No. Paying some farmers not to produce is how subsidies work. It keeps the price up so American farmers keep overproducing. This prevents famine in the case of economic or natural disaster. That's how it's been for decades.
The real risk is monoculture. We need warehouses of diverse seeds. A bad growing season combined with a disease could triple food prices.
This, america produces over 3x the food america requires, this isn't including the cattle feed or ethanol allotted corn and other grains. americans eat about 500 more calories on average every day than any other country, meaning we eat 20-25% more than other countries, if we have food supply shortages to the point of starvation europe goes on a diet, canada starves, africa starves, south asia sees a poverty and hunger crisis as food prices fucktuple. The entire world would be in a panic if we tried to sabotage our own crops or growing season.
If we only produced what wee need to feed ourselves starting tomorrow a billion people on earth would starve; we produce 3x what we need, 350M(US population) that's food for 700M people but we eat 25% more than even other wealthy countries so we need to add 50% that's 1.05B people's caloric consumption off the table, food rationing could save hundreds of millions but it's more likely that political intrigue and foul play would incur many governments to take advantage of the crisis.
Europe isn't dependent on US food in the slightest in fact many common US foods are banned due to being such poor quality. If there's a food crisis in America it won't be noticed in much of the world least of all Europe. What will happen is that America will become more dependent on European food than it already is for quality foods. Exports from places like France/Italy/Holland/Germany will increase massively.
This is why europe would go on a diet, they would have shortages to help feed the 1.4B who are starving.
Also europe does take quite a bit more food from us than your realize.
Thank you for the information. Very interesting.
Distribution isn't perfectly efficient though, a country needs to produce at least 150% what it requires just to account for waste in the supply chain.
No. Paying some farmers not to produce is how subsidies work. It keeps the price up so American farmers keep overproducing. This prevents famine in the case of economic or natural disaster.
That's the excuse. In practice it makes the agriculture sector economically fragile through the inefficiencies of central planning. Ever been annoyed about all the corn syrup and soy in your food? That's subsidies.
Ever had food prices so high that the bottom 30% of the population can barely afford food or literally starve? No? It used to happen all the time. I'm not praising the focus on corn, imo it's disgraceful. But call it an excuse or not, combined with modern farming subsidies have worked for nearly a hundred years and saved countless American lives.
Ever had food prices so high that the bottom 30% of the population can barely afford food or literally starve? No? It used to happen all the time.
When? The only time that used to happen in european history was when there were wars, plagues or crop failures so extensive all food production was affected. Subsidies aren't going to stop that. And even if things do get that bad you're still going to be paying the subsidy you can't afford. The cost just gets hidden.
But call it an excuse or not, combined with modern farming subsidies have worked for nearly a hundred years and saved countless American lives.
I highlighted the relevant section. Mechanisation and improved farming methods are what have made food cheap, not central planning.
I really appreciate the insight. Amazing.
(post is archived)