|
Pittsburg, Kansas | I did not really say I wanted the insurance changed. Just that it had negative side effects that encouraged taking on more risk and that affects small or beginning farmers trying to get a foot in the door.
As I said, I have benefitted greatly from current policies. From a strictly selfish stand point, by all means, keep them as is. Another negative about government involvement in things is they can change the rules of the game midstream and that can also be disastrous and often no way to know ahead of time they are going to do it. So abrupt changes in policy also have negative consequences.
From a general libertarian theoretical point of view, less government involvement the better overall for society. That is the general philosophy I go by. From a practical standpoint, I play by the rules of the game given me.
I can express how the rules likely would be better for society in general, although it does not mean it will be better for a specific group or individual. But from a practical standpoint extreme changes are likely to be very destabilizing so I understand even changes for the overall better done reasonably is likely better than a full immediate stop. Traveling 120 mph in an ordinary car is a somewhat dangerous activity. Slowing down to 60 is probably wise. But using a brick wall to go from 120 to 60 is not the way to do it.
My main point was that what government does to "help" likely does help one group. But any help the government gives and benefits one group is always at the expense of another. Government creates nothing. All they can do is shift wealth around. In the case of crop insurance it has helped farmers grow in size, banks manage loan risk, and created more competition resulting in small/new farmers finding it harder to compete. There are no free lunches.
John
Edited by John Burns 1/26/2019 14:44
| |
|
Want to help young/small farmers?
