4 ms·
If those crops could be grown better elsewhere, I assume they would already be. But they’re not so I assume that’s not the case. Honestly this is a problem ec
by thrashh 4y ago
If those crops could be grown better elsewhere, I assume they would already be.
But they’re not so I assume that’s not the case.
Honestly this is a problem economics is ultimately best at solving IMO. If water supply does slow then prices will go up and water heavy ag will move away on its own. Honestly I’m not too worried
- ncmncm 4y agoNo. The water used for these crops is not being paid for, at its value. So, the price of California alfalfa is depressed far below its true cost. This is all consequences of utterly insane water allocation policy.
- eesmith 4y agoIt's multifactorial. Excellent farmland near cities is turned into housing because that pays better than farming. The best agriculturally place to grow tomatoes might be Manhattan, but we're not going to knock down the borough to grow tomatoes there. Now, one may argue that the price includes all of these factors, although that would make the appeal to economics tautological. Why didn't economics prevent the Dust Bowl? What does economics say about dealing with a new wave of Okies?