3 ms·

Food is essential to survival, but we don't rely on the government to provide it.

by judk 13y ago

loup-vaillant 13y ago
Whatever is essential needs to be reliable. Granted, there are several ways to do it, of which state monopoly is only one, and I reckon, often not the best: centrally planned economy works rather poorly, as demonstrated by the Soviet Union. But you do need to ensure the reliability of your chosen mechanism. You can't just unleash the market on it, and hope for a good result. Unconstrained capitalism doesn't last, as demonstrated by its numerous crises, most notably in 1929. Most of the time, the government will just heavily manipulate the market into doing what it wants to do. American farms are heavily subsided, for instance. Doesn't work too poorly, and lasts quite long. Even if you strongly believe in free market and cut-throat competition, you need to ensure the market stays free somehow. You don't want any challenger to actually win.
nknighthb 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Security_Commodity_Reserve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Security_Commodity_Reserve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy The restrictions at issue are protectionism run amok, but you do nobody any favors by making easily-debunked non-arguments.
- makomk 13y ago
  Even with agricultural subsidies, the food is still grown and supplied by businesses and not the government. Kyllo was arguing that any businesses which are so essential as to justify the government intervening - as it does with agricultural subsidies - should be part of the government and not private businesses at all.
  - kyllo 13y ago
    Yes, either they should be part of the government, or they should have to actually compete on the free market without government protection. I detest monopolies that are propped up and protected by government subsidies and regulations. The people who run such businesses are enriching themselves through rent-seeking behavior at the public's expense, and then taking bailouts when they can't make a profit, all under false pretenses like "stability," quality control, and regulatory compliance, which are really just protectionism. They enjoy this privilege because they have well-placed friends in the government, thanks to lobbying and campaign contributions. It is a form of corruption. If a business is too big or too essential to fail, it should be a function of the government, so that there is public oversight/accountability and no rent-seeking at consumers' expense. Otherwise, it needs to be allowed to fail and be replaced by competitors, if it is not financially viable. If such a business is allowed to fail and is not replaced by a competitor, it was probably not that "essential" after all.

Food is essential to survival, but we don't rely on the government to provide it.

by judk 13y ago

Food is essential to survival, but we don't rely on the government to provide it.

Whatever is essential needs to be reliable. Granted, there are several ways to do it, of which state monopoly is only one, and I reckon, often not the best: centrally planned economy works rather poorly, as demonstrated by the Soviet Union. But you do need to ensure the reliability of your chosen mechanism. You can't just unleash the market on it, and hope for a good result. Unconstrained capitalism doesn't last, as demonstrated by its numerous crises, most notably in 1929. Most of the time, the government will just heavily manipulate the market into doing what it wants to do. American farms are heavily subsided, for instance. Doesn't work too poorly, and lasts quite long. Even if you strongly believe in free market and cut-throat competition, you need to ensure the market stays free somehow. You don't want any challenger to actually win.

nknighthb 13y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Security_Commodity_Reserve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Security_Commodity_Reserve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy The restrictions at issue are protectionism run amok, but you do nobody any favors by making easily-debunked non-arguments.

makomk 13y ago
Even with agricultural subsidies, the food is still grown and supplied by businesses and not the government. Kyllo was arguing that any businesses which are so essential as to justify the government intervening - as it does with agricultural subsidies - should be part of the government and not private businesses at all.
- kyllo 13y ago
  Yes, either they should be part of the government, or they should have to actually compete on the free market without government protection. I detest monopolies that are propped up and protected by government subsidies and regulations. The people who run such businesses are enriching themselves through rent-seeking behavior at the public's expense, and then taking bailouts when they can't make a profit, all under false pretenses like "stability," quality control, and regulatory compliance, which are really just protectionism. They enjoy this privilege because they have well-placed friends in the government, thanks to lobbying and campaign contributions. It is a form of corruption. If a business is too big or too essential to fail, it should be a function of the government, so that there is public oversight/accountability and no rent-seeking at consumers' expense. Otherwise, it needs to be allowed to fail and be replaced by competitors, if it is not financially viable. If such a business is allowed to fail and is not replaced by a competitor, it was probably not that "essential" after all.