Hey
everybody! Hope you’re all off to a good week 4.
I
wanted to spend the time allotted to me this week by contextualizing some of
the issues we’ve discussed revolving around food, soil, and the environment
within an economics framework, as I have sacrificed my soul on the altar of the
all-mighty dollar. I may be deluded, but it is my belief that economics as a
field of study has a bad reputation. To be fair, we live in a world that is
dominated and guided by economic ideas, and unpredictably, the world has hit a
few snags. However, economics is at its core oriented towards improving the
corporeal well-being of everybody involved through the efficient allocation of
what scarce resources we have. To this end, however, it is essential that we
accommodate for market failures and negative externalities through a
transparent and benevolent governing hand invested in the welfare of its
citizens.
It is
here that I believe we most often run astray. During my time this week I’d like
to discuss the negative effects of the massive agricultural subsidies in the
United States. Since the Agricultural Act of 1933, the US Government has sought
to prop up farmers by artificially raising prices. What began under the noble
purpose of ensuring that the country had enough to eat during the Great
Depression, has since been justified through national security, or preserving a
traditional “American lifestyle” of a small family farm. These same policies
have remained a part of the political fabric, and farmers have served as a
strong base for conservatives. However, the true beneficiaries of these
subsidies are massive commercial farming operations, who use the image of a
family friendly farmer, and their massive profits, to advance their position in
politics.
Evidence
points to these subsidies artificially distorting the global agricultural
market, and creating a net loss in welfare. Farmers are incentivized to grow as
much as they can, and during most years, they are required by law to dump out a
portion so as not to drive prices too low. This leads to farmers expanding into
non-ideal land in an attempt to grow as much possible, which requires more
intense fertilizer and pesticide usage. Secondly, the crops that are being
subsidized (corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, sorghum, dairy, and livestock) are
highly processed and extremely unhealthy in their final form. Third, the US is
by far the largest exporter of food in the world, and subsidizing American farming
corporations comes at the expense of slow farmers around the world. Finally,
subsidies distort the economy and are paid for by the consumer, to the benefit
of the producer, although this process is not a simple transfer of welfare, it
represents a net societal loss. Now we are looking down the barrel of another,
2018 farm bill which will continue the policies established in 1933.
In
anticipation of our class on Thursday, I’d like you to think of a few
questions, or respond to the ones below.
How do you feel about the assertion that there is more than
enough food to feed everybody on Earth? Is this a failure of the financial
system we’ve constructed? What led to this? What’s an alternative?
Do you think food subsidies are ultimately necessary for a
country? What is the worst case scenario?
See ya on Thursday!
While I can't specifically speak to farm subsidies, this discussion really reminded me of the Environmental and Resource Economics class I took with Dr. Hussen last quarter. Like several others I talked to, many aspects of the class left a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe this is just my ignorance on the topic coming through, but I think the core concern of economics as you expressed it is an unattainable ideal. Ultimately, (I think this is where the pessimism I mentioned in Amy's post comes through) I feel that any system humans get involved in is due to fail over time. It's just too easy, at pretty much any scale, for people who shouldn't have power to find tricks that allow them to aggregate power, and the problem seems then to snowball. I think this sentiment can be mirrored onto the uneven distribution of (what a lot of people claim, I'm definitely using information a few years out of date, if it was even accurate then) a sufficient food supply. I think people recognize that control of food is an important means of establishing and maintaining power. Much as I wish I knew of a better alternative, that is definitely the domain of someone with much more knowledge and a different skill set than I have, so for now I guess we just watch for opportunities to help and do what we can.
ReplyDeleteIn light of the discussions that we've had for the past couple of weeks concerning food security and food dependency, my mind goes straight to the small havens of security that seed banks provide when thinking about the question of unequal distribution of food. There are so many different biomes on earth and so many ways that land can be managed; as we've seen in conversations about soil health, not all land is equal in producing nutritious, sustainable food year after year. I've seen a few cool alternatives to the now-'conventional' method of monocropping on land; rotational farming, hydro- or aquaponics, especially in combination with ducks, and agroforests are a few of my favorites in theory. However, Amy's post a couple of weeks ago about hydroponics left me thinking that one of the major problems with agriculture is even before the distribution of food: it is the distribution of resources and opportunities for farmers. Hydroponics offer a potential solution to food 'deserts' because produce can be cultivated indoors, with monitored inputs. However, large corporations threaten the opportunities of small farmers to grow hydroponically, just as they threaten the opportunities of small-scale organic farmers by buying out the market. I do not feel well-versed in economic theory, but like Josh, I attended Dr. Hussen's class about environmental economics. What stands out to me most clearly at this moment is that economic models seem to rely on the push and pull of individuals versus corporations to reach an 'equitable' balance that supports the well-being of all. The problem with this model in my mind is that individuals rarely have the power or resources to compete with large businesses, and so large businesses seem to end up setting (or at least influencing) a lot of the laws, which set standards for the long-term until they are changed. I would love to learn more about the economics behind food distribution and subsidies, as money is a driving force in most decisions that people make, and decisions about food occur daily for every consumer.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at the crops being subsidized, I wonder about the connections in the government not only with the large food corporations, but also with the healthcare system. Feeding people food that is going to lead to health problems also probably feeds money to pharmaceutical companies, and people tied to the health industry.
ReplyDeleteI think the poor distribution and waste of food is a huge failure, but is part of the failure/growing divide between the rich and poor. I think a huge part of the problem is that people (especially those who work for minimum wage) can't afford the "real" price of food. But in order for this problem to be solved I think a huge redistribution of wealth would have to take place. Increasing minimum wage would mean people could afford the "real" price of food but would likely comes with inflation, so I don't really know what the solution would be/if there is one.
I think that there is more than enough food in the world to feed everybody on earth, however, I think that the massive amount of waste that is produced in our current food systems (like how Brad mentioned that farm subsidies often require farmers to waste some of their crops every year to keep prices higher for one example) makes food harder to come by. Also, the fact that too many people in the world do not have access to land to grow their own food or do not have the income to purchase enough food makes the food available more difficult to obtain for marginalized or low-income households around the world. Thus, I think the food we have available is unequally distributed by a large margin, which leaves many in the world hungry. I also feel like the waste produced in our current food systems definitely needs to be addressed and lessened because that food could be going somewhere that it is needed.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think on whether enough there is enough food on the Earth to feed everybody, I am drawn immediately to answer yes. Yes, yes, yes. I think of the histories of resource extraction through colonialism and the forced implementation of vastly harmful economic systems to a now globalized world and I can't help but think what types of abundance would have been present. If their wasn't a constant air of deficiency and need for more, what would it look like today. I am pained to here what Samoa politically does to survive economically in the globalized world. I am constantly re-inflicted with generational trauma around the notion of starving when their has always been the means to make enough and feed everyone. I think transformations in the way we interact personally is crucial to starting to untangle the trauma. Not treating relationships transactionally, that is not thinking of people as what they can provide for me or how much labor they are going to require from me. Not reducing people to knowable parts that I can quantify and understand, in other words not commodifying. Not thinking about community as the possibility for having the "freeloader problem", understanding that some people need resources that have been denied to them. These are just some initial thought on interpersonal relationship building. I think that works needs to also be asked for on a systemic level. They have to be happening at the same time. Our analysis has to be in both places.
ReplyDeleteThanks for bringing this topic into our conversation, Brad! It's an important one that absolutely influences the type of farming that is possible within our current economic system. I don't know if there is enough food being produced to feed everyone on Earth. What I do know is that much of the food being produced is unhealthful, inequitably distributed, and ultimately uneaten. So, yes, I think we can design an economic system that can do better than this and that revamping our subsidy system and Farm Bill is a good step in that direction. I would love to hear everyone's visions for what a new system would look like. If you could write your own Farm Bill, what would it include?
ReplyDeleteWhen I think about food subsidies, Dr. Hussen's class comes in mind. He mentions in his book about different case studies and one of them is about ranching for subsidies in developing countries such as Brazil. The Amazon Forest iis transforming into cattle ranchland and it is affecting both economically and environmentally. Part of commercialization and international trade contributes to tropical deforestation and the extinction of living organisms. I agree that there is lot of food to feed the world; however, when producing a mass-assembly of growing crops in a non-traditional slow pace, we take a piece of the land.
ReplyDeleteI wholly believe the claims that we already produce enough food to feed the entire world (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/world-hunger_b_1463429.html). Hunger is caused by poverty and inequality, not actual scarcity. Thus, I believe that food insecurity is the result of the ideologies and logistics of many interlocking systems, including the financial system. I am pretty uneducated when it comes to economic systems, but these articles convey how the subsidy system often benefits those already in power (ex. large corporations) at the cost of those they oppress (ex. smaller farms). For example, The Atlantic article described subsidies being used to expand mega-farms (because the majority of subsidies go to the largest,most profitable mega-farms), forcing family farmers out of business. Also, family farmers are often represented by agribusiness lobbies who instead support commercial mega-farms. This is another system intertwined with the financial system: the political system. The National Review article also discusses the impact of the subsidy system to the environment, as marginal lands are taken over by crop fields and often need extra fertilizers or pesticides to function.
ReplyDeleteThere are a myriad of ways that food has become overly commodified so as to control/limit its accessibility. Yet given our class discussions on food waste and gleaning (I’m still astonished that producers and consumers waste or throw away almost half of our food in this country), I believe that we already produce enough food to feed the entire world. We can eliminate food insecurity in our country by dismantling the systems that were set up and have been further abused by corporations and wealthy individuals. We can eliminate world hunger by reimagining and reforming certain economic, political, agricultural, environmental, social, and cultural systems.
Like Amanda, I too think of the connections between the government, food corporations and the healthcare system. Not only does the government subsidize the food that is cheaper for people to produce mass quantities of, but also subsidizes the food that is the worst for people to consume. By doing this, they are ensuring that people in low-income communities consume this food because it is affordable, however, this increases their health risks and makes them more reliable upon the healthcare system and pharmaceutical companies in particular. I have often thought about possible solutions to the economic policies that allows these practices to perpetuate. I am not sure what a good solution would be that would sustain people on both sides of the argument, however, it is clear that something needs to change to make healthier food more affordable and more profitable for those producing and consuming it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that while we must do something to fix this issue, subsidies my not be the right approach. I think a simple fix to this national food shortage would be to have community gardens/farms that everyone would help out with but would also be able to take from. Detroit is a great example of community gardens and how good they can be. They are popping up all over Detroit and have had a overall positive impact on those who participate in them and on those who don't. Soup kitchens have seen a rise in the quality and quantity of food they receive as donations.
ReplyDelete