Originally from the great depression, did you know that the US still subsidizes sugar production? The US exports $1.3B of sugar each year and imports $185M. Subsidies inhibit the free market, but neither party wants to lose the votes of the sugar industry.
ONE PARROT sweetly adds that the US sugar industry needs subsidies to compete in the world market, it protects sugar producers' & processors' profits and wages. THE OTHER PARROT sours that view with the US promoting sugar gluttony which increases healthcare costs, and ironically raises the price of sugar to consumers and food manufacturers.
Both Parrots make their good points over and over and over again. What did our nonpartisan scoring system say?
BOX SCORE for Ending Sugar Subsidies
:75%: ± 3% Nonpartisan Score
Sides of the Table 4/4
Walls of Information 7/8
Cultural Windows 14/16
Columns of Bias 7/8
Conclusion: LEADERBOARD WORTHY
Top Four Key Reasons in Favor of Ending Sugar Subsidies
Sugar subsidies cost billions
Regenerative farming needs those subsides
US pays more for sugar than the free market
Sugar production is carbon intensive
Top Four Key Reasons Against Ending Sugar Subsidies
Sugar subsides are a bargaining chip in foreign trade
Helps sugar growers and processors
Family farms depend on the subsidies
US Sugar industry employs 370,000
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples In-Favor
Caregivers & Gun Owners
USA Made & International NGOs
Giver States & Taker States
Underrepresented & Landlords
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples Against
Federal Payroll & Materials
Social Media & Rank and File Democrats
Free Press & Border and Order Republicans
Core Republicans & Democratic Leadership
Four A-hah Moments
(Yes) Regenerative farming needs those subsidies
(Yes) Lost US jobs because of sugar trade policy
(No) Might perversely increase sugar consumption
(No) 11K family farms grow sugar
Politics 4.0 DNA (ACGT) Conclusion
We predict a 75% vast super-majority of roles in this country to support Ending Sugar Subsidies with a low error margin of ± 3%. Thrift (T) types point out that it will lower the cost of sugar and all the products sugar is in. Abundance (A) types see more productivity and growth for other more useful industries. Commerce (C) types see less government interference in free markets. Governance (G) types see sending an important message about national priorities.
:: :: :: ::
You can play this week’s game at PolicyKeys.com
Congress’s approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media 27%, the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.
A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? Puzzle every Monday at 6am Eastern at PolicyKeys.com. You can read more about PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? in Politics 4.0 How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative approach to consensus building.
Finding out where we can agree takes guts ::
Add a comment