>Moreover, "[c]orn is one of the most heavily subsidized crops in the
>United States, with subsidies accounting for some 46% of farm income
>in the sector" (Nadal and Wise, p. 15). A single-minded pursuit of
>higher and higher yields, in the context of constant overproduction
>of the crop, doesn't really make sense. US taxpayers are
>subsidizing this economically senseless behavior only to destroy
>subsistence farmers in Mexico and other countries (18% of US corn
>gets exported), to fatten the ethanol lobby (who do nothing to curb
>the ravenous US appetite for fossil fuels), and to make more and
>more working-class Americans obese and sick.
But Michael's claim was the US farms weren't all that productive, when in fact they're very productive. The wisdom or sustainability of that production wasn't the issue.
Doug