• @cricket98@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    18 months 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
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      8 months 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
        28 months 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.