Even consumers frequently love the idea of a protected ("managed" market is a misleading term for "we subsidize and protect certain incumbents"), particularly when it is a national market (for nationalistic reasons) or when it is associated with a romantic/emotional vision ("oh, the poor little honest canadian farmers, working dawn to dusk and being protected from the evil massive corporations").

This is particularly true when you're not price-sensitive (i.e. poor), which by being on Hacker News, you most likely aren't.

So you don't mind paying more for that emotional feeling that you're "protecting" those farmers, even if other people might be more sensitive to the cost.

A government protecting farmers isn't any different than it protecting monopolies, and is just as bad. The only difference is the emotional & nostalgic impact on people.

The difference, in this case, is objectively measurable: Canadian poultry, beef, dairy and produce are generally safer than American.

Also, I'm Canadian. I'm not making an American tech salary, not by any stretch of the imagination.

> The difference, in this case, is objectively measurable: Canadian poultry, beef, dairy and produce are generally safer than American.

I'd like to see sources for that, and even if that's true, it doesn't imply that the market subsidies are the cause of that.

> Also, I'm Canadian. I'm not making an American tech salary, not by any stretch of the imagination.

You don't have to be making a tech salary to be less sensitive about the price of beef.

I never quite understood this. I'm from eastern EU, I don't consider my country "poor", but people who are on the bottom of the economic ladder do not eat beef here ( cheap beef is ~4usd/lbs, chicken thighs are 1.5usd/lbs ). Maybe it's just my ignorance, but for me this sounds equally ridiculous to someone who expresses his concerns about how poor people could afford lobsters if the price goes any higher. Pure meat is expensive, and it's a luxury, not a necessity.

The prices of meats are roughly equal to the US and making 20k$/yr makes you rich here, money won't be a limiting factor when it comes to food. Avg. salary in Missisipi is 40k$/yr, and that's the lowest one.

Of course you can't eat out in the nicest places every day from that salary. This is what constitutes being poor in the US ( not being able to do that )? You can always cook at home, and it's very cheap, is the price of the food really a big weight for people in the US ( let's say the bottom 40% )?

Maybe being poor is just being poor compared to others in your area, and it's mostly a mental thing. I lived on 250usd/month and life was good. Went to the farmers market, cooked my own food, I felt spoiled by the food choices I could make. I can make amazing food from various intestines, the taste is amazing, cheap as hell, and it's the best quality protein you can get your hands on for example.

Eating _at least one serving_ of beef, pork or poultry in two out of three meals a day is considered normal in America.

There's good reason they have an obesity problem.

Canada does not subsidize dairy farmers; it regulates and manages their production. It's a subtle but important distinction.

It is a subsidy in practice: you're restricting competition to increase the profits of the farmers.

Call it whatever you want, but the government it guaranteeing the farmer's profits, and society is paying for it.

I'll call it what it is: a managed market. It's not a subsidy.

Words have meaning.

Canadian consumers as a group pay the same amount for milk as a group, regardless of how much or little milk they demand, by means of government regulation. Canadian dairy farmers as a group receive the same amount regardless of how much or little milk they produce and how much or little milk consumers demand.

That the subsidy to the farmers is coming as $.30 per liter of milk as opposed to a single check at the end of the month doesn’t make it any less of a subsidy.

Canadian consumers as a group buy a variant amount of dairy products without any Government requirement of a minimum purchase amount.

Canadian dairy farmers coordinate with one another with the assistance of the Canadian Government to avoid over-producing and under-producing, and to sell as a single bargaining unit to purchasers. At no point does the Canadian Government subsidize dairy farmers to produce products, nor does the Canadian Government rebate Canadian consumers for purchasing dairy products.

Moreover, the Canada Food Guide no longer includes dairy as an essential food group. Most Canadians live close to the border and could cross-border shop.

There is no subsidy.

> Canadian dairy farmers coordinate with one another with the assistance of the Canadian Government to avoid over-producing and under-producing

Translating: the Canadian government protects collusion between the Canadian farmers to reduce competition and extract undue economic profits from society.

Yep, it is a subsidy.

Along with the proximity to the American border and the duty-free purchasing allowed, CETA opened up broader quotas on importing dairy products from Europe without tariffs, _and buyers are not availing themselves of the full extent of it_. There is no extraction of undue economic profits because consumers can, and yet do not, access other markets without tariff.

There is no monetary or financial assistance provided, none whatsoever.

> opened up broader quotas

I love how you try to justify that this isn't a subsidy by using the word "quotas"!