That's what I said: the choice you have....either subsidized the water or pay a higher price for the produce.
And my answer is to pay the higher price for produce. Let the people who produce the product pay the cost for producing it, than indirectly you get the people who use the product, pay the real cost involved in their use of it.
I didn't say they were as important as oil.
You said they where almost, or nearly, as important as oil. Still this isn't all that important. If you want to drop this sub-thread I'd be fine, even happy with that idea. If you want one last comment, I'm not particularly likely to respond to it. No point in going down the path of a long discussion about who said what when.
When this post exchange started, you seemed to downplay the importance of the SJ Valley to the US.
I didn't say that it wasn't important. I said 1 - The products grown their aren't as important as oil. 2 - The products grown there can be grown elsewhere, at least the majority of them, and likely all of them. And 3 - The growers there should have to pay the real cost for the water they use (the market cost to the extent that the government intervention in the water supply business has left any real market cost, failing that, at least the cost of production and distribution, but a market cost, changing in response to changes in supply and demand would be better).
None of which equals "the products of SJ Valley are not important". More like "the products of SJ Valley are not uniquely important in some way that means they should receive massive subsidies".
Once again, I am saying it's produce may not be as important as oil but there would be a significant economic dislocation if the Valley stopped producing what its producing.
And to a large extent the valley wouldn't stop producing what its producing.
But, I'll examine the counter-factual hypothetical, assume that all the production would stop without the subsidies. In a world where that was the case, it would mean that the production was not producing a net real economic benefit. Or to put it another way the producers receiving the subsidies would already be destroying wealth.
I call it a counter-factual because I'm pretty certain its not true. I'm only bring up the hypothetical to show that even in the worst case scenario (where all of the production requires subsidies), its still isn't a good idea to have the subsidies. |
