4 ms·

Crop subsidies are certainly poorly applied and poorly distributed, but we also need to not throw the baby out with the bath water. Crop subsidization is the on

Crop subsidies are certainly poorly applied and poorly distributed, but we also need to not throw the baby out with the bath water. Crop subsidization is the only alternative to the granary system, which while decent still resulted in repeated famines for thousands of years basically everywhere, while no country that has decent crop subsidization ever has famine. Crop subsidization in general makes granaries 90% obsolete because you always aim to over produce crops and so even in bad years you still produce enough food despite the unexpectedly low yields. It also makes food prices WAY more stable so that a bad July doesn't cause wheat prices to double because there isn't enough to satisfy demand. It is really the only way to ensure you always produce extra food in a capitalist economy because otherwise margins are only like 2% while crop yields can swing 30% even without extraordinary weather events or storm damage. I do want to note though that corn is possibly one of the least useful crops to subsidize, it is one of the most robust and predictable food crops we grow, which is why so much of it is grown despite a large fraction of it's energy going into worthless stalk. More delicate crops that have larger and less predictable yield swings, like wheat, or something with delicate fruits that can't be stored long, likely deserve the majority of subsidization money that currently goes towards corn.

mschuster91 1y ago
The problem is, you almost always end up with a massive amount of overproduction. That either ends up diverted into fuel production, which raises ethical concerns on one side and prolongs the use of fossil fuels because it's "effectively free" and so stops people from switching over to electric mobility on the other side. And on top of that, many Western countries routinely dump their overproduction on Africa, where as a result of all that free aid, local food production industry has all but vanished. Up until the '00s, Simbabwe was known as "Africa's corn chamber" - that is long gone now.
- burnt-resistor 1y ago
  Grain overproduction is also a significant driver of climate change. Fossil fuels, meat, and GMO monocultures aren't ecologically sustainable in current form, they continue because of capture of factions of governments by corrupt lobbying interests who threaten elected officials into driving more cash and favorable regulations their way.
  - b112 1y ago
    People need to stop pointing the finger at food production, with such massive blinders on. Food "overproduction", are you actually serious? Are people so removed from farming, and food production, that they think it's a simple thing? Plant X food, get X food? Absolutely not! Even with irrigation, there are years with drought, yes even in the West. There are years that are too cloudy, or too sunny (yes, too sunny is a thing). There are years with locusts, and no insecticide doesn't completely solve that. And regardless of global warming or not, some seasons have always been worse for hurricanes, tornadoes, and some events at harvest time can wipe out crops entirely! Outside of all of the above, few nations feed themselves on their own output. External food production can wither and vanish in an instant, whether through war, or inclement weather too. You must overproduce to ensure a continuity of food supply. It's the same reason that fallow farmland must be a thing, too. There must be extra, there must be a safety net. Only people who have never starved, never been truly hungry would espouse such things.
    - MindSpunk 1y ago
      We saw what happens when you use just-in-time manufacturing and keep minimal stock of material when covid collapsed supply chains a few years ago. Imagine if that was our food supply instead. The over production is the price we pay for food security.
    - 9rx 1y ago
      > and some events at harvest time can wipe out crops entirely! And that swings both ways. Last year, with the stars aligning just right, the corn yields around here were ~100 bushels per acre higher than even our most optimistic pre-harvest estimates. That is an incredible amount of unexpected extra product. Corn especially has a huge, unpredictable yield band. Which, of course, is exactly why we started producing corn-based ethanol. To buffer the periods of uncontrollable excess — where the previous alternative was to see it rot away.
    - mschuster91 1y ago
      I agree, but we have to take care that getting rid of excess production (i.e. post reserve building/maintenance) is not going to fuck up supply chains in other countries, like it did in Africa.
9rx 1y ago
> Crop subsidies are certainly poorly applied and poorly distributed Crop subsidies, since the 2014 reforms at least, are "fair" to all crops. That does mean that the most grown crops (which in the US is corn, by a large margin) receive the most subsidies, but is that truly poor application and distribution?
- HDThoreaun 1y ago
  Yes, they just explained way. The goal isnt fairness, its preventing famine.
  - 9rx 1y ago
    The goal isn't fairness, but it is fair[1]. There is nothing in the crop subsidies that would compel you to grow, say, corn over a vegetable. Corn does receive the lion's share of the subsidies, but that's because we grow way more corn, because that's what the consumer chooses to buy (either directly or indirectly [e.g. meat]).
    - HDThoreaun 1y ago
      Right, and part of why we grow way more corn is the subsidies(vast majority of corn is going to animals, they eat whatever is cheapest). The subsidies lead to too much corn growth which means they are poorly applied, even if they are fair.
      - 9rx 1y ago
        > part of why we grow way more corn is the subsidies That would imply that subsidies give reason to produce corn over a vegetable, which isn't the case. The subsidies are "fair" — even when that isn't the goal. You are right that corn is cheap, but that's a result of technology and the nature of what it is. It requires almost no human effort to produce. Stuff like vegetables, on the other hand, remain incredibly labor intensive even on the most technically advanced farms. It is a much harder problem to solve. As compared to virtually every other food, grain is significantly simpler to handle in almost every way from seeding right to storage and distribution. And corn benefits from being insanely high yielding compared to other grains.

mschuster91 1y ago

The problem is, you almost always end up with a massive amount of overproduction. That either ends up diverted into fuel production, which raises ethical concerns on one side and prolongs the use of fossil fuels because it's "effectively free" and so stops people from switching over to electric mobility on the other side. And on top of that, many Western countries routinely dump their overproduction on Africa, where as a result of all that free aid, local food production industry has all but vanished. Up until the '00s, Simbabwe was known as "Africa's corn chamber" - that is long gone now.

burnt-resistor 1y ago
Grain overproduction is also a significant driver of climate change. Fossil fuels, meat, and GMO monocultures aren't ecologically sustainable in current form, they continue because of capture of factions of governments by corrupt lobbying interests who threaten elected officials into driving more cash and favorable regulations their way.
- b112 1y ago
  People need to stop pointing the finger at food production, with such massive blinders on. Food "overproduction", are you actually serious? Are people so removed from farming, and food production, that they think it's a simple thing? Plant X food, get X food? Absolutely not! Even with irrigation, there are years with drought, yes even in the West. There are years that are too cloudy, or too sunny (yes, too sunny is a thing). There are years with locusts, and no insecticide doesn't completely solve that. And regardless of global warming or not, some seasons have always been worse for hurricanes, tornadoes, and some events at harvest time can wipe out crops entirely! Outside of all of the above, few nations feed themselves on their own output. External food production can wither and vanish in an instant, whether through war, or inclement weather too. You must overproduce to ensure a continuity of food supply. It's the same reason that fallow farmland must be a thing, too. There must be extra, there must be a safety net. Only people who have never starved, never been truly hungry would espouse such things.
  - MindSpunk 1y ago
    We saw what happens when you use just-in-time manufacturing and keep minimal stock of material when covid collapsed supply chains a few years ago. Imagine if that was our food supply instead. The over production is the price we pay for food security.
  - 9rx 1y ago
    > and some events at harvest time can wipe out crops entirely! And that swings both ways. Last year, with the stars aligning just right, the corn yields around here were ~100 bushels per acre higher than even our most optimistic pre-harvest estimates. That is an incredible amount of unexpected extra product. Corn especially has a huge, unpredictable yield band. Which, of course, is exactly why we started producing corn-based ethanol. To buffer the periods of uncontrollable excess — where the previous alternative was to see it rot away.
  - mschuster91 1y ago
    I agree, but we have to take care that getting rid of excess production (i.e. post reserve building/maintenance) is not going to fuck up supply chains in other countries, like it did in Africa.

9rx 1y ago

> Crop subsidies are certainly poorly applied and poorly distributed Crop subsidies, since the 2014 reforms at least, are "fair" to all crops. That does mean that the most grown crops (which in the US is corn, by a large margin) receive the most subsidies, but is that truly poor application and distribution?

HDThoreaun 1y ago
Yes, they just explained way. The goal isnt fairness, its preventing famine.
- 9rx 1y ago
  The goal isn't fairness, but it is fair[1]. There is nothing in the crop subsidies that would compel you to grow, say, corn over a vegetable. Corn does receive the lion's share of the subsidies, but that's because we grow way more corn, because that's what the consumer chooses to buy (either directly or indirectly [e.g. meat]).
  - HDThoreaun 1y ago
    Right, and part of why we grow way more corn is the subsidies(vast majority of corn is going to animals, they eat whatever is cheapest). The subsidies lead to too much corn growth which means they are poorly applied, even if they are fair.
    - 9rx 1y ago
      > part of why we grow way more corn is the subsidies That would imply that subsidies give reason to produce corn over a vegetable, which isn't the case. The subsidies are "fair" — even when that isn't the goal. You are right that corn is cheap, but that's a result of technology and the nature of what it is. It requires almost no human effort to produce. Stuff like vegetables, on the other hand, remain incredibly labor intensive even on the most technically advanced farms. It is a much harder problem to solve. As compared to virtually every other food, grain is significantly simpler to handle in almost every way from seeding right to storage and distribution. And corn benefits from being insanely high yielding compared to other grains.