Edit: I'm suggesting that feeding (and housing) yourself is a personal responsibility, not a collective one. And that the instrument we use to enforce basic order and peaceful coexistence (punish noncompliance with imprisonment) is far to blunt for enforcing cooperation (helping each other find food/shelter).
This would be an interesting topic if food in the US weren't already the cheapest in the entire world. [1]
[1] https://www.ecowatch.com/worlds-cheapest-food-is-in-the-u-s-...
Edit: just look at the massive harm caused by subsidising corn.
However, I agree there are probably better ways of managing access to food with less regulation, such as repealing the Farm Bill and offering UBI payments in lieu so individuals can decide what they want to eat.
Yes exactly, incentivize not mandate. People should be free to cooperate/not cooperate as they see fit, don't you think?
Why UBI? That's just more mandatory cooperation - the productive are forced to subsidize the non-productive. Can't it be optional?
> it's our responsibility to make sure everyone has some bare minimum standard of living because life is a lottery
Where do you derive this responsibility from? I personally don't agree with imposing responsibilities on anyone without their explicit consent. It's indistinguishable from slavery.
Also who gets do define this "bare minimum"? Why must it include private quarters, private toilets, private kitchens, air conditioning, television, internet, and all sorts of other modern amenities without which people have contentedly lived for milenia?
Edit: Also how would you address labour shortages in agriculture, construction, service, and many other fields?
Clearly some degree of slavery is necessary to support the peaceful coexistence fundamental to society. Namely the army, police, courts, and the commons. Beyond that, no society which purports to value liberty will mandate cooperation. The government, with its supreme power to enslave, should be restricted in scope to the administration of the peace, not ever-expanding into every aspect of our lives.
If their intent was to make homes more affordable they would intervene in the offer side not on the demand side.
It would simply have been better to just make a construction company and sell homes at cost.
1. Manipulates interest rates directly affecting house prices
2. Changes tax rates depending on housing (mortgage interest)
3. Buys mortgages
4. Zones areas which can restrict or increase supply based on policy.
Yes, if they didn’t do any of these, people wouldn’t blame government policy and we’d see what a functioning market results in.
Just because something is traded doesn't make it an appreciating asset. In the case of commodities, they're typically traded as risk management instruments, not something that inherently provides returns.
("Homer vs. Patty and Selma", Simpsons S06E17)
H. J. Simpson was doing this back in 1995, though to be fair he was in futures, rather than the raw asset.
Regardless it's extremely affordable for most people
throughout history. society has not been kind to people who tried this. scalping staple foods usually leads to bread riots. and because food is absolutely biologically required to survive, those usually turned very violent.
This is actually exactly the issue with housing. The market is controlled by municipalities who are elected by NIMBYs. The only reasonable thing to do in these conditions is to buy as much housing as you can, since your assets are protected from competition (local densification) by the government. We've literally regulated ourselves into this crisis. The solution can't be more regulation.
Edit: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_middle_housing