11–20 of 22 posts
The purpose of subsidies is food security for the US. Importing food at a cheaper rate will likely adversely impact local production, which may be important in the future. The US is already dependent on other countries for its energy supplies. Nations go to war over such stuff.
Obama's original budget cut $30B of subsidies to big agriculture. It struck me at the time that this was a tangible sign of being serious about change, not only because of the subsidies but because of everything that cutting them represents. It was going to be an interesting test case to follow. Well, we didn't have to follow it for very long: Congress immediately restored them. Thus the system perpetuates itself.
Obama's original budget cut $30B of subsidies to big agriculture. It struck me at the time that this was a tangible sign of being serious about change, not only because of the subsidies but because of everything that cutting them represents. It was going to be an interesting test case to follow. Well, we didn't have to follow it for very long: Congress immediately restored them. Thus the system perpetuates itself.
Heh, I was just reading about how Japan's government (over a millennium ago) impoverished itself through exemptions from the land tax. The exemptions were originally meant to foster religion and reward special service, but the government left loopholes by which the land tax exemptions spread to a considerable fraction of arable land in Japan. For example, owners of taxed land would sell their land to a tax-exempt lor…
It would be silly to think the subsidies are "aimed" at the family farmers since there are so few of them; they are just pawn in the game. It's partially about riot control (via cheap food), and probably more about relieving people of their pesky self sufficiency by making farming unprofitable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be silly to think the subsidies are "aimed" at the family farmers since there are so few of them; they are just pawn in the game. It's partially about riot control (via cheap food), and probably more about relieving people of their pesky self sufficiency by making farming unprofitable.
But the food isn't cheap! Everything (except HFCS and beef) is much more expensive than in the EU.
I just saw Food Inc. Fits with the article. http://www.foodincmovie.com/
+1. And it's not just price, its quality too. Even if you avoid processed junk and go after raw meats, veggies and fruit, you're still eating manufactured, as opposed to grown, sub-standard stuff. My friends who come here to visit, after sharing their initial comments about the US, almost always compliment their overall very positive impression of the country with mandatory: "... but the food... sorry but it tastes l…
The purpose of subsidies is food security for the US. Importing food at a cheaper rate will likely adversely impact local production, which may be important in the future. The US is already dependent on other countries for its energy supplies. Nations go to war over such stuff.
this comment is false... and absurd. Trade with other nations decreases the chance of war because it creates a fabric of inter-dependency. Isolationist approaches like talking about "foreign oil" and "dependency on foreign x" are the real cause of war. How many Americans hate some of our biggest trading partners (China, Saudi, Mexico) b/c we are told that it's an "us vs them" issue? Look at it this way, if you are a…
Not all nations go to war of course. But an imbalanced trade equation, especially for basic necessities, does at the very least lead to a loss of leverage at the negotiation table.
I'm not saying subsidies are good; all I'm saying is I can understand why the US govt. would want to maintain a source of homegrown food supply.
I just saw Food Inc. Fits with the article. http://www.foodincmovie.com/
+1. And it's not just price, its quality too. Even if you avoid processed junk and go after raw meats, veggies and fruit, you're still eating manufactured, as opposed to grown, sub-standard stuff. My friends who come here to visit, after sharing their initial comments about the US, almost always compliment their overall very positive impression of the country with mandatory: "... but the food... sorry but it tastes l…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup#Sweete...
With government subsidies for corn, it's more economical for Coke/Pepsi to use HFCS.
Obama's original budget cut $30B of subsidies to big agriculture. It struck me at the time that this was a tangible sign of being serious about change, not only because of the subsidies but because of everything that cutting them represents. It was going to be an interesting test case to follow. Well, we didn't have to follow it for very long: Congress immediately restored them. Thus the system perpetuates itself.
I lived in Nebraska for a few years. One of my coworker's Father, a non-farmer, would buy land that the federal government would pay him not to farm. I hope this type of subsidy loophole goes away.
I just saw Food Inc. Fits with the article. http://www.foodincmovie.com/
+1. And it's not just price, its quality too. Even if you avoid processed junk and go after raw meats, veggies and fruit, you're still eating manufactured, as opposed to grown, sub-standard stuff. My friends who come here to visit, after sharing their initial comments about the US, almost always compliment their overall very positive impression of the country with mandatory: "... but the food... sorry but it tastes l…
Americans who come here at first are always shocked at how "quickly" our food spoils, well, it's supposed to do that!