> Crop subsidies are certainly poorly applied and poorly distributed
Crop subsidies, since the 2014 reforms at least, are "fair" to all crops. That does mean that the most grown crops (which in the US is corn, by a large margin) receive the most subsidies, but is that truly poor application and distribution?
The goal isn't fairness, but it is fair[1]. There is nothing in the crop subsidies that would compel you to grow, say, corn over a vegetable.
Corn does receive the lion's share of the subsidies, but that's because we grow way more corn, because that's what the consumer chooses to buy (either directly or indirectly [e.g. meat]).
Right, and part of why we grow way more corn is the subsidies(vast majority of corn is going to animals, they eat whatever is cheapest). The subsidies lead to too much corn growth which means they are poorly applied, even if they are fair.
> part of why we grow way more corn is the subsidies
That would imply that subsidies give reason to produce corn over a vegetable, which isn't the case. The subsidies are "fair" — even when that isn't the goal.
You are right that corn is cheap, but that's a result of technology and the nature of what it is. It requires almost no human effort to produce. Stuff like vegetables, on the other hand, remain incredibly labor intensive even on the most technically advanced farms. It is a much harder problem to solve.
As compared to virtually every other food, grain is significantly simpler to handle in almost every way from seeding right to storage and distribution. And corn benefits from being insanely high yielding compared to other grains.
Crop subsidies, since the 2014 reforms at least, are "fair" to all crops. That does mean that the most grown crops (which in the US is corn, by a large margin) receive the most subsidies, but is that truly poor application and distribution?