Tell Americans What They're Really Paying for Their Food | Hacker News Reader

Tell Americans What They're Really Paying for Their Food

ideas.theatlantic.com

29 pointsrobg21 comments

Heh, I was just reading about how Japan's government (over a millennium ago) impoverished itself through exemptions from the land tax. The exemptions were originally meant to foster religion and reward special service, but the government left loopholes by which the land tax exemptions spread to a considerable fraction of arable land in Japan. For example, owners of taxed land would sell their land to a tax-exempt lord or monastery, then rent the land back from him. Monasteries exploded in number and size as tax exemption and other government perks turned religion into an attractive career. Since the whole burden of funding the government rested on the shrinking remnant of taxable land, this meant financial ruin for many taxpayers, who could only save themselves by selling their land... often to a tax-exempt landholder.

The concept is entirely different, but there is a surface similarity: a government program aimed at a small group of people (American family farmers, Japanese monks and favored families) was taken over by shrewd businessmen and turned into a thriving welfare business, at great cost to taxpayers and little benefit to anyone except a small number of fat cats who milk the system for all it's worth.

It would be silly to think the subsidies are "aimed" at the family farmers since there are so few of them; they are just pawn in the game. It's partially about riot control (via cheap food), and probably more about relieving people of their pesky self sufficiency by making farming unprofitable.

But the food isn't cheap! Everything (except HFCS and beef) is much more expensive than in the EU.

The average American's consumes a lot of corn and beef!

I just saw Food Inc. Fits with the article.

http://www.foodincmovie.com/

+1. And it's not just price, its quality too. Even if you avoid processed junk and go after raw meats, veggies and fruit, you're still eating manufactured, as opposed to grown, sub-standard stuff.

My friends who come here to visit, after sharing their initial comments about the US, almost always compliment their overall very positive impression of the country with mandatory: "... but the food... sorry but it tastes like shit here, how can you eat this? Even Coca Cola is much worse, why is that?"

Can you say High-fructose corn syrup?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup#Sweete...

With government subsidies for corn, it's more economical for Coke/Pepsi to use HFCS.

When I lived in the US I was at first fascinated, then disturbed that bread, milk, etc stayed fresh for so long...

Americans who come here at first are always shocked at how "quickly" our food spoils, well, it's supposed to do that!

It's so true, I traveled a little and as soon as I returned I noticed 1) our supermarkets have no seasons 2) the chicken was mushy and flavorless. I still can't eat fast food.

Obama's original budget cut $30B of subsidies to big agriculture. It struck me at the time that this was a tangible sign of being serious about change, not only because of the subsidies but because of everything that cutting them represents. It was going to be an interesting test case to follow. Well, we didn't have to follow it for very long: Congress immediately restored them. Thus the system perpetuates itself.

But then he appointed Harkin to Agriculture. Now, maybe it was the idea of spurring reform from the inside (and helping his re-election). But I was disappointed in that status quo, esp. since Obama reads Pollan. Getting bills through congress really is like herding cats, but what do you expect when they're presented with the same fluffy ball?

I lived in Nebraska for a few years. One of my coworker's Father, a non-farmer, would buy land that the federal government would pay him not to farm. I hope this type of subsidy loophole goes away.

On the other hand, there's a lot of great farmland that is constantly being developed for housing and retail purposes. I see this all the time in Illinois as the suburbs constantly spread out into areas that used to be farms. As far as I know, it is far from trivial to go back to farming once that sort of development has taken place. So while subsidies are not the best of solutions, I'm not entirely convinced that it is a good thing to make it even more profitable to develop farmland.

Change you shouldn't have believed in...

The purpose of subsidies is food security for the US. Importing food at a cheaper rate will likely adversely impact local production, which may be important in the future. The US is already dependent on other countries for its energy supplies. Nations go to war over such stuff.

this comment is false... and absurd. Trade with other nations decreases the chance of war because it creates a fabric of inter-dependency.

Isolationist approaches like talking about "foreign oil" and "dependency on foreign x" are the real cause of war. How many Americans hate some of our biggest trading partners (China, Saudi, Mexico) b/c we are told that it's an "us vs them" issue?

Look at it this way, if you are a president and you want to go to war, it's far easier when nobody in your country knows anyone in the target country (b/c there is no trade) and when nobody in your country stands to lose a job b/c the war will be against a customer!

There are pros/cons for govt. subsidies. Some third world countries subsidize seeds/fertilizers/electricity for poor farmers. Many times this is barely enough for subsistence for them and their large families. I'm not sure what a feasible alternative is.

Not all nations go to war of course. But an imbalanced trade equation, especially for basic necessities, does at the very least lead to a loss of leverage at the negotiation table.

I'm not saying subsidies are good; all I'm saying is I can understand why the US govt. would want to maintain a source of homegrown food supply.

Perhaps, but don't you think that any war serious enough to warrant a massive shift of global food production would arrive with enough forewarning to allow emergency crops to be planted?

Also, keep in mind that the war would have to involve a hostile Mexico AND Canada and our adversarie(s) would have to block access to the eastern and western seaboards.

Perhaps in a previous era (such as the cold war) where fear overcame rationality on a regular basis, such a scenario sounded plausible. But it is fairly ridiculous today.

It is my guess that whatever third world governments are doing to "subsidize" it is necessitated by other policies that cause harm. Sadly, many third world nations have highly corrupt governments which largely siphon resources away from the average person rather than providing infrastructure, solving coordination problems, etc.

It's not so long ago that a tech-equivalent civilization was doing its best to sink everyone else's Atlantic shipping. Can't happen again? Can you say "peace in our time"?

That's the excuse that is used by farmers in Britain. We subsidise growing sugar beet in Germany rather than importing cane sugar because in WWII German U-boats cut off the imports.

Could it have something to do with the fact the U.S. is the biggest champion of the "free market" and thus antithetically opposed to local food?

For more info, check out this essay by Wendell Berry:

http://www.relocalize.net/node/4770

Reply on news.ycombinator.com