Far from 1:1, like everything there are diminishing returns from fertilizer use etc. So the efficiency per unit of corn etc would be pushed up as the effective price* declines. The price gets pushed up if insufficient food supply gets produced, but demand in a world of obesity is somewhat elastic.

Net result fewer workers, a shift in which farms are profitable, and a ripple effect up the supply chain, but most bankruptcy would be from farms that do so sooner. Aka they would have been bankrupt in a 10 years and now it happens in 5.

*Effective price being the sales price plus total subsidies.

Yes, very impressive high school economics. In the real world you'd be looking at the tax implications of going under and minimizing them.

This of course is too complex to model is completely ignored. A lot like ignoring the atmosphere when designing air planes.

Modeling such interactions is the entire point of economics. We focus far to much on the math but very complex economic system really can be modeled rather accurately. Farm subsidies have been studied extensively and like all long term subsidies end up being harmful to the overall economy.

I wasn't aware economics had solved the halting problem.

Good on them.

Approximation don’t have issues with the halting problem only exact solution do. Your argument no more meaningful than suggesting useful simulation of fluid flows is impossible as you can’t keep track of all the individual atoms.

The difference is that you can bound any macroscopic quantity in fluid dynamics even if you can't solve the equations, however you can't put a bound on iterative processes. Or have economists figured out busy beaver numbers too?

I guess it was only a matter of time before economists stopped misunderstanding physics and started misunderstanding computer science. I mean there's not much prestige left in physics since the end of the cold war. Are we going to see a Turing prize in economics like the Nobel prize?

Modeling the speed of an object in flight is an iterative process.

But, clearly you’re simply using terms without understanding what they mean.