Things Economists Agree On

The classic response is "nothing".

That being said, getting 4 out of 5 economists to agree on something doesn't mean it's right. Most economists will tell you that public policy works best when you have the capability/political will to iterate on solutions. Not unlike a startup really.

I'm curious about the "Eliminate Agriculture Subsidies" one. I don't know enough to give a good opinion, but it seems to me like that could wind up pricing basic, quality food out of the hands of the poorest people, and they'd either have problems with starvation or be forced to eat junk.

I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I could have sworn it was The Man that is keeping eggs down at around $3/dozen and milk around $4/gallon.

Many of the subsidies are price supports and protection from foreign competition -- which raise food prices.

'The Man' is keeping milk prices up; read this expose from the (usually very pro-government) Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12...

The government has very little to do with keeping food inexpensive, in fact through various forms of subsidies and tariffs they make some foods more expensive - sugar vs corn syrup.

Also:

Myth #3: Maintaining a cheap and stable food supply. Some contend that food markets would fluctuate wildly without farm subsidies. In reality, food prices of both subsidized and unsubsidized crops are relatively stable. Given that the percentage of family budgets spent on food has dropped from 25 percent to 10 percent since 1933, any potential price instability would have an increasingly small impact on family budgets.[7] Even if price stabilization was necessary, price support programs have largely been replaced by commodity subsidies that stimulate overproduction rather than stabilize prices. Nor do farm subsidies contribute to lower food costs. Two-thirds of food production is unsubsidized and thus relatively unaffected by subsidies. Of the remaining one-third, price reductions caused by crop subsidies are balanced by conservation programs that raise prices. Furthermore, food prices are based not only on crop prices, but also on food processing, transportation, and marketing costs. Bruce Babcock, professor of economics at Iowa State University, has calculated that eliminating farm subsidies would have virtually no effect on food prices.[8]

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/how-farm-su...

The subsidies cause harmful distortions. They ruin farmland and create unnecessary pollution because farmers overproduce. They put farmers in poorer countries out of work because we export our excess crops. This causes harm to relations with our neighbors and hampers trade agreements. They cause unhealthy eating habits by making high fructose corn syrup artificially cheap. They make our cattle sick because we feed them corn instead of grass. I could go on and on.

It's fair to say we don't want people starving, but removing farm subsidies wouldn't have a large effect on grocery prices and there are better solutions such as giving additional funds to the poor.