Earlier quoted context omitted.
And in the US, a lot of the subsidies flow towards food that isn't edible without processing - soybeans and field corn as opposed to sweet corn. Why? Because they've always grown it. So the subsidies encourage them to keep on growing it instead of diversifying into more competitive or higher value crops.
What subsidies?
Australia’s gains in wheat-farm productivity
31–40 of 45 posts
Re: Australia’s gains in wheat-farm productivity
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
And in the US, a lot of the subsidies flow towards food that isn't edible without processing - soybeans and field corn as opposed to sweet corn. Why? Because they've always grown it. So the subsidies encourage them to keep on growing it instead of diversifying into more competitive or higher value crops.
The subsidy is received by way of reduced insurance premiums. While that does make insurance affordable where it mightn't otherwise be, the rate of reduction is the same across all crops, so the insurance is made equally affordable no matter which crop you grow. Thus, for all intents and purposes, we can completely ignore the subsidy and simply focus on the insurance as that is ultimately what you are suggesting is s…
Re: Australia’s gains in wheat-farm productivity
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
And in the US, a lot of the subsidies flow towards food that isn't edible without processing - soybeans and field corn as opposed to sweet corn. Why? Because they've always grown it. So the subsidies encourage them to keep on growing it instead of diversifying into more competitive or higher value crops.
The subsidy is received by way of reduced insurance premiums. While that does make insurance affordable where it mightn't otherwise be, the rate of reduction is the same across all crops, so the insurance is made equally affordable no matter which crop you grow. Thus, for all intents and purposes, we can completely ignore the subsidy and simply focus on the insurance as that is ultimately what you are suggesting is s…
> In the case of corn and soybeans, there is a really good reason why they are grown so much: Because that's where the market is. It is what people want to buy. They are the most competitive and highest value crops in the regions they are grown.
Given the fact that they're subsidised, I doubt that they're the most competitive crops. Competitive crops don't need to be subsidised.
Also, if they're so competitive, then why has the demolition of USAID caused them economic harm? A competitive product doesn't rely on a taxpayer subsidised buyer to make their market.
https://www.npr.org/2025/02/19/1232435535/how-usaid-cuts-hur...
Re: Australia’s gains in wheat-farm productivity
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US and much of Europe, the subsidies are to NOT produce, not to produce more
A lot of it also gets turned into biofuels or sent to third-world countries as food aid. That could easily be rerouted in a crisis scenario, if domestic food security became an issue.
The corn that gets turned into biofuel isn't edible without further processing into maize derived products, so in a crisis scenario, hope you can still highly process corn.
Re: Australia’s gains in wheat-farm productivity
#35> Australia has among the lowest agricultural subsidies other countries would be wise to adopt that, but there is zero chance of that happening.
They kind of have free land available to anyone who wants to farm. Maybe that helps. Land is a huge expense in places with high population density (e.g. India). Australia also produces a huge amount of high-quality mangoes. In the desert. Respect. They're very very strong on water management.
You're not familiar with the geography of Australia, huh.
A) They're not growing mangoes in the desert. B) They're pretty fucking terrible at water management, google the Murray - Darling and learn you some Australian water management.
Re: Australia’s gains in wheat-farm productivity
#36Re: Australia’s gains in wheat-farm productivity
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
The subsidy is received by way of reduced insurance premiums. While that does make insurance affordable where it mightn't otherwise be, the rate of reduction is the same across all crops, so the insurance is made equally affordable no matter which crop you grow. Thus, for all intents and purposes, we can completely ignore the subsidy and simply focus on the insurance as that is ultimately what you are suggesting is s…
https://usafacts.org/articles/federal-farm-subsidies-what-da...
Literally tells that the subsidy is insurance. Again, what is significant about insurance in the manner you have presented it?
Re: Australia’s gains in wheat-farm productivity
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bit ironic to quote that considering how the speech was 55 years ago, and the green revolution is going stronger than ever. If anything the crisis of the next 50 years will be the economic and societal pressures crushing the childbirth rate in Western countries.
It's terrifying that 96% of all mammalian life on Earth is now human beings and our livestock. We might be able to feed more people, but habitat destruction is already the greatest threat to most wild species. Humans are doing fine, but the toll on everything non-human has been enormous. We are living through one of the greatest mass-extinction events in Earth's history. I don't fear famine, but I worry about what we…
You should fear famine. The biggest issues with global warming or famine, are the wars they will cause.
If large prosperous nations cannot obtain food, that is, no one has food to sell, then those nations will take food.
At whatever cost.
If they do not, then such a nation will tear itself apart from within. The options are, take from others, or take from your fellow citizens.
This is the reality, and no amount of hope or wishful dreams will change that fact. People will not let their children starve.
Re: Australia’s gains in wheat-farm productivity
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
The subsidy is received by way of reduced insurance premiums. While that does make insurance affordable where it mightn't otherwise be, the rate of reduction is the same across all crops, so the insurance is made equally affordable no matter which crop you grow. Thus, for all intents and purposes, we can completely ignore the subsidy and simply focus on the insurance as that is ultimately what you are suggesting is s…
> In the case of corn and soybeans, there is a really good reason why they are grown so much: Because that's where the market is. It is what people want to buy. They are the most competitive and highest value crops in the regions they are grown. Given the fact that they're subsidised, I doubt that they're the most competitive crops. Competitive crops don't need to be subsidised. Also, if they're so competitive, then…
> Given the fact that they're subsidised, I doubt that they're the most competitive crops.
Every crop is subsidized.
> Competitive crops don't need to be subsidised.
Then no crop is competitive, so what is this alternative product that you are picturing? Stones? Who is going to buy those stones?
> then why has the demolition of USAID caused them economic harm?
John Deere's stock price is basically at its highest point ever. What economic harm are you talking about? When they are warning of imminent bankruptcy, then we can talk about there being economic harm. Some people sitting around complaining about something being different isn't real economic harm, just talk. Actions speak louder than words.
Re: Australia’s gains in wheat-farm productivity
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's terrifying that 96% of all mammalian life on Earth is now human beings and our livestock. We might be able to feed more people, but habitat destruction is already the greatest threat to most wild species. Humans are doing fine, but the toll on everything non-human has been enormous. We are living through one of the greatest mass-extinction events in Earth's history. I don't fear famine, but I worry about what we…
You should fear famine. The biggest issues with global warming or famine, are the wars they will cause. If large prosperous nations cannot obtain food, that is, no one has food to sell, then those nations will take food. At whatever cost. If they do not, then such a nation will tear itself apart from within. The options are, take from others, or take from your fellow citizens. This is the reality, and no amount of ho…
You're absolutely right about the path to war.
This is why famine and access to fresh water are my two biggest worries when it comes to our climate change driven future.