3 ms·
"Should" isn't always a great word when it comes to real world economics. I agree with you in theory, but realistically one would need to subsidize these crops:
by IntrepidWorm 5y ago
"Should" isn't always a great word when it comes to real world economics. I agree with you in theory, but realistically one would need to subsidize these crops: the market isn't equipped for the entire American Midwest (for instance) to suddenly begin growing beans, potatoes, and other staple crops at the frequency that they were raising beef cattle.
It's a deep hole we're in, and its going to take considerable effort and a lengthy process to dig ourselves out.
- pdonis 5y ago> the market isn't equipped for the entire American Midwest (for instance) to suddenly begin growing beans, potatoes, and other staple crops at the frequency that they were raising beef cattle. Subsidies won't change that. Yes, it takes time to shift an entire economic sector to a significantly different distribution of production and consumption. That just means we need to get started on the shift now--by stopping subsidies. Shifting the subsidies to something different just makes it take even longer to get to the only really sustainable state, which is nothing being subsidized and the free market determining what gets produced and what gets consumed.