Should government ever intervene in markets ?

[lazy farmer]

If no why ?
If yes when and why?(not just storage intervention)

 

[delilah]

Govts intervene in markets on a daily basis. A market is both supply and demand.
Supply they intervene via a whole host of measures; BPS/stewardship/ welfare and envi regs/ planning rules etc etc, all have an effect on agricultural output.
Demand likewise a whole range of influences. Two notable ones; legislation that determines market share in food retailing, and purchasing policies for Govt institutions. Both have a fundamental impact on the demand for agric output.
The question isn't should Govt intervene in the market, but how and to what ends should they intervene.

 

[betweenthelines]

Subsidies distort "free market" prices. Most of the Western World subsidise markets in one way or another

Astute buyers will only pay the minimum that the seller will accept-and that is nearly always less than COP (in the UK) because farmers are heavily subsidised.

And before "unsubsidised" farmers complain, what about red diesel, reclaiming VAT, tax averaging, farmhouses down valued for Council tax etc etc. other than a subsidy?

 

[Ribble]

Yes they should intervene, in amixed strategy. The Soviet route of entirely planned by the state sector, or the American route of entirely planned by private sector have both been proved equally a failure.

The best intervention the government could make would be to fund a guaranteed part time job offer for anyone unemployed. Say 16-24 hours available at minimum wage, with every council or reputable charity invited to offer part time work where the central government picks up the entire tab.

We would have lots of useful labour available to improve communities for roughly the same price as the dole queue currently costs.

 

[Courier]

Should government ever intervene in markets ?

Depends on whether or not shortage of a commodity is likely to cause serious popular unrest - A significant shortage of staple foods would do just that.....In fact a small shortage of some items would do......

 

[teslacoils]

Yes, but only from a place of strength. IE not trying to prop up sterling for vanity.

 

[thesilentone]

Which principle market do they not intervene in ?

 

[betweenthelines]

Yes they should intervene, in amixed strategy. The Soviet route of entirely planned by the state sector, or the American route of entirely planned by private sector have both been proved equally a failure.

The best intervention the government could make would be to fund a guaranteed part time job offer for anyone unemployed. Say 16-24 hours available at minimum wage, with every council or reputable charity invited to offer part time work where the central government picks up the entire tab.

We would have lots of useful labour available to improve communities for roughly the same price as the dole queue currently costs.

US government subsidised it's farmers to the tune of £20 billion dollars in 2019. And, as said above what is an import tariff other than a way to artificially increase farmgate prices?

And if you "create" jobs in the community you are just putting a different group of people out of work-get someone off the dole to sweep the streets and what's Trigger going to do?

 

[Dry Rot]

More to the point, when has government NOT intervened and what was the result?

 

[Ribble]

US government subsidised it's farmers to the tune of £20 billion dollars in 2019. And, as said above what is an import tariff other than a way to artificially increase farmgate prices?

And if you "create" jobs in the community you are just putting a different group of people out of work-get someone off the dole to sweep the streets and what's Trigger going to do?

Councils can and do already offer a variety of roles more than sweeping up.

Finding work for people to do for the local authority isn't difficult, in fact there's a long list of things they can't currently afford but want to provide.

All I'm proposing is that instead of someone collecting say £600 a month from the government for being unemployed and having no other options, we give people the guaranteed option of working 60 hours a month for the community at £10 an hour.

The person gets work experience, the community gets 'nice to have' things done, all for the same cost as currently paying someone to attend the job centre.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Yes.

Governments are there to guarantee to the tax paying population a level of service.

That should be in water, electric, gas, food and transport. Without a certain level of service in these areas work cannot happen, taxes cannot happen and therefore government cannot happen.

Also governments have the financial backing to take on very large projects whilst organising populations and companies to that end.

IMHO governments SHOULD be ensuring the regulation they apply to their population also applies to imports otherwise this detrimentaly affects their lives and incomes. BUT I don't see this happening, to me this is a no brainer.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

More to the point, when has government NOT intervened and what was the result?

Coal mining, and it got closed down.

 

[Cowmansam]

US government subsidised it's farmers to the tune of £20 billion dollars in 2019. And, as said above what is an import tariff other than a way to artificially increase farmgate prices?

And if you "create" jobs in the community you are just putting a different group of people out of work-get someone off the dole to sweep the streets and what's Trigger going to do?

Trigger does nowt anyway

 

[wanton dwarf]

what is an import tariff other than a way to artificially increase farmgate prices?

Imagine being able to wage war on others based on destroying asset prices .. hence the need for tariffs. If David Cameron had place a tariff on Chinese Steel maybe British Steel would still be paying good wages and pensions to 10,000s of people.

Of course in the case of agriculture, the ramifications of not having Neonicitinoids has been barely felt by the UK population thanks to importing millions of tonnes of Ukrainian Oilseed Rape. Grown WITH neonicitinoids of course.

 

[Chae1]

If there was a shortage of food or it became too expensive I'm pretty sure the government would intervene.

 

[Wombat]

Yes just look at buses, trains, power etc if they weren’t propped up on a daily basis they would be even worse than they are now

 

[delilah]

Yes they should intervene, in amixed strategy. The Soviet route of entirely planned by the state sector, or the American route of entirely planned by private sector have both been proved equally a failure.

US government subsidised it's farmers to the tune of £20 billion dollars in 2019. And, as said above what is an import tariff other than a way to artificially increase farmgate prices?

The USA proves this point: All meaningful change is demand driven.
Governments can intervene in the supply side of the equation as much as they like, if the demand side isn't functioning properly they are wasting their time and taxpayers money.

 

[betweenthelines]

Imagine being able to wage war on others based on destroying asset prices .. hence the need for tariffs. If David Cameron had place a tariff on Chinese Steel maybe British Steel would still be paying good wages and pensions to 10,000s of people.

Of course in the case of agriculture, the ramifications of not having Neonicitinoids has been barely felt by the UK population thanks to importing millions of tonnes of Ukrainian Oilseed Rape. Grown WITH neonicitinoids of course.
[/QUOTE]

But you need to look at the whole picture. Putting a tariff on steel imports would have pushed up UK manufacturing costs and made UK Plc uncompetetive with non tariffed Countries as well as risking losing Chinese investment in the UK

 

[betweenthelines]

Councils can and do already offer a variety of roles more than sweeping up.

Finding work for people to do for the local authority isn't difficult, in fact there's a long list of things they can't currently afford but want to provide.

All I'm proposing is that instead of someone collecting say £600 a month from the government for being unemployed and having no other options, we give people the guaranteed option of working 60 hours a month for the community at £10 an hour.

The person gets work experience, the community gets 'nice to have' things done, all for the same cost as currently paying someone to attend the job centre.

No you're wrong. The unemployed person gets coerced into doing a job that should be done as a Community Service Court sentence for little or no extra money. How would you feel if finding yourself unemployed for reasons beyond your control, you were told you had to spend 2 days/week litter picking in the nearest park or you'd lose your benefits?

What the vast majority of unemployed people need is retraining in the skills that will be needed in the future

 

[Y Fan Wen]

Councils can and do already offer a variety of roles more than sweeping up.

Finding work for people to do for the local authority isn't difficult, in fact there's a long list of things they can't currently afford but want to provide.

All I'm proposing is that instead of someone collecting say £600 a month from the government for being unemployed and having no other options, we give people the guaranteed option of working 60 hours a month for the community at £10 an hour.

The person gets work experience, the community gets 'nice to have' things done, all for the same cost as currently paying someone to attend the job centre.

What are your thoughts about Universal Basic Income? I've been trying to understand how it would work and not really succeeding.
However, with the march of automation it may become necessary to introduce it.