4 ms·
Stiglitz makes a good point about how farm subsidies made sense in the '30s when most farms were small and family owned. They were an antipoverty program then,
by bjt 13y ago
Stiglitz makes a good point about how farm subsidies made sense in the '30s when most farms were small and family owned. They were an antipoverty program then, and only since then were their rules exploited by ever-larger farms.
This kind of rent seeking should not surprise anyone. The market moves a lot more quickly than government. Today's reasonable policy is tomorrow's corporate welfare.
The lesson I take from this: other things being equal, err on the side of fewer programs and regulations instead of more. If you want to help the needy, it's better to use broad-based direct assistance (like food stamps or the EITC) than a more complicated program that singles out some sub-group like farmers.
- shadowOfShadow 13y agoGive poor people money to buy food, they will likely optimize in fat+ ways. Pay people to be healthy. The needy can be healthy. Put a floor under everyone and then progressively incentivize health.
- pjc50 13y agoHealth is its own reward; paying people for healthy _outcomes_ == worse poverty for the chronically unhealthy, partially disabled, and (in the US) victims of the non-healthcare system.
- JoeAltmaier 13y agoPeople need to eat every day. Give people cash, it goes for random things. Give people food stamp - at a minimum they have food. I'm guess you've never been hungry. The folks who invented food stamps were trying to reduce a real problem.