# How do we know about agricultural subsidies and inefficiency?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-about-agricultural-subsidies-and-inefficiency/561983>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [November 26, 2010, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-about-agricultural-subsidies-and-inefficiency/561983 "2010-11-26T15:07:29Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2010, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-about-agricultural-subsidies-and-inefficiency/561983/21 "2010-12-04T23:47:23Z")

</div>

> [@Blake](#):
>
> If we define “good” as “resulting in a net economic benefit to the US taxpayer”, then I have never heard any economist suggest that any subsidies are good.

I mean that they achieve some public good\* as per the posts of **sh1bu1** , **Kevbo** and **oliversarmy** upthread, mostly relating to the geographic vulnerability and long time delay between planting and economic information feedback (in the form of prices) in agricultural markets. This does seem like it’s a point that’s debatable, but three posters have mentioned it, so it’s not a non-existent viewpoint.

[sub]\*

> [@Blake](#):
>
> It all depends on perspective. Obviously these things are good for somebody, because they still exist. At least at a Federal level, these things get reviewed regularly. If they were universally considered bad then they would be scrapped in short order. However they may only be good for politicians and the people who support them.

I agree that political patronage though agricultural subsidy doesn’t qualify as public good.[/sub]

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-know-about-agricultural-subsidies-and-inefficiency/561983.md?page=1)