51 ms·

Food is a basic need for everyone too and we don't set the price artificially low because of that. If the poor don't have enough money to buy the things they n

by harryh 10y ago

Food is a basic need for everyone too and we don't set the price artificially low because of that. If the poor don't have enough money to buy the things they need, the correct thing to do is to give them money. Not artificially distort the prices of things. Doing the latter misaligns incentives and leads to inefficient allocation of resources.

mason240 10y ago
>Food is a basic need for everyone too and we don't set the price artificially low because of that. We kind of do through agriculture subsidies.
- partiallypro 10y ago
  That's to protect entrenched interests, not to lower food prices. It dates back to FDR and his asinine economics, dumping perfectly good milk out, crop burns, slaughtering hogs and letting the meat go to waste. We still do crop burns and the government buys crops and lets them rot or just destroys them. It has nothing to do with food prices being low, it has to do with protecting profits for the big farms. We have taxes and tariffs on some crops coming from outside of the U.S., such as sugar cane. Has nothing to do with lowering food prices.
intopieces 10y ago
>Food is a basic need for everyone too and we don't set the price artificially low because of that. We most certainly do. Taxpayers heavily subsidize corn and soy, two crops that facilitate the meat and processed food. http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21643191-crop-prices-fall-farmers-grow-subsidies-instead-milking-taxpayers http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21643191-crop-pr...
- partiallypro 10y ago
  That doesn't mean that we should subsidize every other industry. End all corporate welfare, you aren't going to do that by subsidizing another industry with the excuse that it's been done in the past. That's how you get entrenched interests sloshing around in government funds.
- harryh 10y ago
  1) It's not clear that these subsidies actually lower the costs on the shelves in grocery stores. 2) Almost everyone other than the recipients agrees that agricultural subsidies are almost always a bad idea.

by harryh 10y ago

mason240 10y ago

>Food is a basic need for everyone too and we don't set the price artificially low because of that. We kind of do through agriculture subsidies.

partiallypro 10y ago
That's to protect entrenched interests, not to lower food prices. It dates back to FDR and his asinine economics, dumping perfectly good milk out, crop burns, slaughtering hogs and letting the meat go to waste. We still do crop burns and the government buys crops and lets them rot or just destroys them. It has nothing to do with food prices being low, it has to do with protecting profits for the big farms. We have taxes and tariffs on some crops coming from outside of the U.S., such as sugar cane. Has nothing to do with lowering food prices.

intopieces 10y ago

>Food is a basic need for everyone too and we don't set the price artificially low because of that. We most certainly do. Taxpayers heavily subsidize corn and soy, two crops that facilitate the meat and processed food. http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21643191-crop-prices-fall-farmers-grow-subsidies-instead-milking-taxpayers http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21643191-crop-pr...

partiallypro 10y ago
That doesn't mean that we should subsidize every other industry. End all corporate welfare, you aren't going to do that by subsidizing another industry with the excuse that it's been done in the past. That's how you get entrenched interests sloshing around in government funds.
harryh 10y ago
1) It's not clear that these subsidies actually lower the costs on the shelves in grocery stores. 2) Almost everyone other than the recipients agrees that agricultural subsidies are almost always a bad idea.