3 ms·
> Consuming food is effectively mandated by biology and there is incredible competition in the sector. While I understand your point, I don't agree with your a
by RoyTyrell 9y ago
> Consuming food is effectively mandated by biology and there is incredible competition in the sector.
While I understand your point, I don't agree with your analogy. The reason is because yes food production has a lot of competition, however it is easier to produce and less expensive.
You can grow small quantities of food at home with about a $20 investment into pots, soil, and seeds - of which that $20 can be spread over multiple years. However you can't as easily produce solar panels at home. Solar panels with the efficiency they have now has taken decades and billions of USD spent in r&d. The production itself takes multiple large buildings, expensive equipment, and many specialized people.
While yes my family in Nebraska has thousands of acres to produce corn, or my family in California has hundreds of acres of pasture land for milk production, I can guaranty you that they couldn't easily and cheaply switch to solar panels.
Then there's the whole aspect of installation. Not everyone in the country can install solar panels in South Miami but it's a hell of a lot easier for a farm in California to sell tomatoes to a supermarket in Ohio. I'm sure the state of FL requires some kind of license, including bonds and insurance for contractors to operate. Probably also requires at least one licensed electrician. You can't just be a CraigsList handyman today and do solar-panel installation tomorrow; at least legally and correctly.
- CPLX 9y agoMy analogy works just fine. My point is that the fact that a good is necessary for life or mandated by a government has nothing to do with how competitive the market is for supplying it. The original comment is nonsensical, supply and demand have different curves with different elasticities. A government mandate affects the demand curve not the supply curve.