RyanChandler
Well-known member
Pleasant Grove Farms said:so you are saying with the government out of it, food prices in the US wouldn't change and the affluent countries that eat all of our food are just fine in paying the increased cost it would take to produce it and everything would be better....
I wish ppl like you would run for public office so all of our problems would be solved.
Why don't you? You know all the solutions.
(in our isolation, in our local grocery store, there are labels that say, grown in Washing state for apples, grown in Texas for melons, grown in Florida for citrus, product of the USA in the meatcase; but most likely we are an isolated example).
These are pretty commonly known economic principles; not just solutions "I've" come up with. I realize your accounting/finance/economics background is limited, but I feel you- at the very minimum- have the thirst for knowledge/ability required to learn.
You are correct that the most retail food prices wouldn't change. Very little food at your local grocery is grown domestically- despite your anecdotal examples. They are grown in countries that are able to profit from production ag w/o government subsidies; places with lower land cost, lower labor costs, and generally- more suited growing conditions (S. America). Without this price fixing of food, the price would only reflect the intrinsic value of the commodity-
Only the American producers that could profit w/o subsidies would be left in the market to compete. When a product becomes scarcer, what happens to price? This reduced supply would inevitably raise the value of beef. True, there would be less producers, BUT - the American producers with the ability to produce w/o subsidies would be compensated more so than ever.
The future of our economy is in service and technology. It is this technology that allows us to produce the superior food globally demanded.