Hacker News Reader

Comment by vfc1 | Hacker News Reader

Most of the corn and soy produced is not for direct human consumption, but for cattle feed - https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten...

> "Just over 70 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States are used for animal feed..."

These crops are heavily subsidized by the government, which allows the production of meat at a seemingly low price due to low feed costs, but in the end the taxpayer is paying for the actual meat price indirectly through taxes.

Why not reduce the production of soy and corn to reasonable levels, and let the consumers pay for the actual cost of meat?

If the government wants to subsidize crops, do so for fruits and vegetables instead.

View on HN

Exactly this. Meat is drastically cheaper than it would be from natural market forces and actual healthy shit is expensive.

I'm not vegan or vegetarian by the way but this aggravates me to no end and contributes to a lot of our problems.

But what's the rationale behind keeping meat price low.

We know meat can be easily substituted with plant based diet, so no one will starve.

Meat processing is also resource intensive (for example, it needs large amount of water).

We need to price in externalities, even the methane gas released by cattles should be calculated and put on the prices of meat as a tax.

I don't think the government is really intentionally trying to keep meat prices down. I think it's a side effect of subsidizing crops.

I've heard two reasons for subsidizing crops.

1. The government wants the country to be somewhat self-sufficient for food. If, let's say, there was another world war and imports were cut-off, they want to avoid mass starvation.

2. Crop output from a farm will vary from year to year due to weather and other factors. Without subsidies, during a streak of good crop years, production of that crop will exceed demand and the price will drop. This will cause some farms to go bankrupt (the number of farms will decrease until supply matches demand again). If a bad crop year then follows, you'll have shortages. Subsidies can smooth out these inefficiencies cause by weather by keeping farms alive during the good years so we have enough crops during the bad years.

Is there an actual argument somewhere for why these subsidies are desirable for the nation? Let's say, written by people who agree with them. What is the stated purpose? This should be written from the perspective that most industries should not warrant any subsidies. I don't understand why taxpayers should subsidize farms, and I'd like to read the rationale.

Some degree of farm subsidies are good/necessary just for the sake of food safety and national defense.

But, the amount and type of subsidies in the US is way off the charts for just those purposes.

A colleague (who supports farm subsidies) explained to me that farm subsidies incentivize hard work while education loan forgiveness incentivizes laziness.

Um, because to win the presidential election you need to do well in the Iowa caucuses and agricultural communities are overrepresentated in the legislature.

It's quite depressing how we are subsidizing cars and meat consumptions on the US. Two of the biggest factors in global warming and touching either will be a practically unwinnable political battle. Even if everyone believed in climate change the rural part of the US would fight this with all they have.

Because then the industries and communities that support the farming will complain about job losses and vote accordingly. Then the rest of the country will complain about inflation.

Why not

Personally I would love it, but people are so accustomed & feel so entitled to cheap meat you might just spark violent revolution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com