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.