5 ms·

> Australia has among the lowest agricultural subsidies other countries would be wise to adopt that, but there is zero chance of that happening.

mike-the-mikado 1y ago
> other countries would be wise to adopt that Until they can't import food and can't feed their people
- robbiep 1y ago
  In the US and much of Europe, the subsidies are to NOT produce, not to produce more
  - ls612 1y ago
    To not produce in ordinary times. The thinking is that in time of war it’s easy to then say “go wild” and ensure your food supply is abundant.
  - EdwardDiego 1y ago
    And in the US, a lot of the subsidies flow towards food that isn't edible without processing - soybeans and field corn as opposed to sweet corn. Why? Because they've always grown it. So the subsidies encourage them to keep on growing it instead of diversifying into more competitive or higher value crops.
    - bluGill 1y ago
      What subsidies?
      - EdwardDiego 1y ago
        https://usafacts.org/articles/federal-farm-subsidies-what-data-says/ https://usafacts.org/articles/federal-farm-subsidies-what-da...
        bluGill 1y ago
        Read closely - it is insurance for a bad crop.
    - 9rx 1y ago
      The subsidy is received by way of reduced insurance premiums. While that does make insurance affordable where it mightn't otherwise be, the rate of reduction is the same across all crops, so the insurance is made equally affordable no matter which crop you grow. Thus, for all intents and purposes, we can completely ignore the subsidy and simply focus on the insurance as that is ultimately what you are suggesting is significant. After all, if the subsidies were taken away, all it would really mean that you theoretically couldn't afford insurance anymore and would do without. But what is significant about insurance? Since no good discussion is complete without a car analogy, let's go there. Say you always drove a truck. By your logic, auto insurance encourages you to keep driving trucks. Which suggests that if you could no longer get auto insurance, you would start driving a bus/van/car/whatever instead. But what makes you think that? If auto insurance disappeared for some reason, why wouldn't you still keep driving trucks as opposed to buses/vans/cars/whatever? There is probably a reason why you started driving trucks in the first place that doesn't go away even if insurance did. In the case of corn and soybeans, there is a really good reason why they are grown so much: Because that's where the market is. It is what people want to buy. They are the most competitive and highest value crops in the regions they are grown.
      - EdwardDiego 1y ago
        https://usafacts.org/articles/federal-farm-subsidies-what-data-says/ https://usafacts.org/articles/federal-farm-subsidies-what-da...
        9rx 1y ago
        Literally tells that the subsidy is insurance. Again, what is significant about insurance in the manner you have presented it?
      - EdwardDiego 1y ago
        > In the case of corn and soybeans, there is a really good reason why they are grown so much: Because that's where the market is. It is what people want to buy. They are the most competitive and highest value crops in the regions they are grown. Given the fact that they're subsidised, I doubt that they're the most competitive crops. Competitive crops don't need to be subsidised. Also, if they're so competitive, then why has the demolition of USAID caused them economic harm? A competitive product doesn't rely on a taxpayer subsidised buyer to make their market. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/19/1232435535/how-usaid-cuts-hurt-american-farmers https://www.npr.org/2025/02/19/1232435535/how-usaid-cuts-hur...
  - rcxdude 1y ago
    The subsidies are generally to have spare production capacity, so as to reduce the risk of famine that can occur from the capitalistic incentives of optimising the system for efficiency above resilience. (Not that the subsidies are always actually the most sensibly set out: but the general idea of subsidizing farming is an important one)
    - cpursley 1y ago
      > The subsidies are generally to have spare production capacity Maybe originally, but not anymore. Exhibit A: See America's waistline and the reason behind it (hint: farm subsidies and SNAP, two sides of the same coin).
  - pseudo0 1y ago
    A lot of it also gets turned into biofuels or sent to third-world countries as food aid. That could easily be rerouted in a crisis scenario, if domestic food security became an issue.
    - EdwardDiego 1y ago
      The corn that gets turned into biofuel isn't edible without further processing into maize derived products, so in a crisis scenario, hope you can still highly process corn.
      - pseudo0 1y ago
        You can turn it into animal feed.
EdwardDiego 1y ago
New Zealand did this in the 80s. Caused a lot of pain in the rural community, a bunch of bankruptcies, marriage failures and suicides as farming operations only sustainable because they were subsidised failed. We now have a very internationally competitive agricultural sector, but yeah, getting there caused a lot of pain.
profsummergig 1y ago
They kind of have free land available to anyone who wants to farm. Maybe that helps. Land is a huge expense in places with high population density (e.g. India). Australia also produces a huge amount of high-quality mangoes. In the desert. Respect. They're very very strong on water management.
- exaltedsnail 1y ago
  This couldn't be further from the truth. Arable farm land is very expensive here.
  - mota7 1y ago
    Land the western australia wheat belt sells for less than $1000/acre. Is that very expensive?
- defrost 1y ago
  The land isn't free and arable land with good water is hard to come by. Mangoes are not grown in the Tanami or Great Sandy Desert. They're not grown around Kalgoorlie (that relies on piped in water from far, far away), etc. Mangoes (Mangifera indica) are predominantly grown in the Northern Territory and Queensland, and when combined, produce approximately 95% of the total national crop. Mangoes are also grown in Western Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. from: https://www.industry.mangoes.net.au/who-we-are/our-industry/ https://www.industry.mangoes.net.au/who-we-are/our-industry/ crop map: https://www.industry.mangoes.net.au/resources/resources-library/national-mango-tree-crop-map-dashboard/ https://www.industry.mangoes.net.au/resources/resources-libr... The areas they are grown have tropical rainforest (Qld), vast Wetlands (those parts of the Northern Territory with fresh water crocodiles, swamps, etc), annual monsoons (Kimberley), etc. But yes, we do have on point water management.
- porjo 1y ago
  > They kind of have free land available to anyone who wants to farm. Australia is vast and empty. In the interior, rivers are few and far between and the landscape is flat and featureless. Any 'free' land is going to be essentially desert. Even if you could grow something on it, you wouldn't want to live there.
abdullahkhalids 1y ago
What's needed is for countries to create risk profiles for food availability under different scenarios. At the same time establish maximum risk threshold. Then pursue whatever strategy gets you there.
quitit 1y ago
and those subsidies go predominantly into R&D rather than propping up fragile businesses
- lmpdev 1y ago
  My university has a good anecdote here Not sure about this year but either two or three years ago over 90% of the University of New England’s grant money (over $20MM) was from the School of Agriculture I hate many aspects of the Australian economy (especially our lack of economic diversity) but having world-best tech for farming isn’t one of them. America is still leaps and bounds behind us in many different subdomains of Agriculture and Mining Australia is weak for only really having primary industries, but we sure are very optimised for it
AngryData 1y ago
I disagree, food subsidies are the only alternative to the granary system, or foolishly counting on food imports. Agriculture is an industry with notorious slim margins, but yield can vary up to 30% year to year just on random weather patterns and often effects large areas at once. Combined those are a recipe for an eventual shortage unless you pay to over produce. A farm running on 2% margins on a good year can't risk planting 10% extra if they might not be able to sell it and will take it all as a loss, and so farmers without decent subsidies would only try to produce up to the current demand and not a bushel over it. And if a large agricultural area experiences a bad year, as we have seen happen historically many times over, and everyone was already only planning to barely meet demand, all of a sudden you have a food shortage and people starve. And on top of that weather patterns across the globe are changing and becoming less predictable. Famines essentially became nonexistent in places with decent crop subsidization, but in places without it that still rely on large granary stores shortages still happen.

mike-the-mikado 1y ago

> other countries would be wise to adopt that Until they can't import food and can't feed their people

robbiep 1y ago
In the US and much of Europe, the subsidies are to NOT produce, not to produce more
- ls612 1y ago
  To not produce in ordinary times. The thinking is that in time of war it’s easy to then say “go wild” and ensure your food supply is abundant.
- EdwardDiego 1y ago
  And in the US, a lot of the subsidies flow towards food that isn't edible without processing - soybeans and field corn as opposed to sweet corn. Why? Because they've always grown it. So the subsidies encourage them to keep on growing it instead of diversifying into more competitive or higher value crops.
  - bluGill 1y ago
    What subsidies?
    - EdwardDiego 1y ago
      https://usafacts.org/articles/federal-farm-subsidies-what-data-says/ https://usafacts.org/articles/federal-farm-subsidies-what-da...
      - bluGill 1y ago
        Read closely - it is insurance for a bad crop.
  - 9rx 1y ago
    The subsidy is received by way of reduced insurance premiums. While that does make insurance affordable where it mightn't otherwise be, the rate of reduction is the same across all crops, so the insurance is made equally affordable no matter which crop you grow. Thus, for all intents and purposes, we can completely ignore the subsidy and simply focus on the insurance as that is ultimately what you are suggesting is significant. After all, if the subsidies were taken away, all it would really mean that you theoretically couldn't afford insurance anymore and would do without. But what is significant about insurance? Since no good discussion is complete without a car analogy, let's go there. Say you always drove a truck. By your logic, auto insurance encourages you to keep driving trucks. Which suggests that if you could no longer get auto insurance, you would start driving a bus/van/car/whatever instead. But what makes you think that? If auto insurance disappeared for some reason, why wouldn't you still keep driving trucks as opposed to buses/vans/cars/whatever? There is probably a reason why you started driving trucks in the first place that doesn't go away even if insurance did. In the case of corn and soybeans, there is a really good reason why they are grown so much: Because that's where the market is. It is what people want to buy. They are the most competitive and highest value crops in the regions they are grown.
    - EdwardDiego 1y ago
      https://usafacts.org/articles/federal-farm-subsidies-what-data-says/ https://usafacts.org/articles/federal-farm-subsidies-what-da...
      - 9rx 1y ago
        Literally tells that the subsidy is insurance. Again, what is significant about insurance in the manner you have presented it?
    - EdwardDiego 1y ago
      > In the case of corn and soybeans, there is a really good reason why they are grown so much: Because that's where the market is. It is what people want to buy. They are the most competitive and highest value crops in the regions they are grown. Given the fact that they're subsidised, I doubt that they're the most competitive crops. Competitive crops don't need to be subsidised. Also, if they're so competitive, then why has the demolition of USAID caused them economic harm? A competitive product doesn't rely on a taxpayer subsidised buyer to make their market. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/19/1232435535/how-usaid-cuts-hurt-american-farmers https://www.npr.org/2025/02/19/1232435535/how-usaid-cuts-hur...
- rcxdude 1y ago
  The subsidies are generally to have spare production capacity, so as to reduce the risk of famine that can occur from the capitalistic incentives of optimising the system for efficiency above resilience. (Not that the subsidies are always actually the most sensibly set out: but the general idea of subsidizing farming is an important one)
  - cpursley 1y ago
    > The subsidies are generally to have spare production capacity Maybe originally, but not anymore. Exhibit A: See America's waistline and the reason behind it (hint: farm subsidies and SNAP, two sides of the same coin).
- pseudo0 1y ago
  A lot of it also gets turned into biofuels or sent to third-world countries as food aid. That could easily be rerouted in a crisis scenario, if domestic food security became an issue.
  - EdwardDiego 1y ago
    The corn that gets turned into biofuel isn't edible without further processing into maize derived products, so in a crisis scenario, hope you can still highly process corn.
    - pseudo0 1y ago
      You can turn it into animal feed.

EdwardDiego 1y ago

New Zealand did this in the 80s. Caused a lot of pain in the rural community, a bunch of bankruptcies, marriage failures and suicides as farming operations only sustainable because they were subsidised failed. We now have a very internationally competitive agricultural sector, but yeah, getting there caused a lot of pain.

profsummergig 1y ago

They kind of have free land available to anyone who wants to farm. Maybe that helps. Land is a huge expense in places with high population density (e.g. India). Australia also produces a huge amount of high-quality mangoes. In the desert. Respect. They're very very strong on water management.

exaltedsnail 1y ago
This couldn't be further from the truth. Arable farm land is very expensive here.
- mota7 1y ago
  Land the western australia wheat belt sells for less than $1000/acre. Is that very expensive?
defrost 1y ago
The land isn't free and arable land with good water is hard to come by. Mangoes are not grown in the Tanami or Great Sandy Desert. They're not grown around Kalgoorlie (that relies on piped in water from far, far away), etc. Mangoes (Mangifera indica) are predominantly grown in the Northern Territory and Queensland, and when combined, produce approximately 95% of the total national crop. Mangoes are also grown in Western Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. from: https://www.industry.mangoes.net.au/who-we-are/our-industry/ https://www.industry.mangoes.net.au/who-we-are/our-industry/ crop map: https://www.industry.mangoes.net.au/resources/resources-library/national-mango-tree-crop-map-dashboard/ https://www.industry.mangoes.net.au/resources/resources-libr... The areas they are grown have tropical rainforest (Qld), vast Wetlands (those parts of the Northern Territory with fresh water crocodiles, swamps, etc), annual monsoons (Kimberley), etc. But yes, we do have on point water management.
porjo 1y ago
> They kind of have free land available to anyone who wants to farm. Australia is vast and empty. In the interior, rivers are few and far between and the landscape is flat and featureless. Any 'free' land is going to be essentially desert. Even if you could grow something on it, you wouldn't want to live there.

abdullahkhalids 1y ago

What's needed is for countries to create risk profiles for food availability under different scenarios. At the same time establish maximum risk threshold. Then pursue whatever strategy gets you there.

quitit 1y ago

and those subsidies go predominantly into R&D rather than propping up fragile businesses

lmpdev 1y ago
My university has a good anecdote here Not sure about this year but either two or three years ago over 90% of the University of New England’s grant money (over $20MM) was from the School of Agriculture I hate many aspects of the Australian economy (especially our lack of economic diversity) but having world-best tech for farming isn’t one of them. America is still leaps and bounds behind us in many different subdomains of Agriculture and Mining Australia is weak for only really having primary industries, but we sure are very optimised for it

AngryData 1y ago

I disagree, food subsidies are the only alternative to the granary system, or foolishly counting on food imports. Agriculture is an industry with notorious slim margins, but yield can vary up to 30% year to year just on random weather patterns and often effects large areas at once. Combined those are a recipe for an eventual shortage unless you pay to over produce. A farm running on 2% margins on a good year can't risk planting 10% extra if they might not be able to sell it and will take it all as a loss, and so farmers without decent subsidies would only try to produce up to the current demand and not a bushel over it. And if a large agricultural area experiences a bad year, as we have seen happen historically many times over, and everyone was already only planning to barely meet demand, all of a sudden you have a food shortage and people starve. And on top of that weather patterns across the globe are changing and becoming less predictable. Famines essentially became nonexistent in places with decent crop subsidization, but in places without it that still rely on large granary stores shortages still happen.