3 ms·
Well my solution is more or less as follows 1) Eliminate subsidies to agriculture (and fishing) gradually over say a decade. Effect: higher food prices 2) Ph
by notch656a 5y ago
Well my solution is more or less as follows
1) Eliminate subsidies to agriculture (and fishing) gradually over say a decade. Effect: higher food prices
2) Phase out any tariffs or regulation on import of agriculture/fishing over say a decade. Effect: lower food prices
3) All workers should be on equal playing field. What regulation applies to one should apply to another. Let the free market determine rates within these regulatory constraints. Taking special advantage of undocumented immigrants to avoid labor regulations isn't an acceptable option. Regulations and law should apply equally to everyone, if it is to be applied at all.
Wages will rise until either the free market rate for this kind of labor is matched, or the farm in question becomes unprofitable. In the latter case, the farm is not compatible with efficient use of human resources and should adapt or fail. In the former case, workers benefit in the form of rising wages.
When there are subsidies, Americans pay one way or another. You can pay either in the form of increased government revenues (i.e. taxation/inflation/debt) or you can pay at the grocery store. I'm much more in favor of the latter as we don't need to add yet another middleman eating up resources in this equation. Costs should be born directly by those consuming the resource.
- scarface74 5y agoAnd what happens when the US phases out subsidies and other countries don’t? American farmers are then less competitive here and abroad. Yes I know, there are no easy answers.
- notch656a 5y ago>And what happens when the US phases out subsidies and other countries don’t? Then American consumers basically get fed at the expense of the rest of the world. Not ideal for the world, but great for those getting the cheap food. Labor directed in agriculture instead get focused into other industries we have a competitive advantage in.
- scarface74 5y agoAny industry has a competitive advantage internationally when your government is subsidizing it going out and imposing tariffs coming in. As soon as the US industry is destroyed, the other countries remove subsidies and prices rise and we can do nothing about it. Again, there are no easy answers. Either we subsidize farmers and pay more in taxes or we impose tariffs to level the playing field. Either way, we pay more than we should.
- notch656a 5y ago> Either we subsidize farmers and pay more in taxes or we impose tariffs to level the playing field. Both of these don't level the playing field, they distort the playing field. >As soon as the US industry is destroyed, the other countries remove subsidies and prices rise and we can do nothing about it. Arguably it is subsidies that destroy farming industry, not the reverse. Farming can tolerate a lot more inefficiencies, bad practices, poor resource allocation and unreasonable crop selection when subsidies influence the market. This could be see India for example in the 70s where textile subsidies meant many people were working in sweatshops weaving with hand operated machines instead of maintaining well capitalized fully mechanized looms. Eliminating these subsidies gradually will allow farmers to develop techniques that make them more competitive on the international stage if these other countries "remove subsidies" (which is your prediction).
- scarface74 5y agoDistorting and leveling is a matter of perspective. Yes tariffs (inbound) and subsidies (outbound) both distort the playing field. But no country can unilaterally disarm.