The right doesn't care about national defense.

[Lemur]

Hmm, I tend to be pretty negative on farm subsidies, especially since I've lived around plenty of farmers and know the ******* they pull on the government. (Trust me, no welfare queen has ever bilked as much money out of the Feds as the average corn farmer.)

But you raise an interesting point: Independent food supply as a security issue. Let's leave aside the rightwing/leftwing part of your post, and focus on this more tantalizing question.

Is it worth it to subsidize unprofitable farmers in order to maintain a trade-independent food supply? Should every nation be able to feed its own people? Is that a realistic and worthwhile goal in an age of interconnectedness and globalization?

Thoughts, please.

[Ice]

Hmm, I tend to be pretty negative on farm subsidies, especially since I've lived around plenty of farmers and know the ******* they pull on the government. (Trust me, no welfare queen has ever bilked as much money out of the Feds as the average corn farmer.)

But you raise an interesting point: Independent food supply as a security issue. Let's leave aside the rightwing/leftwing part of your post, and focus on this more tantalizing question.

Is it worth it to subsidize unprofitable farmers in order to maintain a trade-independent food supply? Should every nation be able to feed its own people? Is that a realistic and worthwhile goal in an age of interconnectedness and globalization?

Thoughts, please.

This is a great post, Lemur. Quite honestly, i highly doubt that World War III is any where close to happening, and the benefits gained from halting the farm subsidies far outweigh any national security issues.

[seireikhaan]

Hmm, I tend to be pretty negative on farm subsidies, especially since I've lived around plenty of farmers and know the ******* they pull on the government. (Trust me, no welfare queen has ever bilked as much money out of the Feds as the average corn farmer.)

But you raise an interesting point: Independent food supply as a security issue. Let's leave aside the rightwing/leftwing part of your post, and focus on this more tantalizing question.

Is it worth it to subsidize unprofitable farmers in order to maintain a trade-independent food supply? Should every nation be able to feed its own people? Is that a realistic and worthwhile goal in an age of interconnectedness and globalization?

Thoughts, please.

Lemur's got this nailed. At least in the US, these insane ag subsidies have to stop. Honestly, its not like we aren't competitive enough. Further, because of how the subsidies have been allocated, we're actually eroding our soil faster than we would have otherwise, because the gov't keeps throwing gobs of cash to grow MOAR corn, which dis-incentivizes farmers from letting a suitable portion of land lay fallow to allow for proper soil recuperation. Further, the fact that so many farmers are only growing corn means that even if they were letting some land lay fallow, they would have to let more of it lay fallow per year because crop rotation allows for better rejuvination than simply putting the same crop down year after year, which would actually offset a decent amount of ag output lost for being responsible farmers.


Now, as to that second question- I don't know Norway's situation very well, other than that it isn't exactly the most terribly fertile nation ever. With that caveat, I would say ag subsidies are just not a good idea. Farming capability has never been higher, and Norway should trade some of their own goods that they have a comparative advantage- oil, fish, timber, and I believe mining- to obtain needed food. Besides, it is not as though the agricultural sector is likely to completely collapse- local farmers *should* still be able to offer competitive deals on foodstuffs due to lesser transport costs.

[LittleGrizzly]

The point Lemur makes is the one thing that holds me back on agricultural subsidies.... well that and the fact the farms may be replaced by tower blocks...

Though realistically thinking there isn't world war 3 just around the corner, there could be other things that happen that could interupt the food supply to Norway, prices could rise dramatically through a series of events (earth warming, seas rising, growing fuels, lots of 2nd (and 3rd) world countrys increasing thier meat intake, population increases)

So maybe keeping a small subsidised agricultural sector isn't too bad an idea... in Nowray at least, from the sounds of it USA is worse off with subsidised agriculture...

[Furunculus]

The point Lemur makes is the one thing that holds me back on agricultural subsidies.... well that and the fact the farms may be replaced by tower blocks...

Though realistically thinking there isn't world war 3 just around the corner, there could be other things that happen that could interupt the food supply to Norway, prices could rise dramatically through a series of events (earth warming, seas rising, growing fuels, lots of 2nd (and 3rd) world countrys increasing thier meat intake, population increases)

So maybe keeping a small subsidised agricultural sector isn't too bad an idea... in Nowray at least, from the sounds of it USA is worse off with subsidised agriculture...

small and subsidised are an oxymoron.

@ HT

yes, food-supply is a strategic issue to be considered in the context of security.

however, if norway occupies a similar situation to britain then the nation is incapable of feeding itself and thus dependent on imports, better to ensure the military muscle to preclude or deter other nations from trying to interdict food supplies.

but i'm presuming norway isn't in that situation, however i still oppose subsidised food production because for the 99% of time your nation is not at war there are much higher ROI's on industries other than food on which improve a nations wealth, and a little of that surplus can be fed back into defence to ensure that neighbouring nations don't choose to play silly buggers.

lets face it, if russia decides it needs a little more strategic depth what will prove the greater deterrent; greater agricultural self sufficiency or a better equipped military and nato membership?

[CBR]

Woah WW3? Well you should not worry too much as all the nukes will kill off most people anyway. The Norwegians who survive will be a better and stronger breed for sure! and with a less fatalistic world view...


CBR

[rory_20_uk]

Throwing money at farmers isn't going to help massively in extremis in any case. If uneconomic, inefficient practices get money now, why bother innovating - regardless if the leaders are right or left wing.

I think that Norway would be far better off spending money on research in areas such as harnessing heat and CO2 from industry / hardy plants / alternate ways of growing crops. The food isn't needed now, and the possible benefits would be applicable at home and an asset which can be sold abroad.

The USA is of course in a very different situation, but here again throwing money at rednecks is only ever a short term vote winner.

[Marshal Murat]

To start using land that's been barren for some tens years will take time and resources, and you won't have much of either in World War 3.

What exactly do you mean when you say "barren"? Are we talking about land unsuitable for farming or land not recently used for farming?
I don't think Norway (coming from someone whose only experience of Norway is from Maelstrom in Epcot) would have many problems with any conflicts, near or far. If a WW3 conflict were to break out, it wouldn't be impossible to begin planting food again while using a short-term import plan from outside the nation.

In response to subsidized agriculture: BAD IDEA
The original subsidies for farmers to grow corn were to help them (duh), but now latifundia-esque farms are using subsidies to grow enormous amounts of crops for profit to fatten Americans. It's disgusting and should be stopped, if only to preserve the rich texture of Middle America (and all those right-wing Farmer votes, which brings us back to the original topic)

[Ironside]

Woah WW3? Well you should not worry too much as all the nukes will kill off most people anyway. The Norwegians who survive will be a better and stronger breed for sure! and with a less fatalistic world view...


CBR

The loss of infrastructure and lack of food is the big killer in the early post-apocalyptic world and quite possibly on the same scale as the nukes themselves.

[rory_20_uk]

The loss of infrastructure and lack of food is the big killer in the early post-apocalyptic world and quite possibly on the same scale as the nukes themselves.

Without doubt.

Some parts of the world will go on as before. The parts of Africa that are doing OK for example. Almost everywhere else will at the very least see a c. 70% in population - the old will all die and the young will kill each other for resources.

What to do? Unless you want an agrarian economy that utilises everything from nearby the country is going to take a hit.

[Lemur]

I just don't know. There are vanishingly few countries that can claim to be energy independent, and having the lights go out would be as big a shock to some people as seeing super-expensive food at the store.

I really wonder if food independence is (a) worth the distorting effects of subsidies, (b) a proper national security goal, and (c) realistic for nations that have little arable land.

[drone]

The Norse will just raid mainland Europe for food if it comes down to it.

A few years back, I read that the UK could no longer feed itself due to population growth and reduction of farming capacity. Considering the situation in both world wars, I would assume that this would raise some concern, but apparently it didn't. The massive dependence on foreign oil here in the States bothers me a lot, reducing our consumption should be a top national security concern. Russia's control of fuel to much of Europe should be ringing alarms all over the continent. Probably too many people making money off the short term status quo.

[CBR]

The loss of infrastructure and lack of food is the big killer in the early post-apocalyptic world and quite possibly on the same scale as the nukes themselves.

Actually that is what I meant but I was just not clear enough.

If anyone has not watched the mid 80's BBC drama "Threads" about the post-nuclear effects in Britain then I recommend it. It is rather depressing though.


CBR

[Crazed Rabbit]

Another big point:
The farm subsidies in western nations seriously harm poor third world farmers. They could compete with western nations in agriculture and significantly better the lot of them and their families if there weren't so many subsidies. The subsidies keep them poor and enfeebled.

So, Horetore, what have you got against those poor third world farmers? Why do you insist they suffer because of your paranoia about WWIII?

CR

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

A little paranoid there Horetore.

[HoreTore]

Another big point:
The farm subsidies in western nations seriously harm poor third world farmers. They could compete with western nations in agriculture and significantly better the lot of them and their families if there weren't so many subsidies. The subsidies keep them poor and enfeebled.

So, Horetore, what have you got against those poor third world farmers? Why do you insist they suffer because of your paranoia about WWIII?

That point applies to a lot of countries, my country isn't one of them. Not because we don't subsidize enough, but simply because we're incapable of growing anything, so our competition is marginal at best. It's not a question of competing others away here, it's a question of whether to have any food production at all(again, except teh fishies).

And we already have zero toll on goods from poor countries.