One argument in favor of subsidizing a good is that it is strategic. The country wouldn’t be able to produce it in sufficient quantities if a war were to break out. Certainly our food supply is something we want to protect, but if we were to end ag subsidies, how quickly could production be ramped up in case our supply was cut off?
Thanks,
Rob
Your question is grossly open-ended and cannot have a factual answer.
Well, I am not opposed to moving it to GD.
Thanks,
Rob
TYhat woul be a good start. This is the kind of thing economists write books about.
To take a stab at one factual thing before this does get moved to GD, the question is not how fast production could be ramped up, the real question is, what happens to the land and the farm operators who might go out of business without subsidies. If the land is simply fallowed and the farmers take jobs in town, then the answer is quite different than if the land is developed for other uses, the farmers have scattered to other parts of the country and the supporting infrastructure has disappeared.
Well there is a somewhat factual answer. Britain in WW2 relied heavily on imports and there was little in the way of subsides as we know them now (there was the whole British Empire thing, but that’s not quite the same). While there was considerable effort to increase domestic production, it could in no way keep up with the reduction in imports, and if the Battle of the Atlantic had gone differently the short fall could have knocked Britain out of the war. A brief Google couldn’t come up with exact number for how much the UK was able to boost food production on demand, but I’m sure they are out there.
In fact (unlike other European countries) the post-war subsidy system in the UK was heavily aimed at preventing this from happening again, so did actually lead to increases in efficiency. Interestingly this is one of the reasons the farming lobby is far less powerful in the UK, as efficient farms generally need less people to work on them, hence there are fewer voters directly earning a living from agriculture.
“Strategic-ness”? That doesn’t sound right. I “strategery” would work better.
Why wouldn’t the same argument apply to everything else? Self-sufficiency is nice to have in wartime, but that doesn’t mean every country should become an isolated island of protectionism. Why does this argument apply solely to food production and not automobile manufacturing, oil wells, textiles, computing, et cetera?
Because you won’t die without cars, oil, clothes and computers.
If you’re trying to fight a war, you will.
In our society, many people would die who wouldn’t otherwise die if we, as a society, suddenly had no access to oil, cars and computers.
Well, Germany and Japan were pretty much strangled without oil at the end of World War II.
Is there any basis for this premise? In terms of available calories & protein or simply impinge on culinary diversity?
Maybe you wouldn’t have the sesame seeds on the bun, fresh fruits not available out of season, not get a choice of six salad dressings and need to drink flat whites rather than soy-decaff lattes.
Unless the theatre of war was actually in the US mid-West, why would anybody (need to) take a notch out of their belt?
Granted, if the conflict included biological attack on key crops then you are in a different paradigm. I don’t see how ag-tariffs would be of any assistance were that to occur. In truth subsidies would probably make the US more vulnerable because of encouraging monocultivation.
Well, we have 300 million people to feed. Ag subsidies do make what would otherwise be economically inefficient farms viable. Were they to go dormant, would the remaining farms be able to increase production to required levels if the U.S. were blockaded? I personally don’t think we’ll see another WWII-type war (at least in my lifetime) and I also think that mutual trade increases the need for peace. I am also against protectionism generally, but I am also a pragmatist.
As to whether or not the land would just go to seed, given it’s remoteness, it is probably unsuitable for anything but cropland. I could see such land being purchased at discount prices by more competitive operations, but what do I know?
Thanks,
Rob