[doosra]

The purpose of subsidies is food security for the US. Importing food at a cheaper rate will likely adversely impact local production, which may be important in the future. The US is already dependent on other countries for its energy supplies. Nations go to war over such stuff.

[grandalf]

this comment is false... and absurd. Trade with other nations decreases the chance of war because it creates a fabric of inter-dependency.

Isolationist approaches like talking about "foreign oil" and "dependency on foreign x" are the real cause of war. How many Americans hate some of our biggest trading partners (China, Saudi, Mexico) b/c we are told that it's an "us vs them" issue?

Look at it this way, if you are a president and you want to go to war, it's far easier when nobody in your country knows anyone in the target country (b/c there is no trade) and when nobody in your country stands to lose a job b/c the war will be against a customer!

[doosra]

There are pros/cons for govt. subsidies. Some third world countries subsidize seeds/fertilizers/electricity for poor farmers. Many times this is barely enough for subsistence for them and their large families. I'm not sure what a feasible alternative is.

Not all nations go to war of course. But an imbalanced trade equation, especially for basic necessities, does at the very least lead to a loss of leverage at the negotiation table.

I'm not saying subsidies are good; all I'm saying is I can understand why the US govt. would want to maintain a source of homegrown food supply.

[grandalf]

Perhaps, but don't you think that any war serious enough to warrant a massive shift of global food production would arrive with enough forewarning to allow emergency crops to be planted?

Also, keep in mind that the war would have to involve a hostile Mexico AND Canada and our adversarie(s) would have to block access to the eastern and western seaboards.

Perhaps in a previous era (such as the cold war) where fear overcame rationality on a regular basis, such a scenario sounded plausible. But it is fairly ridiculous today.

It is my guess that whatever third world governments are doing to "subsidize" it is necessitated by other policies that cause harm. Sadly, many third world nations have highly corrupt governments which largely siphon resources away from the average person rather than providing infrastructure, solving coordination problems, etc.

[gaius]

It's not so long ago that a tech-equivalent civilization was doing its best to sink everyone else's Atlantic shipping. Can't happen again? Can you say "peace in our time"?

[edfgtrfgh]

That's the excuse that is used by farmers in Britain. We subsidise growing sugar beet in Germany rather than importing cane sugar because in WWII German U-boats cut off the imports.