Comment by yetihehe
10 hours ago
> > consumers get stable and somewhat realistic prices [...] while farmers also get stable income.
> Which? You can't have both
Maybe not in USA. Looks like another problem that only one developed country says is impossible to solve.
But it is solved here, its whats happening.
Food prices are mostly stable (relatively speaking)
> Maybe not in USA.
Maybe not. I grew up on a Canadian dairy farm, and have continued to farm in Canada ever since, so that is beyond my expertise. I have not participated in US-based farming. I can only meaningfully speak to Canadian agriculture.
A connection to the USA is interesting, but what you are trying to get across is not entirely understood on my end. Perhaps not having ties to the USA means I don't have an implied context? Fill me in. I am curious.
You said "You can't have both" on "consumers get stable and somewhat realistic prices [...] while farmers also get stable income."
So, you say a country can't have stable income for farmers and realistic prices for consumers? Allowing to waste some produce and subsidizing farmers seems to be working in Europe (and probably in Canada). We have stable (but higher) prices. When you said we can't have that, I thought you are from USA, they are famous for having problems that are solved everywhere (like universal healthcare and gun violence) and it's a very known meme[0][1][2].
[0] https://x.com/BernieSanders/status/1116082388344422400
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/l55sv4...
[2] https://images7.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED206/66c508dbb70...
> So, you say a country can't have stable income for farmers and realistic prices for consumers?
The topic is supply management. Supply management cannot offer both consumer price stability and stable incomes for farmers at the same time, just as was explained in more detail in the previous comment. At least not in a world where the non-supply managed markets aren't also stable. Of course, if non-supply managed markets are also stable, then this whole thing is moot. The original premise was that non-supply managed markets cannot be stable, and thus that is why supply management is necessary.
> subsidizing farmers seems to be working in Europe (and probably in Canada)
The whole premise behind supply management is that there isn't a (direct) subsidy. Technically the gonvemrent compelling consumers to buy from a monopoly is still an indirect subsidy, granted, but indirect subsidies lose the control that direct subsidies have. You are right that a direct subsidy scheme could allow both stable incomes and stable consumer prices at the same time, but that is not the system Canada has for the aforementioned ag sectors.
> I thought you are from USA
What would someone from the USA know about Canadian agriculture?