I loathe farmer subsidies. I have no idea why our government gives farmers so much money and so many advantages - nobody in our society really benefits from those incredible spendings and it's a significant fraction of our state budget.
And folks at the grocery store aren't going to like the prices if they want their unsubsidized groceries to be grown by their own countrymen earning middle-class wages.
Subsidies right now are certainly not where they need to be. The whole thing needs to be reformed but there are basically two classes of people: rich powerful special interests that profit from the status quo, and ignorant citizens that don't understand the very basics of why anything is being done.
Ignorance and greed underly most of our problems. Which one are you guilty of?
Or, heck, you might not like it. But I think you should know more about it anyway.
Food production (amount of food) rises, while falling as a share of GDP. Agricultural productivity (food output production per unit input) shoots up. A lot of land is repurposed from sheep to other products.
And of course, subsidy spending goes way down.
> "You starve poor countries by selling off all of their food to rich countries and making what's left very expensive"
The food produced in the poor country will sell for "the world price", pretty much the same everywhere. Not "cheap" in the rich countries and "expensive" in the poor ones.
I'll assume you are talking about US production. The vast majority of US crops don't need subsidies. They are heavily mechanized on cheap land (middle of Iowa etc) fairly close to markets and with good infrastructure.
>The food produced in the poor country will sell for "the world price", pretty much the same everywhere. Not "cheap" in the rich countries and "expensive" in the poor ones.
Spending power around the world varies by several orders of magnitude. If there's one "world price" for a crop, that price will be incredibly cheap for rich countries and incredibly expensive for poor ones. Agricultural poor countries will not be able to afford the food they grow.
>a lot of food eaten in rich countries is has minimal subsidies already
In the US, SNAP (food stamps) costs about $75 billion per year and is about 80% of the spending on the farm bill. It's hard to think of that as anything but a subsidy, and it covers more or less all food.
There's a lot more as well...
Significant numbers of both poor and rich countries do not subsidize food today. Many agricultural products are commodities and traded at the "world price" already. This is the world you live in right now. Have a look at what is actually happening rather than speculating...
>In the US, SNAP (food stamps) costs about $75 billion per year and is about 80% of the spending on the farm bill
Food Stamps are not a subsidy to farmers, they are a welfare program for poor people. They just are part of the "farm bill" for political reasons.
Food stamps shape the food choices people are able to (and do) make. Giving people money to buy food and giving farmers money to produce food are two sides of the same coin.
For example:
"SNAP increases the likelihood that participants will consume whole fruit by 23 percentage points"[1]
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assista...
This is just bad economics. If food is "incredibly cheap" for rich countries, and agricultural poor countries are unable to afford the food they grow, then the prices will rise. Humans can't survive without food.
When I'm saying "cheap" and "expensive" those are relative terms to the spending power of the population.
If I make $200 a day and some guy in Africa makes $2 a day and we both pay the same price for food. Either I get an incredible deal and pay basically nothing (compared to my income) for all of my food... or he starves to death because he can't afford it.
It has certainly happened. During the Irish Potato Famine, despite the potato disease going around, there was plenty of food to feed the population, they just sold it at a higher price elsewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Irish_f...
In the Great Famine, exporting leads to economic gain; it's just that people were poor. If you ban exports then exporters lose money and so they'll also become more poor.
Anyways, what you're saying is moot as we already have a world price for most food.
The people actually selling the crops in foreign markets won't starve, but these people are often not the actual farmers but middle-men. What about the people who don't farm? Food prices double and they can't just double their own prices and expect to win.
There's a huge economic correction that takes a long time if you break down barriers and the result is a lot of people starving in poor countries and a lot of farms failing in rich ones.
>In the Great Famine, exporting leads to economic gain; it's just that people were poor. If you ban exports then exporters lose money and so they'll also become more poor.
Are you defending the people who found economic gain of the exporters during the famine? 1/8 of the population died. In a closed economy there was more than enough food, prices would have adjusted themselves so that everyone could have eaten. There would have been problems with buying power to import into Ireland, but a million people wouldn't have died and another million wouldn't have fled the country.
Play a little game. Try to find the fruit, or vegatables that arn't produced in the rich country, fair wage country, safety conscious country of Mexico.
Even then, where it was produced doesn't matter much, if it wasn't grown in Mexico or shipped in from somewhere more exotic, much of the human labor was likely done by migrant workers from Mexico anyway.
Let's not pretend that the working conditions for the unmechanized portions of most produce-related jobs are anything but appalling.
To put a fine point on it, I don't want any part of my quality of life to be put on the backs of a workforce outside the middle class (or a foreign equivalent through trade)
----
The question is – is your goal replacing all food production with foreign wage-slaves? Are you holding up the current American market for "unsubsidized" produce as a shining beacon to be emulated? If you look into it, you realize far too much of it exploits the desperate and poor and creates shitty situations everywhere it goes. Proper subsidies and market regulations could mean that you could be proud to be a part of the food economy instead of feeling like a 21st century colonialist.
UBI/FB like threads are filled with comments that seemed to forgot this so obvious fact of life. Its the worst thing about HN.
Subsidizes get introduced either to score political points and/or bribes. Thats it.
That is, I think trade should be completely unrestricted to foreign markets that are within some economic margin (let's say US, Japan, Canada, and Germany to come up with a very incomplete list) and in any other cases should be subject to significant restrictions.
I don't like the fact that it's nearly impossible to pay someone in America an honest wage to put together t-shirts or running shoes. I don't like the fact that I'd be hard-pressed to buy a t-shirt or a running shoe that wasn't assembled by a person who is more like a slave than not.
But also,
Food is something fundamental, something important, more important than almost anything else and really easy to export the production. We might be ok letting some industries be entirely foreign, because maybe they're less essential... basic sustenance though is in a different class of importance. It's not a fad, it'll never go away unlike many industries that seek protections when they should just be allowed to die.
> Poor countries without standards for food safety, scruples about burning down rainforest for a few years of fertility, or worker rights or fair wages.
The wages are bad but if you don't buy from poor countries their wages will be even worse.
It works because overproducing food costs less than the risk of market shortage transients. It's one of those Catch-22 moments where you feel in awe of the genius of it.
I am very sorry it is a significant fraction of your state budget. Given the nature of the risk profile your state should not be underwriting this risk.
I imagine their true goal is to just pad their pockets.
Medieval Japanese culture is just so achingly beautiful it does not surprise me that people have such love fr it.
Of course, a lot of that had to do with incentives....
If you only grow and eat potatoes, you can feed 7 people 2000 Calorie/day diets all year. That's the figure if you grow potatoes like big potato farmers. If you nurture the land and integrate other species taking advantage of differing growing seasons and do all you can to make perfect soil conditions, you can get a lot more out of it than potatoes every day for 7.
Norwegian farming policy is focused on maintaining near-independence in the food supply because the British embargo during the Napoleonic wars in the early 1800's is still seared in the collective consciousness. E.g. every Norwegian primary school child will go through the very long, very tedious poem "Terje Vigen" about a man who tried to evade the British embargo by taking a small boat to Denmark to get food to feed his starving family.
Starvation happened despite farming most of the available land.
The concern of local food production rose to prominence again during World War II, when German occupation meant strict rationing, which led to "fun" food innovation such as flour substitute made from bark, as growing vegetables etc. in your back garden simply doesn't produce enough for most people to sustain a family.
But here's a summary of the end:
He is released from prison at the end of the Napoleonic wars, and comes home to find his wife and child died while he was in prison, and were buried in a paupers grave.
Years later he comes across a ship in distress and it is the captain of the British ship that caught him, with his family. He threatens revenge, but on picking up the child changes his mind and saves all of them.
Don't mistake me, I'm not claiming that Norwegian farming policy is perfect, merely that it does seem to work at the moment.
The government would need to prevent large companies from splitting up, and suddenly overnight you have 20 different small companies. They could beef up legal penalties for any blatant, repeated shinagigans. (Will never happen? The money their lobbyists sending congress is staggering?)
It's a shame how taxpayer money is wasted by administrators/politicians.
In the Bay Area, we have a lot of civil engineering jobs. (Those street repair/pipe jobs that never end, and tie up traffic for years). For years, it seemed like one company got all the work-- Billotti Brothers. (Didn't use their real name, out of fear.)
Even though every project required three bids, by three different companies, it seemed like Billotti got all the work. I used to wonder why. They must be one efficent company?
The Internet arrived, and people had some honest questions, basically, the main one was, "Is this the only company?"
I then noticed news papers started to list the construction companies that lost out on the bids. I looked into these companies. They all seemingly were founded by a Billotti? It looks like they sent their kids to Sacramento to get their contractors licenses? (Very easy to get).
These companies then all bid on projects. The lowest bid won! "Hold up a glass of red wine!"
And of course, they didn't plan this wacky coincidence, commingle assets("I don't need that grader brother."), share workers, work on eachother's projects--never.
And I actually don't have a clue to what they did, but it just doesn't look right. And it all could be legal--I just don't know? Or maybe, all the kids/grandkids just followed in dad's footsteps, and got into construction aspect of civil engineering?
(Edit: If I recall, the whole save the American farmer thing was started when I was a child. It sounded great, but farmers bought up all the small farmers, and the subsidies never stopped. Sorry about going off topic with the Billotti Brothers. I've become so dissalusioned with our society.)
If you don't provide farming subsidies, farming will move to countries with cheap labor and people with knowledge and capability for farming will become too few to ramp up quickly in case of emergency.