I dunno if I'd have called offsetting the direct and immediate results of our own sudden-and-unexpected tariffs a "bailout".
Unless you're talking about the
usual subsidies we give them. Well, I wouldn't call those bailouts either (since they're not a one-time thing) but my only complaint about those ones is an irrational preference for certain crops (corn).
The most pragmatic reason for subsidizing our farms, normally, is straightforward, and you just highlighted it:
The trade war [...] wouldn't really affect the US ability to feed itself, I guess.
That's not to say there aren't other good reasons to subsidize farming (keeps food costs even lower, shorter food distribution networks are better for the environment, etc), but if you're going to be a military superpower you have to have a plan to feed yourself when nobody else likes you. Mind, for the past few decades that hasn't been as important because of mutually ensured destruction in the cases that would normally lead to naval supply chain intercepts and whatnot.
But, I guess it's equally valid until if what we're all resorting to is economic warfare instead.
Biscuit
Edited by pokari, 23 September 2019 - 04:46 PM.