[rs1234]

To all of you arguing about how this is a market distortion; about economists who argue about "drain on the exchequer"; and to those logicians arguing about fallacious fallacies - did y'all have breakfast this morning? Yes? Good. Well, those people eating in those canteens might not have been able to have breakfast, but for those subsidized canteens. We should not put economics and "the market" on a pedestal. If something is the right thing to do, it is the right thing to do. As someone pointed out, Britain provided subsidized restaurants. US provides farm subsidies. "Market" is good if it does good for the people. Otherwise there is no point in being wedded to an ideology.

[cgmg]

What makes you think that US farm subsidies are a good idea?

[metaphor]

The parent never asserted that US farm subsidies are a good idea.

[csin]

As an non-American I would like to ask...

For people who are in the "patriotic" group. Your country needs to maintain the infrastructure to self-sustain it's people in a world war.

What would be a more effective strategy over food subsidies?

Edit: Sorry I meant Farm subsidies, not food stamps.

[zdragnar]

The OP referred to farm subsidies, not food subsidies. The majority of these are in the form of price floors, intended to alleviate poverty among farmers and prevent shortages by encouraging excess supply during all but the leanest of times.

The reality is, the majority of these subsidies go to multi-million dollar farms, not the small family farms. As a result, we're effectively paying taxes to raise prices on food, which is very regressive in that it hurts the poor far more than the wealthy.

Of course, the flip side of the coin is that without the subsidies, prices would be so low that small farms wouldn't be able to compete anyway. Supply would, assuming the weather cooperates, roughly match demand, and a not insignificant chunk of taxes could go towards other programs (such as subsidizing school breakfasts and lunches). Then, we'd have some bizarre mix of natural disasters that creates a severe shortage of several key crops, causing significant chaos both in markets and in the daily lives of people who like to eat food, and we'd end up right back where we started- demanding the government guarantee that we don't run out of food in lean times, and paying the price for doing so.

[fencepost]

> Your country needs to maintain the infrastructure to self-sustain it's people in a world war.

Food wise, logistics wise or technology wise? Because while the US could manage the first two assuming no major internal disruptions, we've pretty much abandoned the third in favor of cheap imports and profits.

[metaphor]

> ...[the US] pretty much abandoned [technology] in favor of cheap imports and profits.

From a consumer perspective, sure. From a critical defense perspective, not entirely[1].

[1] https://www.dmea.osd.mil/otherdocs/AccreditedSuppliers.pdf

[fencepost]

Sure, you can get chips within some limitations - in fact I believe some chip fabs have been moving back onshore. Can you get screens? I remember coverage maybe 20 years ago about Zenith closing the last TV manufacturing in the USA, and while that was in the days of CRTs I can't imagine that a lot of new panel manufacturers are here.

[metaphor]

The question strikes me as a red herring in that it presumes an optimal solution to the obtuse problem of world war sustainment exists as some one-shot panacea.

[cgmg]

"If something is the right thing to do, it is the right thing to do. As someone pointed out... US provides farm subsidies."