4 ms·
I don’t understand the downvotes. No one wants just-in-time, no-redundancies production of critical-to-life resources. You would be willing to subsidize a heal
by arkades 7y ago
I don’t understand the downvotes.
No one wants just-in-time, no-redundancies production of critical-to-life resources. You would be willing to subsidize a healthcare market to ensure hospitals didn’t have the exact supply of antibiotics on hand required “on average.” You wouldn’t want water purification plants to produce a market-optimum amount of water with no room for variation.
Why would you want that for your food supply?
Don’t get me wrong, there are other issues on hand - lack of diversification, oligopoly, etc. but the fundamental argument of “we subsidize critical resources because people die if there’s a shortage” isn’t a terrible idea.
- twblalock 7y ago> “we subsidize critical resources because people die if there’s a shortage” That's not the argument, though. Government subsidies are intended as welfare programs for farmers. Far more food is currently produced than would ever be needed in the case of a shortage. We could produce a lot less and still be fine.
- nhorob67 7y agoAfter the 2019 corn crop is harvested, the USDA is projecting 51.5 days of excess stocks in the United States
- Retric 7y agoYou can store food for 20 years. Actually having a 3+ year supply of food would cost less and provide more security than current subsidies. Also, 51.5 days of excess stocks is not 51.5 days of food on hand.
- petre 7y agoStorage is already at a premium since the US-China trade war. Not enough storage facilities. Maybe the US should cut from the productiob subsidies and subsidize short term storage?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]