Hacker News Reader

If Imperfect Foods's business model works out, it sounds like farmers will see an increase in profits. I don't see why that couldn't coincide with a decrease in subsidies. In an ideal world, we could even redirect that money towards the poor - potentially making up for the impact to food banks.

The subsidies aren’t going anywhere, the lobby is very strong and senators like being re-elected. “Just get rid of the subsidies” sounds great, but it won’t happen. So given that as a baseline reality, and given how much produce is grown by small farmers vs. giant conglomerates, this is really just about more money in the bank and less food in the food bank.

> I don't see why that couldn't coincide with a decrease in subsidies. In an ideal world, we could even redirect that money towards the poor - potentially making up for the impact to food banks.

This seems true but irrelevant. The claim that things would be better for everyone, were X accompanied by policies Y and Z, is not a real defence of X unless you have good reason to believe that it really will be accompanied by Y and Z.

Instead of adding opacity to the system, I would rather they remove the subsidies instead.

You will not have agriculture then. It'll be like not having any industry, only much worse.

We had agriculture before the subsidies.

Agriculture, at least in the US, has always been subsidized. As a country we used slave labor (free labor) to subsidize agriculture, and then over time we gave away an epic amount of land to white farmers (via the Land Act of 1820, the Homestead Act, and the Morrill Act of 1862).

We also had lots of starvation before subsidies too.

Food has pretty much the most inelastic demand curve imaginable. There's no way that agriculture will disappear without subsidies. Prices might increase, sure. But anyone who has any money will pay whatever prices are necessary when the alternative is literally starving to death.

If you're referring to agriculture disappearing from the US, that definitely wouldn't happen either. Some of it might, but not the majority. Most countries don't heavily subsidize farming to the extent that we do, and transportation costs are non-trivial, especially for fresh produce or anything that needs freezing.

The EU has successfully tested this and removed any subsidies to the sugar agricultural sector. The sugar industry in Europe has not imploded. In fact, it’s just adjusted to the new reality of not being subsidised. Other than that, it’s pretty much business as usual.

Not always true. In New Zealand we had subsidies for farmers (about 40%) and then they were taken away. The removal forced the farmers to innovate and now we have very efficient farming methods that have far less environmental impact. 2/3 of NZ's exports are agricultural.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_New_Zealand

Edit: The thing I found most interesting about this is agriculture was deregulated by the left wing government in what is a very socialist leaning country. Kiwi's are very pragmatic.

Subsidies and government things are subject to disclosure laws, private contracts don't.

Subsidies add opacity to the market, so that the true cost of something is obscured from the consumer.

Reducing the cost of critical goods is sometimes necessary. Should milk cost 20+$/gallon?

I understand the appeal ideologically, but in practice what you are suggesting would increase inequality.

weird that you bring milk up as an example, because this is an industry where regulations tend to make sure milk prices stay high and production stays low; really there are not many examples of food subsidies/regulations that aim to reduce prices and increase supply, at least not in the developed world

Hm, I brought it up because its a staple item that everyone seems to need, but upon reflection that would make it a target for subsidy to reduce the inflation metrics.

Yes it should. Milk is unnecessary and unneeded. Milk is for baby cows, not humans.

Humans should end their diary addiction, it would help with obesity, and a whole other host of health conditions.

In practice it would inform the market where to divert resources. If you want to give poor people help, then you should provide them cash. This preserves the purpose of transparent prices, which is to inform other suppliers in the market to enter to drive the price down.

However, this is not done as it's more difficult to corrupt and profit off of this since it is transparent how much help the poor are getting. It's easier to muddy the waters and steal from taxpayers by creating a byzantine system of tax breaks and subsidies.

Hmm. Good point.

One question though, are there farmers out there who are not taking the famed agricultural subsidies we give out? Because if there are, (even if there are not that many such farmers), I think those guys should be able to monetize their "ugly" produce or fruit all they want. They're not being supported by tax money at all.

But yes, if we are subsidizing a farmer, we certainly have the right to oblige him to give his scraps to us so we can feed our masses. There's nothing unreasonable about that. After all, we're only talking about the little food he's able to sell only to the guys who literally only take "scraps".

Maybe we shouldn't look at the farmer solely. In NL potato farmers get 9 ct/kilo of potatoes. This is near cost price, sometimes even below. In the supermarket the consumer pays $1.60 for that kilo. And I am talking local produce here.. the potato fields are literally right next to the supermarkets (NL is very small, no long supply lines). With those 9 cts it is clear they need subsidies. The supermarkets set the prices, and something is wrong here.

This paper by Dr. Jayson Lusk at Purdue University outlines the valuation of farm support programs (what is being called subsidies in this thread). He also includes analysis of farm support from other countries.

http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2016/6/26/impacts-of-usda-program...

Farmers (at least in the US) don't get any subsidies for vegetables.

Err, is corn not a vegetable?

I think it's considered more of a grain than a vegetable.

Corn is a heavily modified grass, so definitely a grain and not a vegetable.

More specifically (I looked it up because I was curious):

Maize is an annual grass in the family Gramineae, which includes such plants as wheat, rye, barley, rice, sorghum, and sugarcane.

US farmers do receive non crop based subsidies for growing vegetables. The absolute subsidy is far smaller, but far less land is used for vegetables 2.5 million acres vs 81.8 million acres of corn for grain, 47.8 million acres of wheat, and 89.6 million acres of soybeans.

Sources: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/VegeSumm/VegeSu... https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2018/06-29-2018.php

What are these non-crop-based vegetable subsidies you speak of?

Crop insurance for one thing: https://www.rma.usda.gov/pubs/2011/vegetable_growers.pdf

At the 75% coverage level the government pays 55% and the farmer pays 45%. Lower coverage levels get a higher subsidy.

But really it’s a smorgasbord of options.

This is not an accurate statement: see the USDA info on non-crop specific programs that are counted as farm support programs:

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/fruit-tree-nuts/policy...

What % of these subsidies flow to vegetables?

https://www.pcrm.org/health/reports/agriculture-and-health-p...

> Between 1995 and 2009, USDA distributed more than $246 billion ($246,000,000,000) in subsidies. The subsidy system, updated approximately every five years, provides financial support primarily to producers of “commodity crops,” which include more than a dozen nonperishable crops. However, five commodity crops—corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, and rice—receive the vast majority of subsidies.

Remove farmer (usually large profitable corporations) subsidies and more directly subsidize the poor maybe?

Then you get to enjoy one bad harvest caused by drought, hail, etc send a large chunk of your farms into bankruptcy and then enjoy food shortages until it becomes profitable to farm again. The subsidies are there to make farming less boom or bust, worst case scenario your citizens get really cheap food.

I think the argument most commonly put forth is not "feeders of the people" but "national security." Proponents of the subsidies say that the ability of a nation to feed itself is a matter of national security. Although in the era of factory farms and big agra it seems like the "national security" is maybe less of a concern that during say the Eisenhower era.

>"Sounds to me like they want privileges, why not a few obligations for a change?"

Exactly, recipients of those subsidies should be obligated to contribute to food banks for the poor. I don't believe any such strings are attached today. Source: I have a American friend who has farm land as part of a second home but has never grown a single crop, he receives an annual subsidy check and has now for many years.