Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Subsidizing agriculture isn’t a “rural” subsidy, it’s a “population” subsidy. It's both, actually. Just like if the government started paying for free, say, cloud storage, regardless of where anyone lives, that'd be a population subsidy on the consumer side, and an area/industry-specific subsidy on the producer side. > Cities literally can’t sustain themselves without outside inputs - food, building materials, ener…
I'm not arguing if it's a subsidy , I'm arguing who benefits . You can't grow enough food for a city within city limits. So if a subsidy goes to a rural area to grow food, that's not a subsidy for rural people , that's a subsidy for everyone .
And the benefit is debatable. Yes, it lowers prices a tiny bit, but you could lower all kinds of costs through government producer subsidies, and yet not all of those would be of great or even net benefit.