3 ms·

I agree with all of this, but They'd probably make less money There is no incentive for farmers that already operate on razor thin margins to make less money.

I agree with all of this, but They'd probably make less money There is no incentive for farmers that already operate on razor thin margins to make less money. They will produce whatever makes them the most money. How do we incentivize changing behavior without putting farmers out of business? Or I guess another way to put it is, how do we correct the system that got us here without punishing the farmers? AFAIK they are not the bad guys, rather they are the ones feeding us and are subject to operating in the system that was created before they were born. Changing water rights does not feel like it addresses the problem in a way that does not harm innocent people. Maybe that should happen long term when water demands are lower but it feels like the demand should shift first through some incentives. How do we change incentives without harming people so that we can later change the water rights without as much push-back?

RugnirViking 3y ago
the margin naturally sharpens to fit a razor. Do you think that if we slightly taxed alfalfa more that nobody would grow anything on that land? No, prices of whatever they switched to would adjust, and farmers would be back to razor thin margins just like anybody else. Thats how a market do. Except this time there would hopefully be a bit less of a massive externality
ethbr1 3y ago
It's a great point, because farmers are literally tied to their land in ways most of us aren't. If economic structural changes impact them, they can't pack their bags and move their farm to a different region. Morally, what feels right to me is "Let no person have their livelihood demolished by that which is completely outside their control". Sometimes, that's unavoidable, but I think with water use we could fold policies in over 50 years to lessen the velocity of disruption. And hell, why not bind it to subsidies for building out solar/wind renewables on their land, while we're at it?
LinuxBender 3y ago
I forgot to add that every time we put farmers out of business their land gets snatched up by the likes of Bill Gates or Blackrock. This also needs to stop.

RugnirViking 3y ago

the margin naturally sharpens to fit a razor. Do you think that if we slightly taxed alfalfa more that nobody would grow anything on that land? No, prices of whatever they switched to would adjust, and farmers would be back to razor thin margins just like anybody else. Thats how a market do. Except this time there would hopefully be a bit less of a massive externality

ethbr1 3y ago

It's a great point, because farmers are literally tied to their land in ways most of us aren't. If economic structural changes impact them, they can't pack their bags and move their farm to a different region. Morally, what feels right to me is "Let no person have their livelihood demolished by that which is completely outside their control". Sometimes, that's unavoidable, but I think with water use we could fold policies in over 50 years to lessen the velocity of disruption. And hell, why not bind it to subsidies for building out solar/wind renewables on their land, while we're at it?

LinuxBender 3y ago

I forgot to add that every time we put farmers out of business their land gets snatched up by the likes of Bill Gates or Blackrock. This also needs to stop.