6 ms·

Why? 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 bee

Why? 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 ago
Not 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 ago
  It'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)
    - caio1982 9y ago
      You can't possibly be comparing companies subsidized by the government and the critical natural importance of bees. This can't be real.
      - gruez 9y ago
        so you're saying we should subsidize beekeepers (keeping european honeybees, by the way) as a environmental protection program, because otherwise there's nothing else to pollinate the natural native plants?
      - rpenm 9y ago
        Honeybees are not native to North America. They actually may have a negative impact on native species.
        caio1982 9y ago
        Not only honey bees polinate crops. In fact there are thousands of bee species around the world and particularly in Brazil, where they produce honey and the european/african honeybees are non-native as well. I think we both can agree that the Amazon and Atlantic jungles and rainforest managed to be polinated just fine without the bees you talk about. When you consider only honeybees you know in North America you are artificially restricting the problem that is much more widespread.
        lostlogin 9y ago
- pm24601 9y ago
  Bees are vital to our food production. Is that a big enough positive externality? It doesn't matter if this is done for profit, for charity or just to irritate the neighbors. Bees are a vital pollinator.
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    You pay for food. Farmers pay for bees (where they need the bees more than the beekeepers need bee food). Say "it doesn't matter" all you want, but the cost of an input to food production is not an externality.
    - pm24601 9y ago
      Food is not just for humans. Bees pollinate plants that other animals consume. Animals that help the ecosystems that we as animals depend on ourselves. Problem with economics is that not everything can be easily priced. Economics has an inherent flaw where anything that can't be priced is assumed to be $0

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 ago

Not 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 ago
It'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)
  - caio1982 9y ago
    You can't possibly be comparing companies subsidized by the government and the critical natural importance of bees. This can't be real.
    - gruez 9y ago
      so you're saying we should subsidize beekeepers (keeping european honeybees, by the way) as a environmental protection program, because otherwise there's nothing else to pollinate the natural native plants?
    - rpenm 9y ago
      Honeybees are not native to North America. They actually may have a negative impact on native species.
      - caio1982 9y ago
        Not only honey bees polinate crops. In fact there are thousands of bee species around the world and particularly in Brazil, where they produce honey and the european/african honeybees are non-native as well. I think we both can agree that the Amazon and Atlantic jungles and rainforest managed to be polinated just fine without the bees you talk about. When you consider only honeybees you know in North America you are artificially restricting the problem that is much more widespread.
        lostlogin 9y ago
pm24601 9y ago
Bees are vital to our food production. Is that a big enough positive externality? It doesn't matter if this is done for profit, for charity or just to irritate the neighbors. Bees are a vital pollinator.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  You pay for food. Farmers pay for bees (where they need the bees more than the beekeepers need bee food). Say "it doesn't matter" all you want, but the cost of an input to food production is not an externality.
  - pm24601 9y ago
    Food is not just for humans. Bees pollinate plants that other animals consume. Animals that help the ecosystems that we as animals depend on ourselves. Problem with economics is that not everything can be easily priced. Economics has an inherent flaw where anything that can't be priced is assumed to be $0