Even though I understand your outrage, it's a terrible idea to move our food chain abroad instead of subsidizing farmers. That's a huge national security risk.

It would be better if the subsidies were limited to smallholders on ~100 acres or less, which would resolve the rural depression issue.

the government pays farmers (subsidizes) based on a lot of planning. this is done because special aspects about food (go read an economics 101 book - inelastic demand, prefect competition). in short, its meant to stabilize the system such that we don't all starve next year due to surpluses this year. its not because we can just get it cheaper from other countries (sometimes that may be true, but not true on a macro scale).

if the US stopped growing food, hundreds of millions of people would die just from the famine. many governments would be toppled, probably even a few first world countries.

Not so much on the famine bit, except perhaps in the U.S. and Canada.

The unfairness of farm subsidies is that there’s also essentially no _controls_ on the output. The government can’t turn around and mandate particular growing practices, in part because farming companies and larger farmers have gotten used to the subsidies and how they work.

In Canada, at least, subsidies are also tied to production controls and standards.

Don’t get me wrong: I am in _favour_ of most farm subsidies; there is a lot of benefit to it. But the taxpayer should get a bit more control on what’s being spent on. IMO, small farm subsidies should probably increase so that more people have opportunities to work the land if they wish to do so and pay their seasonal workers a living wage so that they don’t have to use undocumented workers. It wouldn’t be a bad thing to see a couple of F35 fighters scrapped in favour of fair farm wage payments.

#1 ) I dont think you understand how sensitive the global food supply is to changes.

#2) The US isn't just a net exporter of food, its one of the dominant food producers (in exports) in the world. A country like Canada only became a net exporter of food in ~2019. These US exports are primary stables like corn, beef, pork, etc.

#3) f-35 funding is tangential to the conversation. bringing it up only makes you sound un-informed and polarizes your argument for the issue at hand.

1. I do, in fact, understand. I also understand that the US’s subsidies distort international markets, and that the US’s entire food aid program (which is a large part of those subsidies) severely distorts local markets and disincentivizes farm production in poorer countries.

2. They are _American_ staples. They are not necessarily staples in receiving countries, and as noted above, may actually be distorting local markets and foodways. I would also argue that subsidies for American farmers should _not_ be applied to export crops, as noted above.

3. Not tangential at all. America could divert a small fraction of its military budget into meaningful wage subsidies for farm workers that could make farm labour more attractive to more people. America spends more money on its military than the next ten biggest military spenders in the world.

Yes, I exaggerated that a single F-35 could provide this sort of subsidy. My point, however, stands.

and you somehow think if the US stopped producing food and started importing all of its food, it wouldn't cause famine.

Yes. Provided you don’t do it as some sort of dead shock to global systems.

Food production is a modern solved problem. The politics of it is not.

No country is giving up food security and voter messaging to the invisible hand of a global market. No one likes corn as much as Americans do, yet its one of your greater exports, simply because of American economic and diplomatic ascendancy.

you are hooked on some serious propaganda. Lets be clear, if the US stopped producing producing food and instead bought it from other countries, it would be the biggest disaster in human history.

>I've had enough of farm welfare queens. Get farmers off of welfare and let us import food from places that can grow it competitively. If we can't make up the other 85% from somewhere else, that's great, then US farmers will show that they can grow food at a reasonable place without welfare.

>I never said subsidies aren't necessary: I don't know how you can infer that point from what I wrote.

Didn't you just tell us that you weren't arguing against subsidies and then you reply with that? Make your mind up you're all over the place. Sounds like I inferred correctly.

You know you've replied to multiple people here, right?