Many argue about the need to protect/boost agriculture and industry. Those are declining areas of the economy, especially when it comes to jobs.
Yet little advocacy for making it cheaper to buy services and more expensive to buy goods? Even though most workers are employed in the service sector, and have been for some time.
@LeoSammallahti I find it unclear what you are getting at outside of the lobbying power of big ag/industry. Advocacy for cheaper services, but more expensive goods? Does that benefit the service worker?
I am similarly unsure of the intention here. Leo, are you making a lightweight economy argument, that the service sector permits economic growth with less resource use, while combining that with the observation that we're mostly a service sector economy anyway so why not?
I don't have a clear opinion one way or another on the idea of services stimulus (which I think is what you are arguing for), but I do think that if we intelligently redesigned agriculture and industry there would be more small scale production of necessary goods, which I think would tend to shift the job market away from services.
@LeoSammallahti @dynamic Services cheaper equals lower salaries for service workers or cost of overhead reductions. I assume goods means nonessential goods or the service worker gets a possible double negative impact.
@LeoSammallahti @dynamic Maybe I'm focusing on "cheaper" when the meaning is affordable. Cost of essential goods rising would have to be more than offset by tax cuts.
We are probably talking around each other. I think I now understand your original post as focus on services rather than consumption of goods, and achieve affordability through better government spending/more sensible taxing.
Yes I didn't express myself clearly enough.
Alongside taxation another thing that could be good would be to build dense urban areas. Services tend to do better in that sort of environment.
Set up a hot dog stand in a busy location in Tokyo and you will have more customers than you can possibly serve.
@LeoSammallahti @dynamic I'm more for tearing down urban areas. I think high population density creates more problems than solutions; it's not ecologically sound, but the only way out is to put the human population into balance with the world resources. i.e., massive population reduction.
OTOH, you're absolutely right about higher population density easing access to services.
When trying to enable more ecological lifestyle, like drastically reducing car usage, would find it hard to pursue without more density.
Also skeptical about whether small farms can be productive enough to compete with big farms in providing affordable food to people without subsidies.
Of course people would be free to set up farms and live how they want to live, but don't think we should subsidise farming.
@LeoSammallahti
I found this thread a bit troublesome. The focus on consumption (as if its an inevitable thing that will always happen at a certain level and can be directed) and using tax incentives to use markets to shift where it will happen
May in a large part be me and my feelings that moving more stuff back outside of market mechanisms is likely part of overcoming many problems we face
re: farm production & subsidies covered much in this thread https://social.coop/@dazinism/105319428630493493
@lwriemen@social.librem.one @dynamic
@LeoSammallahti @dynamic @lwriemen
If you look at the thread I linked you'll get an idea of the huge subsidies in the ag sector.
Economic and political power is often projected and/or focused through this sector (see eg. United Fruit Company in Guatamala, China buying up vast areas of ag land in Africa, all the grain be taken out of Ireland during the potato famine, etc. etc.)
The control of production and distribution of these vital resources are critical.
Can't see ag subsidies ending...
1/2
@LeoSammallahti @dynamic @lwriemen
โฆ without major changes to the way international economic and political relationships are played out.
(do look at the thread I linked for some details of trends in the ag sector)
@dazinism @LeoSammallahti @dynamic I don't think one can make a blanket judgement regarding ag subsidies. i.e., there are societal-valid reasons for subsidizing agriculture. The trouble is that most ag subsidies today are done for invalid reasons.
