And as much as I'll criticize the way we run farm subsidy programs, I have to say I'm glad that my food isn't stuck on a ship off the coast of California right now.

Tariffs are an option

If the demand is unelastic, stopping subsidies or introducing tariffs will increase prices ending up with the consumer and most probably hitting the poorest people worse. From that perspective, billions shopped to mega corps could be an ironically capitalist way to socialist means. Better ways perhaps to achieve the same but don’t know if they would align with a capitalist worldview, e.g. socialise the production, or cap profitability etc.

We already provide food assistance to our poorest, we could always redirect those subsidies directly to poor families

You are right that we do provide food assistance but benefits are not always enough to last a month: ". . . most SNAP beneficiaries run out of food after the second or third week of the month; some of them cope by turning to local food pantries like the ones Community FoodBank of New Jersey runs." [1]

In addition, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has written, "many low-income households that receive benefits still have trouble affording an adequate diet. An Institute of Medicine report identified several shortcomings with the current SNAP benefit allotment and noted that most household benefit levels are based on unrealistic assumptions about the cost of food, preparation time, and access to grocery stores. Many families face stark choices between purchasing food and paying for rent and other necessities. If they manage this shortfall by buying lower-cost but less nutritious foods, it can adversely affect their health." [2]

Directing farm subsidies or any other money to current and future SNAP beneficiaries would benefit millions, including working Americans: "The number of SNAP households that have earnings while participating in SNAP has more than tripled — from about 2 million in 2000 to 6.5 million in 2017. The share of all SNAP households that have earnings while participating in SNAP has also increased — from about 27 percent in 2000 to about 31 percent in 2017." [3]

Regardless of dealing with the very problematic farm subsidies, the president and congress must do something about food insecurity.

[1] https://www.salon.com/2014/01/19/what_i_learned_from_a_week_...

[2] [3] https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/the-supplement...

Unless that also includes raising the maximum income threshold for SNAP recipients, that would just move the burden from the absolute poorest to the marginally poor.

Ok so raise the maximum income threshold significantly while we're at it?

It's not like both of those things are not equally likely to happen (which is to say not likely)

But two unlikely things both happening is less likely than either one alone.

Socializing or capping profit will guarantee shortages.

Who cares where it’s produced? If farmers in a developing country can get off aid and earn a living, good for them. I do care how it’s produced.

There are two main aspects.

One is long-term food security - even if global trade is mostly fine right now despite the current hiccups, there's no telling how it's going to be in a decade or two, and it's hard to ramp up production (due to lack of skillset, machinery and infrastructure) if you suddenly need it; so it makes all sense to pay some fraction of a percent of your GDP to ensure long-term strategic security of your food supply, especially if it looks like global tensions will eventually rise due to climate change.

The second aspect is that even in the current circumstances we're seeing rapid urbanization and depopulation of the countryside, which is generally seen as a problem for many areas. In a "natural" regime without rural subsidies this would happen even faster.

So many reasons why this is bad, but the most obvious reason right now is the supply chain crisis. It’s one thing if you can’t get a new car. It’s another if you can’t get new food.

Relying on imports for food makes your country a sitting duck in times of war. All the enemy needs to do is blockade you and then you can be starved into submission.

Given the global logistics mess at the moment, I would think it's pretty obvious why the location of food production matters.

States know very well that any given civilization is about nine meals away from anarchy.