7 ms·
Canadian here: the government offers insurance here for bees. It's not particularly profitable, so the gov't had to pick it up as a service.
by breitling 9y ago
Canadian here: the government offers insurance here for bees. It's not particularly profitable, so the gov't had to pick it up as a service.
- gruez 9y agoif it's not profitable, what they should do is raise the premiums, not subsidize it by operating it at a loss. edit: downvoters: i'm all for the government running a insurance program if nobody is willing to, but it shouldn't do it at a loss. subsidizing beekeepers distorts the market to the detriment of other crops (that don't need bees for polination) and other polination methods (humans? drones?). it's the same with free roads subsidizing the trucking industry (trucks cause disproportionately more damage to the roads compared to what they pay in taxes) to the detriment of other transportation methods, and low cost flood insurance subsidizing housing in flood zones to the detriment of low risk areas.
- bryanrasmussen 9y agoI don't think you've thought this through, generally insurance premiums are high if there is a lot of risk and low if there is not much risk. If risk is low and you have a small market, like say beekeepers, your profit is small. If you increase your premiums at this point you would decrease your profits even further because people get insurance based on a calculated trade-off regarding risk and premiums. In other words nobody in a low-risk insurance market is going to buy your policies if they have a high premium.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- egypturnash 9y agoWhy? Does every single human endeavor really need to make a profit for someone? Can it not be possible that the Canadian government feels that a Canada with beekeepers is better than one without, and has chosen to allocate some of its money to make it a little easier to be a beekeeper?
- steego 9y ago> Does every single human endeavor really need to make a profit for someone? No, but endeavors that are profitable tend to be more self-sustaining and less fragile and less susceptible to the grace of politicians and special interests. Note, I'm not saying that markets are the solution to everything, nor am I saying they are the most optimal solution to everything. I just think it's important to consider what you give up when you give up a profitable enterprise.
- Banthum 9y agoNot every human endeavor has to make a profit. However, most do have to make a profit, otherwise total wealth decreases until we all starve to death. If an activity doesn't make a profit, generally people unconnected with it shouldn't be forced to subsidize it unless there is a really good reason, like specific and well-understood positive externalities to the activity. I have no issue with people doing beekeeping (or skateboarding or painting or snowshoeing) as a hobby. But I see no reason I should be forced to do more work I don't want to do in order that someone else can do their hobby that they do want to do.
- lorenzhs 9y agoIt's ironic that you're commenting on bee hive insurance, something that is essential in nearly every kind of food production, by claiming that the state offering it at a loss will lead to everyone starving to death. If "bee populations are declining, we need bees to make food, we should encourage people to keep bees by limiting the amount of risk they have to take" isn't a really good reason, I don't know what is.
- gruez 9y ago>we should encourage people to keep bees by limiting the amount of risk they have to take or you know, by the beekeepers charging more for the service. if pollination is really that essential, they shouldn't have any problem getting farmers to accept the price increases. otherwise it's just another subsidy that distorts the marketplace (against other pollination methods, or crops that don't require bee pollination)
- darpa_escapee 9y agoSounds like a waste of resources to me.
- nisse72 9y agoBees provide a service to society, not just to the bee keeper. Why shouldn't society help offset some of the beekeeper's risk?
- mkempe 9y agoBy that standard, what economic activities would be outside the province of state intervention?
- r00fus 9y agos/intervention/regulation/ Basically anything where the tragedy of commons can result in worse outcomes than where free markets do. Historically free markets themselves need regulation or collapse into monopoly/cartels.
- Waterluvian 9y agoIt's also possibly hard to estimate risk. My understanding is that insurers don't like insuring things they can't confidently assess.
- anigbrowl 9y agoNot everything has to be marketized. I'm absolutely fine with subsidizing things that the market doesn't value properly.
- asmithmd1 9y agoblockchain...something...insurance...something...HoneyCoin!
- dang 9y agoPlease don't post unsubstantive comments here.