4 ms·

The problem is not exactly solved, because it is not clear what the farmers should grow in the place of corn. As a grain farmer operating in a country that does

The problem is not exactly solved, because it is not clear what the farmers should grow in the place of corn. As a grain farmer operating in a country that does not have subsidies, we still end up growing corn, even if it results in a loss. Bankers prefer to see a loss than to leave the land lay fallow, and there are not many famers who can operate against banker's wishes in such a capital intensive business. You cannot just simply transition into other non-grain crops because nobody has the multi-million dollar investment that it would take to build up the necessary infrastructure, the environment is not always suitable for all types of food, and you cannot get away with growing the same crop year after year. Corn solves a lot of those problems, even if it ends up creating others, as you point out. It is a pretty deep problem that cannot be solved with just a stroke of a pen, though innovation is always welcome on the farm, if you have real solutions.

justin66 13y ago
> The problem is not exactly solved, because it is not clear what the farmers should grow in the place of corn. It's quite possible they should stop being farmers and that the nation should farm out (get it?) much of its agriculture to the developing world. This is certainly what "the market" dictates and something which government spends a lot of money working to prevent.
- randomdata 13y ago
  While it might seem logical in the peaceful times we've grown accustomed to, it is going to still be a tough sell for nations like the USA that have a war-centric mindset. A starving population is how you lose wars, and the work the government does to maintain the local food supply exists for that reason. Also, there is growing concern for our ability to replenish food-stocks as-is. If farming ceases in these nations, you lose a lot of food people directly eat too.
  - justin66 13y ago
    > A starving population is how you lose wars, and the work the government does to maintain the local food supply exists for that reason. While it's true that having crops in the fields would help keep people fed during a world war that disrupted world agriculture, that's not the reason "the work the government does to maintain the local food supply exists." It exists because agriculture has a powerful lobby and they make a lot of money this way. Poor, developing world farmers don't get a vote. It's sometimes used as a post-hoc justification for what is done. > Also, there is growing concern for our ability to replenish food-stocks as-is. If farming ceases in these nations, you lose a lot of food people directly eat too. Killing developed world agricultural subsidies and allowing market competition to stimulate agricultural production in the developing world is one of those things that seems to unite almost all economists. This seems to be because they think it will make food less expensive and more accessible. I'm not familiar with anyone making the opposite case?
- btilly 13y ago
  The problem with the free market and agriculture is that demand is highly inelastic. Therefore the natural price difference between a good year for a crop and a bad year isn't 10%, it is more like 10x, and lots of people get to be hungry from time to time. However if you can convince farmers to always grow extra, then the difference between a good year and a bad one is closer to 10%, and you never have famines. After repeated bad experiences, every country with the capability has decided that they want farmers to grow extra in normal years. After that the question becomes how to subsidize them.
  - justin66 13y ago
    This is mostly false. I'll try to explain. If subsidization of farmers to produce more than the market is predicted to demand in order to smooth out volatility and prevent famine is necessary (and it seems to me like a laudable goal), government can simply fund overseas farmers to overproduce, rather than its own. It would be less expensive than the current process in those cases where overseas farmers produce more cheaply. In many cases they'd still be subsidizing their own farmers. Pretty much the only thing that would be untenable would be the current practice of paying "farmers" who own land to not produce. As far as I can tell everyone who doesn't receive that money hates the practice, so maybe we should just stop doing it. Which brings me to... > After repeated bad experiences, every country with the capability has decided that they want farmers to grow extra in normal years. They haven't really. It's not like we ever had a vote on it. The current process is just a powerful lobby exercising their considerable power.
    - shawn-furyan 13y ago
      I'm not sure why this comment is getting downvoted. It seems to me to be on par in terms of quality with the rest of the thread. Sure, there's no hard evidence given with any assertion, but there aren't really in the immediate ancestors either. This just seems to be an unpopular view, but I think that it's better to offer a counterargument than to downvote in that case, especially since downvoting visually deemphasizes the comment, which surely leads to fewer people reading it. To me, that outcome doesn't seem justified for this comment.
- donaldc 13y ago
  It's quite possible they should stop being farmers and that the nation should farm out (get it?) much of its agriculture to the developing world. A fundamental reason countries that can afford it have agricultural subsidies is that a little overproduction ensures food security. If you outsource your food production to another country, and there's a worldwide food shortage, that country can demand almost anything from you and get it, because otherwise some of your people starve.
hayksaakian 13y ago
As long as the subsidies exist, there is no capitalistic incentive to solve the problem. If a solution NEEDS to be found, it is more likely to be found.
- randomdata 13y ago
  In a way the market does work as you describe. If you recall (I'm not sure how publicized it was), the non-subsidized grain farmers of the world were on the brink of bankruptcy around the 2006 timeframe. The solution turned out to be changes to ethanol usage, for better or worse.
- NoPiece 13y ago
  It isn't just subsidies, there are also tariffs on the import of sugar to keep the prices high. The market is grossly manipulated by the government and the farming industry. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/sugar-sweeteners/policy.aspx#.UeGgc2QaqTk http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/sugar-sweeteners/policy...

justin66 13y ago

> The problem is not exactly solved, because it is not clear what the farmers should grow in the place of corn. It's quite possible they should stop being farmers and that the nation should farm out (get it?) much of its agriculture to the developing world. This is certainly what "the market" dictates and something which government spends a lot of money working to prevent.

randomdata 13y ago
While it might seem logical in the peaceful times we've grown accustomed to, it is going to still be a tough sell for nations like the USA that have a war-centric mindset. A starving population is how you lose wars, and the work the government does to maintain the local food supply exists for that reason. Also, there is growing concern for our ability to replenish food-stocks as-is. If farming ceases in these nations, you lose a lot of food people directly eat too.
- justin66 13y ago
  > A starving population is how you lose wars, and the work the government does to maintain the local food supply exists for that reason. While it's true that having crops in the fields would help keep people fed during a world war that disrupted world agriculture, that's not the reason "the work the government does to maintain the local food supply exists." It exists because agriculture has a powerful lobby and they make a lot of money this way. Poor, developing world farmers don't get a vote. It's sometimes used as a post-hoc justification for what is done. > Also, there is growing concern for our ability to replenish food-stocks as-is. If farming ceases in these nations, you lose a lot of food people directly eat too. Killing developed world agricultural subsidies and allowing market competition to stimulate agricultural production in the developing world is one of those things that seems to unite almost all economists. This seems to be because they think it will make food less expensive and more accessible. I'm not familiar with anyone making the opposite case?
btilly 13y ago
The problem with the free market and agriculture is that demand is highly inelastic. Therefore the natural price difference between a good year for a crop and a bad year isn't 10%, it is more like 10x, and lots of people get to be hungry from time to time. However if you can convince farmers to always grow extra, then the difference between a good year and a bad one is closer to 10%, and you never have famines. After repeated bad experiences, every country with the capability has decided that they want farmers to grow extra in normal years. After that the question becomes how to subsidize them.
- justin66 13y ago
  This is mostly false. I'll try to explain. If subsidization of farmers to produce more than the market is predicted to demand in order to smooth out volatility and prevent famine is necessary (and it seems to me like a laudable goal), government can simply fund overseas farmers to overproduce, rather than its own. It would be less expensive than the current process in those cases where overseas farmers produce more cheaply. In many cases they'd still be subsidizing their own farmers. Pretty much the only thing that would be untenable would be the current practice of paying "farmers" who own land to not produce. As far as I can tell everyone who doesn't receive that money hates the practice, so maybe we should just stop doing it. Which brings me to... > After repeated bad experiences, every country with the capability has decided that they want farmers to grow extra in normal years. They haven't really. It's not like we ever had a vote on it. The current process is just a powerful lobby exercising their considerable power.
  - shawn-furyan 13y ago
    I'm not sure why this comment is getting downvoted. It seems to me to be on par in terms of quality with the rest of the thread. Sure, there's no hard evidence given with any assertion, but there aren't really in the immediate ancestors either. This just seems to be an unpopular view, but I think that it's better to offer a counterargument than to downvote in that case, especially since downvoting visually deemphasizes the comment, which surely leads to fewer people reading it. To me, that outcome doesn't seem justified for this comment.
donaldc 13y ago
It's quite possible they should stop being farmers and that the nation should farm out (get it?) much of its agriculture to the developing world. A fundamental reason countries that can afford it have agricultural subsidies is that a little overproduction ensures food security. If you outsource your food production to another country, and there's a worldwide food shortage, that country can demand almost anything from you and get it, because otherwise some of your people starve.

hayksaakian 13y ago

As long as the subsidies exist, there is no capitalistic incentive to solve the problem. If a solution NEEDS to be found, it is more likely to be found.

randomdata 13y ago
In a way the market does work as you describe. If you recall (I'm not sure how publicized it was), the non-subsidized grain farmers of the world were on the brink of bankruptcy around the 2006 timeframe. The solution turned out to be changes to ethanol usage, for better or worse.
NoPiece 13y ago
It isn't just subsidies, there are also tariffs on the import of sugar to keep the prices high. The market is grossly manipulated by the government and the farming industry. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/sugar-sweeteners/policy.aspx#.UeGgc2QaqTk http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/sugar-sweeteners/policy...