Farms are only getting a small fraction of the price of food (https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/price-spreads-from-fa...). When you combine this factor with your stat, it doesn't seem like subsidies are a significant factor in the price of food to individuals.

Bulk rice for example costs ~500$ per metric ton so 22 cents per lb for 1696 calories, removing a 25% subsidy bumps that to 29 cents. Even buying in “bulk” adds overhead, but you’re paying a premium on S&H not so much the food.

That’s roughly how people can live on “a dollar a day” you can get a days worth of food for well under 1$.

You are right that subsidies make up 25% of farm income, but that doesn't mean that food is anything like eg 25% cheaper than without subsidies.

The exact impact depends on many details. By default, you would mostly expect food subsidies to increase the price that agricultural land fetches.

Most subsidies would only have an impact on prices, if they encourage more growing overall.

Of course, there's also subsidies and regulations for producing less food. (The EU has a lot of these, too. It's almost impossible to grow more grapes for wine.) The US has the famous corn ethanol subsidy. And some tariffs on food imports.

1) Food is cheap and available in other countries without such government largesse

2) The subsidies alone wouldn't keep prices down if the the evil capitalists were able to control prices as effectively as you seem to imagine.

Out of genuine curiosity which country do you think isn’t involved in their country’s food supply? I can’t imagine any government staying out of something so core to a nations id. I’m asking though, I’m not sure!

I’m very much opposed to the farm bill in current form, but because I oppose the industrial agricultural practices which it supports - and the processed food such dirt cheap corn yields. I think food could stand to be more expensive for all but those least able to afford it. America wastes 30-40% of all food produced according to the FDA [1]. The waste alone is enough to feed most of the human population. But I digress.

With that said my understanding of the farm bill is that one of the pillar purposes of its creation by FDR in the new deal was to control the cost of food.

[1] https://www.usda.gov/foodwaste/faqs

> Out of genuine curiosity which country do you think isn’t involved in their country’s food supply? I can’t imagine any government staying out of something so core to a nations id. I’m asking though, I’m not sure!

I suggest looking around the world in space, but also looking through history in time.

Around the world: look at countries that don't produce much food of their own, but import a lot instead. Those countries might still have food regulation, but they won't have a local food growers lobby asking for subsidies.

Throughout history: Have a look at eg the British Corn Laws and the aftermath of their repeal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_Laws

> With that said my understanding of the farm bill is that one of the pillar purposes of its creation by FDR in the new deal was to control the cost of food.

Much of the New Deal was meant to increase the price of (agricultural) products.

Food is cheap and available in other countries without such government largesse BECAUSE the USA keeps costs down by being the breadbasket of the world and keeping continuous overproduction going.

Indeed in its most blatant form it's called dumping. [1]

[1] https://www.iatp.org/news/us-dumping-corn-in-canada-growers-...

Yes, though dumping is a bit of a silly concept.

Dumping is much bedeviled by economic policy makers, but it's never actually been a problem for any recipient country to get good stuff for less.

Most complaints about dumping are just protectionism against lower cost producers. (Though not all, as the example with subsidies shows. But if foreign tax payers are happy to pay for cheap goods for us, who are we to complain?)

Yes if dumping was a continuous practice then we'd all be living off the largess of the dumpers, but it's a temporary practice used to drive out competition before jacking up the prices once dominance is restored. De Beers provide an excellent case study in the application of this tactic.

That tactic never really works in big, open markets.

See eg Herbert Dow and the Bromine cartel. https://fee.org/articles/herbert-dow-and-predatory-pricing/ (or any other write-up on the story that you prefer.)