4 ms·

It's because food should be grown where it's economical to grow it, not where government subsidy is the fundamental thing allowing it. In a manner of speaking,

It's because food should be grown where it's economical to grow it, not where government subsidy is the fundamental thing allowing it. In a manner of speaking, California's chief source of fertilizer is Washington.

nitrogen 12y ago
That's a fair point. I think it can be done more cooperatively, though, without the animosity. Still, there are definitely parts of California that are the best place to grow certain things, and there's also something to be said for locally grown produce in terms of carbon footprint and national food security.
- stickfigure 12y ago
  Considering that farmers are effectively living off of welfare, have been doing so for generations, and tend to be one of the furthest-right voting blocks in the state, I think a fair amount of animosity is warranted.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    If they're living off welfare, we're living off the reduced food prices that welfare provides. It's effectively a regressive subsidy to those who most need it, low-income households for whom food is a significant expense. I come from a suburbanized semi-rural area, and farms and dairies are shutting down all the time because it's not profitable. It's not like they're living large on government largess, at least not at the local farm level with a few square miles of land or a hundred dairy cows.
    - stickfigure 12y ago
      Aside from the fact that it would be more efficient to just give people money or food, a significant part of farm subsidy comes in the form of import tariffs and minimum guaranteed prices that force food prices up, not down. Furthermore these barriers have the insidious effect of keeping developing economies from participating in the global economy because their farm goods are untradeable. If you think farmers have it tough here, check out rural Guatemala. I understand your emotional attachment to farming as a lifestyle. The farm lobby trades on this heavily ("my family has been growing sugar beets for eight generations, we need the subsidies!"). Change happens. The sooner we get the kinds of changes that stop farmers from growing rice growing in California, the better.
- mariodiana 12y ago
  Since we do not live in a world yet entirely "safe for democracy," I am sympathetic to the idea of national food security. But my understanding is that rice, just to take an example, could be better grown in New Orleans, but because of subsidy is grown in California. Now, if I've got some details wrong, I apologize. My point is that it's a safe bet that, even within this nation itself, subsidy is misallocating economic resources.

nitrogen 12y ago

That's a fair point. I think it can be done more cooperatively, though, without the animosity. Still, there are definitely parts of California that are the best place to grow certain things, and there's also something to be said for locally grown produce in terms of carbon footprint and national food security.

stickfigure 12y ago
Considering that farmers are effectively living off of welfare, have been doing so for generations, and tend to be one of the furthest-right voting blocks in the state, I think a fair amount of animosity is warranted.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  If they're living off welfare, we're living off the reduced food prices that welfare provides. It's effectively a regressive subsidy to those who most need it, low-income households for whom food is a significant expense. I come from a suburbanized semi-rural area, and farms and dairies are shutting down all the time because it's not profitable. It's not like they're living large on government largess, at least not at the local farm level with a few square miles of land or a hundred dairy cows.
  - stickfigure 12y ago
    Aside from the fact that it would be more efficient to just give people money or food, a significant part of farm subsidy comes in the form of import tariffs and minimum guaranteed prices that force food prices up, not down. Furthermore these barriers have the insidious effect of keeping developing economies from participating in the global economy because their farm goods are untradeable. If you think farmers have it tough here, check out rural Guatemala. I understand your emotional attachment to farming as a lifestyle. The farm lobby trades on this heavily ("my family has been growing sugar beets for eight generations, we need the subsidies!"). Change happens. The sooner we get the kinds of changes that stop farmers from growing rice growing in California, the better.
mariodiana 12y ago
Since we do not live in a world yet entirely "safe for democracy," I am sympathetic to the idea of national food security. But my understanding is that rice, just to take an example, could be better grown in New Orleans, but because of subsidy is grown in California. Now, if I've got some details wrong, I apologize. My point is that it's a safe bet that, even within this nation itself, subsidy is misallocating economic resources.