3 ms·
It makes a lot more sense to allow them to grow it and to buy any surplus at a certain minimum price, then store it against famine years.
by WillAdams 2y ago
It makes a lot more sense to allow them to grow it and to buy any surplus at a certain minimum price, then store it against famine years.
- hangsi 2y agoYes, but then it needs to be stored, and the price effects might encourage even more production. Previously this has led to events like the devastating Wisconsin butter flood [0] ("A firefighter reported flames 300 feet (91 m) high", "It took about twenty hours to contain the blaze, and eight days until the fire was officially out"). Not that rice would do anything so nefarious, but more to point out that large scale purchase and storage is not a trivial task. I can imagine the scenario where some bureaucrats ran the numbers and concluded that it is cheaper to just give the money to farmers instead of running the purchase/storage scheme. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Butter_Fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Butter_Fire
- WillAdams 2y agoRice would split open the hulls of wooden sailing vessels if it got wet. The problem is, the other option here, the Futures Markets has Goldman-Sachs using their vast cash reserves to buy in when it suits them so as to make money on the people's daily bread. Like many other things, "It's better to have it and not need it, than need it, and not have it."