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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.