But you can't grow wheat or raise chicken in 2 weeks, no matter how much money you pour into it.
I think our divergence in opinion comes from how much extra incentives to produce there is between the normal margins and the supply-constrained margins and how helpful that incentives is.
My hunch is that as long as there is a profit to made, extra demand will be met as soon as possible. Massively increasing the profit would help only if it would go towards raising food faster, which I think is not something that can be meaningfully improved in the time-frame we are talking about.
Yours seems to be that it would help us get food faster.
I might be totally wrong, so any data is welcome.
Note that I am talking about a case where raising margin would be forbidden, not raising price if it is necessary to increase production.
Also, this is only for the case where supply and demand did not change long term, and the current demand spike is caused by irrationality (panic buying or people trying to profiteer from panic buyers).
> But you can't grow wheat or raise chicken in 2 weeks, no matter how much money you pour into it.
I can get a lot more for sale though; at some point it becomes cost effective for people to start moving chickens over from other countries by air freight.
There is a price where people will start going out and hunting too. In Australia if the price of meat went up enough we'd start harvesting kangaroos, for example. The meat is a bit tougher than chicken but it is pretty good.
The argument in that sentence, and I don't mean this unpleasantly, is that you are a limited human who can't imagine a way of getting food on the table quickly that costs a lot of money. That is a fault in your imagination rather than a real limit. And if the situation is so dire that no food can be found at any price, people are going to starve whatever is tried so it isn't like it makes much difference in the big picture of this hypothetical. But anything up to that and more people working on the problem will help.
> Massively increasing the profit would help only...
There is a price point where Goldman Sachs employees stop trying to figure out how to screw over the little guy and start trying to get food to people. Until prices have reached that point, more profits will help increase production ASAP.
There is ample evidence that a shortage problem is better solved with subsidies rather than quotas. The main complaint is that subsidies are too effective at triggering oversupplies. There is no faster way of going from shortage to sufficient than throwing money at the problem - so the suggestion here is maybe at least try throwing money at the problem. People don't have to starve; governments can step in and buy them food - but if we need more food paying more to food producers for food is the single most effective way to get it.
I think our divergence in opinion comes from how much extra incentives to produce there is between the normal margins and the supply-constrained margins and how helpful that incentives is.
My hunch is that as long as there is a profit to made, extra demand will be met as soon as possible. Massively increasing the profit would help only if it would go towards raising food faster, which I think is not something that can be meaningfully improved in the time-frame we are talking about. Yours seems to be that it would help us get food faster. I might be totally wrong, so any data is welcome.
Note that I am talking about a case where raising margin would be forbidden, not raising price if it is necessary to increase production. Also, this is only for the case where supply and demand did not change long term, and the current demand spike is caused by irrationality (panic buying or people trying to profiteer from panic buyers).