Re:U.S. Farmers Stung by Tariffs Now Face a $3.5B Corn Loss
by twblalock on Friday August 16, 2019 @08:47PM
(#20721123)
> “we subsidize critical resources because people die if there’s a shortage”
That's not the argument, though. Government subsidies are intended as welfare programs for farmers. Far more food is currently produced than would ever be needed in the case of a shortage. We could produce a lot less and still be fine.
Re:U.S. Farmers Stung by Tariffs Now Face a $3.5B Corn Loss
by nhorob67 on Friday August 16, 2019 @09:51PM
(#20721426)
After the 2019 corn crop is harvested, the USDA is projecting 51.5 days of excess stocks in the United States
Re:U.S. Farmers Stung by Tariffs Now Face a $3.5B Corn Loss
by Retric on Friday August 16, 2019 @10:07PM
(#20721504)
You can store food for 20 years. Actually having a 3+ year supply of food would cost less and provide more security than current subsidies.
Also, 51.5 days of excess stocks is not 51.5 days of food on hand.
No one wants just-in-time, no-redundancies production of critical-to-life resources. You would be willing to subsidize a healthcare market to ensure hospitals didn’t have the exact supply of antibiotics on hand required “on average.” You wouldn’t want water purification plants to produce a market-optimum amount of water with no room for variation.
Why would you want that for your food supply?
Don’t get me wrong, there are other issues on hand - lack of diversification, oligopoly, etc. but the fundamental argument of “we subsidize critical resources because people die if there’s a shortage” isn’t a terrible idea.