If they cap prices on food, then you'll see food shortages instead of expensive food
How so? In my country, certain basic food items are priced capped AND rationed, meaning you're only allowed to buy a certain amount of it at a time.
> but but but muh freedum market$$
No! Worldwide, the agricultural sector is THE MOST SUBSIDISED economic field. You can't have it both ways. If taxpayers' money is used to prop up your business, you have a duty to the taxpayers and country.
Subsidies may distort the market but they don't change the existence of the supply/demand curve. Any producer of a product is going to sell their goods to the highest bidder, and if someone is capping what a product can sell for that means capping what they can purchase the product for. Grocery stores aren't going to sell for a loss.
If the central government enacts a scheme of rationing and central purchasing, that's one thing. But in a free market situation if a grocery in country A will buy lentils for €1 a kg and country B can only pay €.50 then the lentils are getting sold to country A until that demand is fulfilled. Which means shortages in country B.
Considering how much billionaires hoard, im happy just tacking a sales quota on at the same time so they just have to eat losses for a bit. People eating is more important, and frankly anything that forces the robber barons to lose money back into the system is a good thing
Why wouldn't they just close their business if it was unprofitable
They could, and if they do, the land it occupied should be seized and turned into a community owned cooperative.
Cool, so, the government can just turn into bandits if we don't like what private citizens do on their own land. Oh, and if they complain, why not just send them to the gulag?
Yeah it's not cool to seize commercially zoned land when a corporation is idling on it because it doesn't like a policy, that's a communism guys!
However, seizing residential land so that we can build another casino on it... that's just the wonderous free market at work!
Edit: eminent domain isn't communism, pick up a grade school civics book
Eminent domain involves compensation at fair market value, not theft. And typically, we use property taxes to motivate property owners to find economically productive uses for their land/buildings.
a) you'd be surprised how little the "fair market value" often is under eminent domain
b) no we don't, if we did we'd be largely following georgism... The majority of current property taxes tax improvements on the land, not the land itself. It's often cheaper to have an empty lot than a functioning business.
Land value taxes are great. But even without them, it makes little sense to have a potentially functioning, commercially viable plot of land sitting empty. Any rational company is going to sell or lease that land out. Including farmers.
As long as it's commercially viable.
But even without them, it makes little sense to have a potentially functioning, commercially viable plot of land sitting empty.
"It makes little sense" and yet it happens all of the time precisely because unlike the fictional policy set you concocted for your argument, we actually don't incentivize people to make the best use of their land through property taxes.
Most localities in the US tax land improvements instead of the land itself, which is the exact opposite of what you were saying we do.
I've never seen a property tax scheme which isn't partly based on the land value. So....
A society that values an individuals right to profit over the collectives right to eat is not a just or moral society, and it is the collective responsibility of the many to change the society to preclude from such possibilities. If that means sending mentally ill speculators and unethical industrial farmers to prison, then so be it. Better than sending the poor and minorities there for crimes of poverty only necessitated by others greed in the first place.
Speaking of gulags, why does the US have both the highest prison population and highest per capita prison population in the world, if we don’t already send people to the gulag?
You might have a point if communist nations didn't have a history of dismal agricultural failures and capitalist countries didn't have a history of food surplus. Lmao
Also, whataboutism with the US prison population doesn't excuse locking up political prisoners, since you're apparently fine apologizing for that.
Political prisoners like Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Fred Burton, “Xinachitli” Alvaro Hernandez, Reverend Joy Powell, Ghassan Elashi, Mufid Abdulqader and Shukri Abu-Baker, Eric King, Daniel Hale, Alex Saab, Ed Poindexter, Veronza Bowers, Jessica Reznicek, Emmanuel Quinones, or any of the hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers illegally detained at the border and held in concentration camps every year? Or lest we forget Edward Snowden, who fled the nation to avoid becoming a political prisoner, or Chelsea Manning who spent 7 years as a political prisoner, or Julian Assange of course?
Look, I’m not defending political prisoners, I’m calling out your random talk of gulag as what it is, a lack of reflection on the most heavily criminalized and incarcerated society in known history and a rabid reactionary whataboutism when faced with the inherent injustice the system we currently have represents.
You couldn't list off the political prisoners of communist regimes in a month if you never stopped typing. And yes, I got your point. It was whataboutism. You want to talk about overuse of prisons in the US, you can, but the US doesn't lock up people because they disagree with the government. Every communist regime has. Brutal authoritarianism is a defining feature of communism.
They literally do. They manufacture crimes with no witnesses nor evidence against prominent dissidents and imprison them for life.
Most food here is locally produced, I don't see how that would create a shortage. Like people aren't going to sell their grocery stores cuz their margins are thin again and farming is so heavily subsidised that I don't see it effecting farmers.
If a local producer can get more selling to someone in the next country, they will. Basic economics. Prohibit them from doing so and they might plant something more profitable or just say "fuck it" and let their fields lie fallow, if they're not making a profit. Farming ain't free and farmers are on thin margins.
Small farms are long gone. Farmers the the most heavily subsidized sector in the country, and they’re not run by Ma and pa, but big multi-national corporations who use extractive agriculture that damages the soil, results in worse yields than more sustainable agriculture, and requires insane amounts of chemical fertilizers, is rapidly contributing to the death of all of our most critical pollinators.
I have really almost no sympathy for monoculture farmers who grow thousands of acres of almonds using trillions of gallons of water in a state perpetually under severe drought.
Literally, just by seizing the lands used to grow alfalfa for Saudi Arabia and almonds in California, the majority of the country could be fed cheap on low water, low maintanence, high yield food forests. We don’t need to subsidize murder farms where pigs are fed to their children as slurry when that same land could be used for vertical gardening.
The use of farmland for exclusively profit driven reasons is what drove the Great Depression. Farmers don’t deserve
A profit if what they’re growing isn’t sustainable or catered towards the health of the people.
🙄
*affecting
And you're wrong. Farmers and grocery stores are already operating on thin margins. Sure we could double subsidies but then why not just make food free instead? How about we just make food free for people who can't afford it, maybe with some sort of special card
Farmers yes, grocery stores not anymore. Profits of companies is public info here and they started racking it in the moment the massive 'inflation' started. My parents live near a farm and they just buy veggies directly from them for like a fraction of the price, I unfortunately live in a city though. Prices are better at local markets but there arent many of those.
Prices are better from a farm because you're skipping two steps on the distribution chain, at least - a food warehouse and the grocery store. Could be three, some grocery stores buy from an intermediate warehouse distributor that services smaller stores.
So potatoes might be sold at .20 on a farm and .50 at the store, because they need to be sold twice to reach the store, transported twice, bagged, washed, stored twice, and finally placed in the retail front for sale.
Why did you ignore the part where I said that the profits for grocery stores soared? Producing food has not become more expensive, that's all public info here.
It runs the risk of affecting the farmers a lot especially in Europe where they will soon have to deal with very expensive electricity. So the government would have to know that it's really price gouging and not a necessity (I believe it's price gouging, but governments can't (or shouldn't) make rash decisions on beliefs.)
If they cap prices on food, then you'll see food shortages instead of expensive food
How so? In my country, certain basic food items are priced capped AND rationed, meaning you're only allowed to buy a certain amount of it at a time.
> but but but muh freedum market$$
No! Worldwide, the agricultural sector is THE MOST SUBSIDISED economic field. You can't have it both ways. If taxpayers' money is used to prop up your business, you have a duty to the taxpayers and country.
Subsidies may distort the market but they don't change the existence of the supply/demand curve. Any producer of a product is going to sell their goods to the highest bidder, and if someone is capping what a product can sell for that means capping what they can purchase the product for. Grocery stores aren't going to sell for a loss.
If the central government enacts a scheme of rationing and central purchasing, that's one thing. But in a free market situation if a grocery in country A will buy lentils for €1 a kg and country B can only pay €.50 then the lentils are getting sold to country A until that demand is fulfilled. Which means shortages in country B.
Considering how much billionaires hoard, im happy just tacking a sales quota on at the same time so they just have to eat losses for a bit. People eating is more important, and frankly anything that forces the robber barons to lose money back into the system is a good thing
Why wouldn't they just close their business if it was unprofitable
They could, and if they do, the land it occupied should be seized and turned into a community owned cooperative.
Cool, so, the government can just turn into bandits if we don't like what private citizens do on their own land. Oh, and if they complain, why not just send them to the gulag?
Yeah it's not cool to seize commercially zoned land when a corporation is idling on it because it doesn't like a policy, that's a communism guys!
However, seizing residential land so that we can build another casino on it... that's just the wonderous free market at work!
Edit: eminent domain isn't communism, pick up a grade school civics book
Eminent domain involves compensation at fair market value, not theft. And typically, we use property taxes to motivate property owners to find economically productive uses for their land/buildings.
a) you'd be surprised how little the "fair market value" often is under eminent domain
b) no we don't, if we did we'd be largely following georgism... The majority of current property taxes tax improvements on the land, not the land itself. It's often cheaper to have an empty lot than a functioning business.
Land value taxes are great. But even without them, it makes little sense to have a potentially functioning, commercially viable plot of land sitting empty. Any rational company is going to sell or lease that land out. Including farmers.
As long as it's commercially viable.
"It makes little sense" and yet it happens all of the time precisely because unlike the fictional policy set you concocted for your argument, we actually don't incentivize people to make the best use of their land through property taxes.
Most localities in the US tax land improvements instead of the land itself, which is the exact opposite of what you were saying we do.
I've never seen a property tax scheme which isn't partly based on the land value. So....
A society that values an individuals right to profit over the collectives right to eat is not a just or moral society, and it is the collective responsibility of the many to change the society to preclude from such possibilities. If that means sending mentally ill speculators and unethical industrial farmers to prison, then so be it. Better than sending the poor and minorities there for crimes of poverty only necessitated by others greed in the first place.
Speaking of gulags, why does the US have both the highest prison population and highest per capita prison population in the world, if we don’t already send people to the gulag?
You might have a point if communist nations didn't have a history of dismal agricultural failures and capitalist countries didn't have a history of food surplus. Lmao
Also, whataboutism with the US prison population doesn't excuse locking up political prisoners, since you're apparently fine apologizing for that.
Political prisoners like Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Fred Burton, “Xinachitli” Alvaro Hernandez, Reverend Joy Powell, Ghassan Elashi, Mufid Abdulqader and Shukri Abu-Baker, Eric King, Daniel Hale, Alex Saab, Ed Poindexter, Veronza Bowers, Jessica Reznicek, Emmanuel Quinones, or any of the hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers illegally detained at the border and held in concentration camps every year? Or lest we forget Edward Snowden, who fled the nation to avoid becoming a political prisoner, or Chelsea Manning who spent 7 years as a political prisoner, or Julian Assange of course?
Look, I’m not defending political prisoners, I’m calling out your random talk of gulag as what it is, a lack of reflection on the most heavily criminalized and incarcerated society in known history and a rabid reactionary whataboutism when faced with the inherent injustice the system we currently have represents.
You couldn't list off the political prisoners of communist regimes in a month if you never stopped typing. And yes, I got your point. It was whataboutism. You want to talk about overuse of prisons in the US, you can, but the US doesn't lock up people because they disagree with the government. Every communist regime has. Brutal authoritarianism is a defining feature of communism.
They literally do. They manufacture crimes with no witnesses nor evidence against prominent dissidents and imprison them for life.
Whatever lies you need to tell yourself, kiddo
Most food here is locally produced, I don't see how that would create a shortage. Like people aren't going to sell their grocery stores cuz their margins are thin again and farming is so heavily subsidised that I don't see it effecting farmers.
If a local producer can get more selling to someone in the next country, they will. Basic economics. Prohibit them from doing so and they might plant something more profitable or just say "fuck it" and let their fields lie fallow, if they're not making a profit. Farming ain't free and farmers are on thin margins.
Small farms are long gone. Farmers the the most heavily subsidized sector in the country, and they’re not run by Ma and pa, but big multi-national corporations who use extractive agriculture that damages the soil, results in worse yields than more sustainable agriculture, and requires insane amounts of chemical fertilizers, is rapidly contributing to the death of all of our most critical pollinators.
I have really almost no sympathy for monoculture farmers who grow thousands of acres of almonds using trillions of gallons of water in a state perpetually under severe drought.
Literally, just by seizing the lands used to grow alfalfa for Saudi Arabia and almonds in California, the majority of the country could be fed cheap on low water, low maintanence, high yield food forests. We don’t need to subsidize murder farms where pigs are fed to their children as slurry when that same land could be used for vertical gardening.
The use of farmland for exclusively profit driven reasons is what drove the Great Depression. Farmers don’t deserve A profit if what they’re growing isn’t sustainable or catered towards the health of the people.
🙄
*affecting
And you're wrong. Farmers and grocery stores are already operating on thin margins. Sure we could double subsidies but then why not just make food free instead? How about we just make food free for people who can't afford it, maybe with some sort of special card
Farmers yes, grocery stores not anymore. Profits of companies is public info here and they started racking it in the moment the massive 'inflation' started. My parents live near a farm and they just buy veggies directly from them for like a fraction of the price, I unfortunately live in a city though. Prices are better at local markets but there arent many of those.
Prices are better from a farm because you're skipping two steps on the distribution chain, at least - a food warehouse and the grocery store. Could be three, some grocery stores buy from an intermediate warehouse distributor that services smaller stores.
So potatoes might be sold at .20 on a farm and .50 at the store, because they need to be sold twice to reach the store, transported twice, bagged, washed, stored twice, and finally placed in the retail front for sale.
Why did you ignore the part where I said that the profits for grocery stores soared? Producing food has not become more expensive, that's all public info here.
It runs the risk of affecting the farmers a lot especially in Europe where they will soon have to deal with very expensive electricity. So the government would have to know that it's really price gouging and not a necessity (I believe it's price gouging, but governments can't (or shouldn't) make rash decisions on beliefs.)