6 ms·

Q: It's said that the decline in rice consumption is serious, but if the amount produced increased and the price went down, people would eat more, wouldn't they

Q: It's said that the decline in rice consumption is serious, but if the amount produced increased and the price went down, people would eat more, wouldn't they? A: Exactly. Rice acreage reduction is an absolutely terrible policy. The government spends over 300 billion yen (about $2.06 billion) in subsidies annually to decrease the amount of rice produced, thus going out of its way to raise the price and increasing the burden on consumers.

dekken_ 2y ago
[flagged]
- mensetmanusman 2y ago
  Fiat money can be printed. It’s one reason that governments are quite bad at executing on innovation that requires long nights and weekends to spin up.
  - dekken_ 2y ago
    > Fiat money can be printed. And inflation is a tax.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > And inflation is a tax Metaphorically. In the way time spent commuting is a tax. Or taking your kid to a doctor is a tax.
      - dekken_ 2y ago
        No, it's not metaphorical. If in January, you can buy something for $1, then in February because of inflation it becomes $1.10, that's a 10% tax increase. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgSqZKx0mNI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgSqZKx0mNI
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > No, it's not metaphorical It is, though largely due to confusion rather than intentional metaphor. (Exception: when described as a “shadow tax,” though that is still a close metaphor and only applies to debt-monetising monetary inflation.) > If in January, you can buy something for $1, then in February because of inflation it becomes $1.10, that's a 10% tax increase You’re confusing taxes and costs. When Russia invaded Ukraine, they didn’t levy a tax on poor Egyptians even though Moscow’s actions raised their food costs. Cost increases are taxing [1]. Confusing something taxing with a tax [2] is a common mistake but still wrong. (And valiantly wrong in a policy context.) [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/taxing#h1 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/taxing#h1 [2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tax https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tax
        dekken_ 2y ago
        Tax is a cost. If a government spends more than it takes in, in taxation, the difference has to come from somewhere, and invariably, it comes via inflation. The choice to spend more than the governemnt has, is a choice, and is imposed, so is a tax.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Tax is a cost Not all costs are taxes… > If a government spends more than it takes in, in taxation, the difference has to come from somewhere, and invariably, it comes via inflation Governments spent more than they earned before fiat currencies. They made up the difference by borrowing. Borrowing isn’t fundamentally inflationary; this is trivial to show with commodity money. > choice to spend more than the governemnt has, is a choice, and is imposed, so is a tax Every commemorative bill is a government choice. That doesn’t make National Talk Like a Pirate Day a tax proposal [1]. Consider the implications of your definition. Every cost and every government choice is a tax. At this point, taxes are so naturally occurring as to make the word meaningless. You get a pay raise? A tax on your employer! Tesla stock goes up? Musk is taxing you! Governor went on a walk instead of driving? Taxation! Cat got sick? Mittens is taxing me with vet bills! [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Talk_Like_a_Pirate_Day https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Talk_Like_a_Pi...
    - selectodude 2y ago
      It’s not a tax, it’s a time decay in the value of labor. Work done today is worth more than work done in the past.
      - mr_toad 2y ago
        It’s a tax on anyone who has cash or the equivalent.
      - dekken_ 2y ago
        > Work done today is worth more than work done in the past. This is not provable.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        vel0city 2y ago
        I mowed my lawn six weeks ago. Is that labor worth the same, more, or less than the labor of me mowing it today?
        dekken_ 2y ago
        Is labor worth anything? How do you find out? How do you define "value"? We can continue this if you like, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't leading you somewhere...
        vel0city 2y ago
        > I would be lying if I said I wasn't leading you somewhere You're leading me nowhere because you aren't actually saying anything at all. Try actually answering questions if you want to lead someone somewhere. > How do you define "value"? At a basic level, usefulness. > Is labor worth anything? Yes, I value (it is useful to me) being able to leave my house without everything being overgrown. I value (it is useful to me) having the yard not overgrown to the point wildlife take over my yard and invade my home. I value (it is useful to me) to not have the trees overgrow above my roof and eventually lose limbs on to my roof. The way I achieve these useful things is by labor. So the labor is useful, it has value. > How do you find out? I look at the usefulness of that labor. What would it cost for me to hire exterminators once rats and snakes and bugs take over the yard and then my house? What would I have to trade for a doctor to heal me once I get sick from the rodent infestation? How would I repair my home after the damage from the infestations? What does a new roof cost if I don't maintain my trees? How much do I have to work to ensure these things don't happen? Then finally, given the fact I only have 24 hours in a day and I have other wants, is it useful to me to exchange something with someone else (something they find use of) to do it for me. But going back to "is past labor less valuable than current labor", well, today do I care more about the lawn being mowed and the trees trimmed properly or do I just value that I did it six weeks ago and that's good enough for me now? In the end, today the trees are overgrown. The lawn is getting tall. Rats are starting to live in the bushes. I need to get out there now, despite the fact I did it six weeks ago. The value of that work I did then is now less, because the realities of the world continued changing. A baker baked a loaf of bread a month ago. Is that labor still worth something today? Is that labor worth the same, more, or less than if he baked a loaf of bread today? Try answering any of these questions next.
    - mistrial9 2y ago
      this is flatly false equivalence.. it is a political statement because it is widely understood on a political topic. Any analysis beyond the most superficial and dramatic shows that this is not at all equivalent.
      - dekken_ 2y ago
        This isn't an argument.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  Domestic food production is a national security concern, especially for a country like Japan which already has abysmal food self-reliance as-is. Not to mention rice is a matter of cultural identity. Artificially keeping market prices high so rice farmers can make a living is a justifiable thing. There is no free market if the free market is dead.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Yup. If all Japanese rice came from, say, Thailand (less expensive and major regional rice producer), Thailand would have them by the balls if it came down to it.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - dekken_ 2y ago
    It sounds like they should have more import duty on foreign foods if anything in this case. > Artificially keeping market prices high so rice farmers can make a living is a justifiable thing. This doesn't make sense to me, if the prices need to be high for farmers to survive, how is it artificial? You're just paying twice, once in tax and once for the product.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      >It sounds like they should have more import duty on foreign foods if anything in this case. Rice imports are also heavily taxed and tightly regulated to maintain high market prices. >if the prices need to be high for farmers to survive, how is it artificial? It's artificial because market prices don't actually care if the supplier can survive. The Japanese government cares about the rice farmers' continued existence.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
begueradj 2y ago
To be fair, that's a common practice even when it comes to non edible products (for example, coming from a petrol producing country, I grew up hearing every now and then about OPEC having decided to reduce petrol production to raise prices)
- inanutshellus 2y ago
  Yes but per the article, this policy has been active for 60 years. They're not temporarily buoying after a seasonal surplus, they're just paying farmers not to farm ..... for generations.
  - downrightmike 2y ago
    The USA has been doing that since the 1970's as land preservation.
    - jacobr1 2y ago
      Which is dumb. Land should just be purchased for conservation (or other arrangements like easements with transfer on sale) to the government or private land conservatory groups. Endless subsidy is corrupt.
      - ambyra 2y ago
        Japan is an island, which can be blockaded, so they’ve always tried to help their farmers. Usually they pay the farmers to grow less, not pay them to grow nothing. Also this policy was phased out in 2018; now they’re just subsidizing farmers and encouraging crop diversity. I think they’re doing a good job. Being a farmer is always hard. In Japan at least they’re making it easier. Encouraging crop diversity and organic farming is nice (especially compared to the us corn/soy situation).
      - downrightmike 2y ago
        Depleting the land in that manner is what caused the Dust Bowl. May sound dumb, but it is certainly not.
EasyMark 2y ago
Are people moving to other crops that aren’t as water intensive with all the global warming and erratic weather patterns that are developing around the world? Looks like from the article there isn’t a significant decrease in rice production and “tourism” could only affect 0.5% so could it be artificial inflation like in the USA from limited competition that’s been going on the past few years?
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  Actually, global warming is making Japan get more rain.
- sandworm101 2y ago
  Global warming, climate change is shifting weather patterns. While west coasts (California, the UK, Spain) are generally getting less rain, East coasts (Japan, Newfoundland, Florida) are generally getting hit with more rain and more storms.
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    The UK is actually getting more and more rain because evaporation over the Atlantic increases with warming (I suppose same phenomenon as for Japan)... at least as long as the Gulf Stream keeps flowing.
- bamboozled 2y ago
  There is no water shortage on a small island like Japan, it gets a LOT of rain, and really, when grown in the mountain areas (cmmon in Japan) the rice terraces probably slow the water flow down rather than speed it up (going via the river straight into the sea) somewhat watering the rice crops and all other life nearby. Rice doesn't actually need a lot of water to grow, they use the water as a type of weed control, rice is unique in that it can grow practically submersed in water. Most other species cannot. Bali has been experimenting growing rice without such large amounts of water, it went well. Google it!

dekken_ 2y ago

[flagged]

mensetmanusman 2y ago
Fiat money can be printed. It’s one reason that governments are quite bad at executing on innovation that requires long nights and weekends to spin up.
- dekken_ 2y ago
  > Fiat money can be printed. And inflation is a tax.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > And inflation is a tax Metaphorically. In the way time spent commuting is a tax. Or taking your kid to a doctor is a tax.
    - dekken_ 2y ago
      No, it's not metaphorical. If in January, you can buy something for $1, then in February because of inflation it becomes $1.10, that's a 10% tax increase. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgSqZKx0mNI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgSqZKx0mNI
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > No, it's not metaphorical It is, though largely due to confusion rather than intentional metaphor. (Exception: when described as a “shadow tax,” though that is still a close metaphor and only applies to debt-monetising monetary inflation.) > If in January, you can buy something for $1, then in February because of inflation it becomes $1.10, that's a 10% tax increase You’re confusing taxes and costs. When Russia invaded Ukraine, they didn’t levy a tax on poor Egyptians even though Moscow’s actions raised their food costs. Cost increases are taxing [1]. Confusing something taxing with a tax [2] is a common mistake but still wrong. (And valiantly wrong in a policy context.) [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/taxing#h1 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/taxing#h1 [2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tax https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tax
        dekken_ 2y ago
        Tax is a cost. If a government spends more than it takes in, in taxation, the difference has to come from somewhere, and invariably, it comes via inflation. The choice to spend more than the governemnt has, is a choice, and is imposed, so is a tax.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Tax is a cost Not all costs are taxes… > If a government spends more than it takes in, in taxation, the difference has to come from somewhere, and invariably, it comes via inflation Governments spent more than they earned before fiat currencies. They made up the difference by borrowing. Borrowing isn’t fundamentally inflationary; this is trivial to show with commodity money. > choice to spend more than the governemnt has, is a choice, and is imposed, so is a tax Every commemorative bill is a government choice. That doesn’t make National Talk Like a Pirate Day a tax proposal [1]. Consider the implications of your definition. Every cost and every government choice is a tax. At this point, taxes are so naturally occurring as to make the word meaningless. You get a pay raise? A tax on your employer! Tesla stock goes up? Musk is taxing you! Governor went on a walk instead of driving? Taxation! Cat got sick? Mittens is taxing me with vet bills! [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Talk_Like_a_Pirate_Day https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Talk_Like_a_Pi...
  - selectodude 2y ago
    It’s not a tax, it’s a time decay in the value of labor. Work done today is worth more than work done in the past.
    - mr_toad 2y ago
      It’s a tax on anyone who has cash or the equivalent.
    - dekken_ 2y ago
      > Work done today is worth more than work done in the past. This is not provable.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - vel0city 2y ago
        I mowed my lawn six weeks ago. Is that labor worth the same, more, or less than the labor of me mowing it today?
        dekken_ 2y ago
        Is labor worth anything? How do you find out? How do you define "value"? We can continue this if you like, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't leading you somewhere...
        vel0city 2y ago
        > I would be lying if I said I wasn't leading you somewhere You're leading me nowhere because you aren't actually saying anything at all. Try actually answering questions if you want to lead someone somewhere. > How do you define "value"? At a basic level, usefulness. > Is labor worth anything? Yes, I value (it is useful to me) being able to leave my house without everything being overgrown. I value (it is useful to me) having the yard not overgrown to the point wildlife take over my yard and invade my home. I value (it is useful to me) to not have the trees overgrow above my roof and eventually lose limbs on to my roof. The way I achieve these useful things is by labor. So the labor is useful, it has value. > How do you find out? I look at the usefulness of that labor. What would it cost for me to hire exterminators once rats and snakes and bugs take over the yard and then my house? What would I have to trade for a doctor to heal me once I get sick from the rodent infestation? How would I repair my home after the damage from the infestations? What does a new roof cost if I don't maintain my trees? How much do I have to work to ensure these things don't happen? Then finally, given the fact I only have 24 hours in a day and I have other wants, is it useful to me to exchange something with someone else (something they find use of) to do it for me. But going back to "is past labor less valuable than current labor", well, today do I care more about the lawn being mowed and the trees trimmed properly or do I just value that I did it six weeks ago and that's good enough for me now? In the end, today the trees are overgrown. The lawn is getting tall. Rats are starting to live in the bushes. I need to get out there now, despite the fact I did it six weeks ago. The value of that work I did then is now less, because the realities of the world continued changing. A baker baked a loaf of bread a month ago. Is that labor still worth something today? Is that labor worth the same, more, or less than if he baked a loaf of bread today? Try answering any of these questions next.
  - mistrial9 2y ago
    this is flatly false equivalence.. it is a political statement because it is widely understood on a political topic. Any analysis beyond the most superficial and dramatic shows that this is not at all equivalent.
    - dekken_ 2y ago
      This isn't an argument.
Dalewyn 2y ago
Domestic food production is a national security concern, especially for a country like Japan which already has abysmal food self-reliance as-is. Not to mention rice is a matter of cultural identity. Artificially keeping market prices high so rice farmers can make a living is a justifiable thing. There is no free market if the free market is dead.
- lazide 2y ago
  Yup. If all Japanese rice came from, say, Thailand (less expensive and major regional rice producer), Thailand would have them by the balls if it came down to it.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- dekken_ 2y ago
  It sounds like they should have more import duty on foreign foods if anything in this case. > Artificially keeping market prices high so rice farmers can make a living is a justifiable thing. This doesn't make sense to me, if the prices need to be high for farmers to survive, how is it artificial? You're just paying twice, once in tax and once for the product.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    >It sounds like they should have more import duty on foreign foods if anything in this case. Rice imports are also heavily taxed and tightly regulated to maintain high market prices. >if the prices need to be high for farmers to survive, how is it artificial? It's artificial because market prices don't actually care if the supplier can survive. The Japanese government cares about the rice farmers' continued existence.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

begueradj 2y ago

To be fair, that's a common practice even when it comes to non edible products (for example, coming from a petrol producing country, I grew up hearing every now and then about OPEC having decided to reduce petrol production to raise prices)

inanutshellus 2y ago
Yes but per the article, this policy has been active for 60 years. They're not temporarily buoying after a seasonal surplus, they're just paying farmers not to farm ..... for generations.
- downrightmike 2y ago
  The USA has been doing that since the 1970's as land preservation.
  - jacobr1 2y ago
    Which is dumb. Land should just be purchased for conservation (or other arrangements like easements with transfer on sale) to the government or private land conservatory groups. Endless subsidy is corrupt.
    - ambyra 2y ago
      Japan is an island, which can be blockaded, so they’ve always tried to help their farmers. Usually they pay the farmers to grow less, not pay them to grow nothing. Also this policy was phased out in 2018; now they’re just subsidizing farmers and encouraging crop diversity. I think they’re doing a good job. Being a farmer is always hard. In Japan at least they’re making it easier. Encouraging crop diversity and organic farming is nice (especially compared to the us corn/soy situation).
    - downrightmike 2y ago
      Depleting the land in that manner is what caused the Dust Bowl. May sound dumb, but it is certainly not.

EasyMark 2y ago

Are people moving to other crops that aren’t as water intensive with all the global warming and erratic weather patterns that are developing around the world? Looks like from the article there isn’t a significant decrease in rice production and “tourism” could only affect 0.5% so could it be artificial inflation like in the USA from limited competition that’s been going on the past few years?

mytailorisrich 2y ago
Actually, global warming is making Japan get more rain.
sandworm101 2y ago
Global warming, climate change is shifting weather patterns. While west coasts (California, the UK, Spain) are generally getting less rain, East coasts (Japan, Newfoundland, Florida) are generally getting hit with more rain and more storms.
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  The UK is actually getting more and more rain because evaporation over the Atlantic increases with warming (I suppose same phenomenon as for Japan)... at least as long as the Gulf Stream keeps flowing.
bamboozled 2y ago
There is no water shortage on a small island like Japan, it gets a LOT of rain, and really, when grown in the mountain areas (cmmon in Japan) the rice terraces probably slow the water flow down rather than speed it up (going via the river straight into the sea) somewhat watering the rice crops and all other life nearby. Rice doesn't actually need a lot of water to grow, they use the water as a type of weed control, rice is unique in that it can grow practically submersed in water. Most other species cannot. Bali has been experimenting growing rice without such large amounts of water, it went well. Google it!