I've studied economics well, I just haven't come to the same conclusion as you.
Piece of unsolicited advice, take it or leave it:
I would suggest that, if you want to be taken seriously, you present your ideas in a way that demonstrates your understanding of the nuance involved. When you say things like "all a subsidy does is X" and imply simple A-B causal relationships between the public and private sectors, it's hard to believe that you have considered these issues thoroughly, as opposed to merely another axe grinder.
These are real-world systems, which deeply impact the lives of millions of people. To simply dismiss them or force them to fit into Platonic molds is silly.
I appreciate your advice. I kept my post short because I think long posts tend to get tedious and discourage a healthy back and forth. But please don't assume I haven't thoroughly considered the issue.
> I've studied economics well, I just haven't come to the same conclusion as you.
What are your conclusions? It would be more fruitful to hear your thoughts on the issue rather than a critique of my presentation style.
I'm not trying to grind an axe by stating that a subsidy "shift[s] the burden of cost from the consumers to the taxpayers." Wikipedia's statement on the impact of subsidies is nearly identical to mine:
"Farm subsidies have the direct effect of transferring income from the general tax payers to farm owners."
I agree with you that the system is complex. The complexity is precisely what makes it difficult to identify the hidden costs of subsidies.
A subsidy takes taxpayer money and transfers it to producers of a certain good. I think this is inherently unfair, regardless of whether it's done with good intentions. I think the only fair method is to let people choose for themselves how they want to spend their money without coercion.
I'm a vegan, and believe my food choices make a positive impact in terms of the environment and reducing environmental cruelty. But I think it's immoral to force that same belief on others using the apparatus of government. It would be unfair for the government to intervene and make it prohibitively expensive to buy meat or animal products.
In addition to being inherently immoral (IMHO), subsidies have unanticipated costs and unforeseen consequences. Some examples:
- The artificially low price of the subsidized good leads to an artificially high demand for the subsidized good at the expense of demand for competing goods that are not subsidized. This hurts the producers of those unsubsidized goods.
- The corn subsidy has driven the price of corn syrup below that of cane sugar, making corn syrup the sweetener of choice in mass produced foods. Corn syrup is an inferior sweetener and leads to health problems such as obesity.
If you require links to supporting commentary I'm happy to provide them.
I don't doubt that many subsidies are created with good intentions, but because of the unseen costs and consequences, it is prudent, for the long term health of an economy, to avoid them.
I find almost all vegans annoying, particularly because they have no understanding of economics, or human behavior or the importance of either. So it's refreshing to see someone who is vegan and also cares about those things; I also am vegan.
This thread is getting out of hand for HN but I'd like to continue it; if you'd like to also, my email address is in my profile. Thanks,
Piece of unsolicited advice, take it or leave it:
I would suggest that, if you want to be taken seriously, you present your ideas in a way that demonstrates your understanding of the nuance involved. When you say things like "all a subsidy does is X" and imply simple A-B causal relationships between the public and private sectors, it's hard to believe that you have considered these issues thoroughly, as opposed to merely another axe grinder.
These are real-world systems, which deeply impact the lives of millions of people. To simply dismiss them or force them to fit into Platonic molds is silly.