Oh god. The subsidies. Agriculture in the United States would not function without subsidies, and without subsidies the fundamental nature of our food would change. Which would be a very, very good thing but the disruption and chaos betwixt "what we got" and "what we need" would be apocalyptic. I dunno. Messing with the food supply, particularly a global producer like the United States, is a great way to kill people. BTW - highly recommend this book.
The Subsidies are destroying innovation in farming, but are the only things keeping many farms running. Yea, spending $80 billion on corn is bad, but losing our farming infrastructure would make what the riots in Missouri look like the peaceful times of yore.
I agree as well. A sound farm policy can use subsidies to transition to more environmentally sustainable farming methods, help smaller farms upgrade equipment and the like. But spending the money we do on corn and sugar is just inane. Subsidies are helping get the hemp industry started here in Kentucky, and that is helping to transition off of tobacco; this I approve of. They are also spending money on re-learning how to use hemp fibers in industry and get that set up. Again, not a bad use of money, and it may bring some industry back into the rural areas that are desperate for any economic activity not involving meth.
Disruption and chaos was exactly what was predicted here, too. It turned out a fair bit better than expected - but we are a small nation. It would be very difficult for such a thing to gain traction in the USA, and even if by some miracle it did, I would think a slower, phased-in approach would be called for.
Hadn't read your PDF before. Just did. A couple things jump out: 1) Farm profits (IE, living wages of farm owners) were cut by 66% and stayed depressed for 20 years 2) Agricultural conglomerates don't own most of your farms. This sentence: Is positively laughable in the United States.Financiers were quick to realise that there was little point in forcing farmers off their land