• CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    They probably also get paid by the federal government to grow certain crops instead of others. The whole rural US is heavily supported by federal welfare.

      • jettrscga@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nothing in my opinion.

        But it sure is frustrating when farming areas claim to hate welfare because it’s socialism while refusing to acknowledge the type of government welfare they rely on to live.

        • cricket98@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          You are making big generalizations about the farmers and I don’t think them being hypocritical in their beliefs is a reason to punish them. Subsidizing agriculture goes way back in American history and I would say overall it is a good thing. It gives people access to staple foods that would otherwise be inaccessible to most of the population.

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Mostly when the considerations are political instead of economic. Eg. Corn is subsidised to a ridiculous level because Iowa is an early caucus state.

        • Plague_Doctor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I feel like it has more to do with taking advantage of the government systems. Which is something companies and rich families are no stranger to doing.

        • cricket98@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Every industry creates waste. Solar panel production produces waste. Plant based dairy alternatives produce waste. Everything produces waste.

      • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nothing, but the subsidies go to stuff that should be replaced with sustainable alternatives. For example, reduce dairy subsidies and apply them to eco-friendly dairy alternatives.

          • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            People don’t really care that much. Make oat milk cheaper and people will start buying it more than cow milk. Make the “real” stuff a luxury, like how everyone loves crab rangoons when there’s no crab in them.

      • Smokeydope@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        When government money dries up, say during an economic depression, so does the industries it supported. I imagine a lot of families get reliant on the welfare checks and if those checks ever dry up they are fucked because their business model is unsustainable on its own. If this were a luxury thing it wouldn’t be too bad of an issue but food production is pretty damn essential to a society.

        • cricket98@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          If this were a luxury thing it wouldn’t be too bad of an issue but food production is pretty damn essential to a society

          The reason it is subsidized is BECAUSE food production is essential to society. Isn’t that… a good thing?

          • Smokeydope@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Honestly I don’t have the expertise to know what im talking about here so take what I say as an uneducated opinion. In my mind, It is a good thing until it isnt. The subsidizing is a band-aid to the real issue of the farming business as it is being unsustainable. Its good that money goes to farmers so they can do it and make a profit or just break even, but if those checks ever stop showing up (again, most likely during a serious depression) then the situation goes from bad to worse as the farming industry collapses and potential starvation sets in. Ideally subsidizing should be treated as startup capital with the end goal being a farming industry that can support itself without government money. As to how that could be achieved I don’t know.

            However its certainly possible that many buisnesses and families get hooked on the ‘free’ money and intentionally don’t make the proper investments to become self-sufficent to continue collecting, thus subsidizing can be incentive to perpetuate the very thing it should be fixing.

            • cricket98@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Can’t you make the same argument about any sort of welfare? Things are good until they aren’t. Once the money stops flowing through (most likely during a serious depression), those programs will not have the funding to continue. One purpose of paying taxes to the government is for them to use that money to stabilize important industries. I would say food production is a pretty important industry.

      • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nothing per se, but many of these farmers get paid not to grow things and have been doing it for so long that they’ve found ways to game the system to collect money for nothing all the while electing Republicans to office and complaining about ‘welfare queens’ eating up all our tax dollars.