Re:Wild bidding wars erupt at used-tractor auctions across t...
by AnthonyMouse on Sunday November 14, 2021 @03:12PM
(#29220221)
> If 10% of them grow 90% of the food then it's completely consistent.
The claim implied that the small farms get more of the subsidy, i.e. that they would be the ones wiped out without it.
> The reason should be pretty obvious, without the subsidies they would be no US farms.
Why would there be no US farms? Real estate in San Francisco is much more expensive than it is in Mexico City or the like, but farmland in Oklahoma is not uncompetitive with farmland outside of the US.
If this was the real reason then the subsidies wouldn't be suspiciously concentrated at the location of Iowa caucuses.
Re:Wild bidding wars erupt at used-tractor auctions across t...
by Talanes on Sunday November 14, 2021 @11:05PM
(#29223553)
>If this was the real reason then the subsidies wouldn't be suspiciously concentrated at the location of Iowa caucuses.
Politicians are crafty buggers who will repurpose anything they can to provide themselves with an edge, so that doesn't necessarily say anything about the theory behind the subsidies.
Your misunderstanding is that a subsidy is not aimed at one US farm versus another, it's US farms versus foreign farms.
The reason should be pretty obvious, without the subsidies they would be no US farms. And then in time of war there would be trouble.
There are a huge number of US industries that exist only to make sure that US capacity will remain even in time of war.
The same goal could be accomplished with tariffs, but then the price of food would be higher.