4 ms·
Is it surprising though? Your consumption is an important part of any market. By removing your demand from the market, you're affecting it and the price of whea
by nesadi 7y ago
Is it surprising though? Your consumption is an important part of any market. By removing your demand from the market, you're affecting it and the price of wheat or whatever good. At an individual level, it probably won't change the scale much, but if enough people do produce only for self-consumption, it can have large enough effects on the market that there shouldn't really be any question that it falls under commerce. The question should rather be whether to regulate the market for wheat at all and what incentives/consequences that might have.
- csallen 7y agoIt seems to me that, using this line of reasoning, one could justify classifying any action as interstate commerce.
- phalangion 7y agoRight. Under this classification, my choice to make my own bread rather than buy it at the store, or my choice not to eat bread at all, is interstate commerce.
- gamblor956 7y agoBased on your super-simplified classification, sure. Based on the actual reasoning of the SCOTUS in Wickard, you would be quite wrong.
- nesadi 7y agoYou could actually. Which is why I think it's really the wrong point to argue about. Almost everything we do is in some way involved with the market and has market effects.
- thoughtstheseus 7y agoYes. Your consumption is only part of the market if you interact with the "market". The trend of forced market interaction is personally annonying.
- nesadi 7y agoNo, your decision not to consume from the market is itself an action on the market. There's nothing forced about it. It's just a natural way of how things work, and it's an important aspect to consider when writing policy or regulation.