from meat to vegetable. The context here is price of food for consumer, not farmer's margins. Removing farm subsidies would cause one component of consumer food costs to rise a small amount.
philwelch 1y ago
Farm subsidies primarily happen because farmers vote. And you haven’t shown any evidence that farm subsidies privilege beef over potatoes.

stinkbeetle 1y ago

> That’s not really how the world works. Most governments already massively subsidises their agricultural sectors to create some desired eating habits in their population. The market just adjusts prices around those subsidies. By global average, under 15% of farm revenue is derived from government subsidies. USA is below that, at about 10%. Not sure if I'd call that massive, but that's semantics so it's a little hard to argue against. Does potato agriculture get massive subsidies? > If all subsidies were removed - in order to avoid the influence of moralising politicians - people would eat a lot more potatoes, and a lot less beef. The assumptions being that 1. potato farming get relatively much less subsidies as beef (and other meat) farming; 2. cost is such a factor in consumption that price change would cause "a lot" of difference. I don't think either are very safe, and as a general statement it doesn't follow that just reducing agricultural subsidies increases ratio of beef to potato (or meat to vegetable): EU subsidies are much higher than US, but USA eats far more beef per capita.

jkestner 1y ago
https://usafacts.org/articles/federal-farm-subsidies-what-data-says/ https://usafacts.org/articles/federal-farm-subsidies-what-da... Subsidies go mostly to corn and soybeans. Think those are multipurpose but corn is used to feed livestock, of course. 10 or 15% may be a lot in a low-margin industry, and I don't know how it's split among crops. No all subsidies are direct. For example, water costs too little in Arizona so foreign companies grow feed stock there to ship home.
OtherShrezzing 1y ago
Given that most farms globally have profit margins below 10%, a 10-15% subsidy is what I'd consider "massive". Definitely enough to influence growing decisions. If your farm is the recipient of a 15% subsidy, and your margin is only 10%, then the subsidy disappearing means you cannot continue producing the same stock going forward, as you'll be making a 5% loss.
- stinkbeetle 1y ago
  Still, getting rid of them would not move major calorie consumption from meat to vegetable. The context here is price of food for consumer, not farmer's margins. Removing farm subsidies would cause one component of consumer food costs to rise a small amount.

philwelch 1y ago

Farm subsidies primarily happen because farmers vote. And you haven’t shown any evidence that farm subsidies privilege beef over potatoes.