The arguement for a nationally regulated agriculture system that makes the most sense is that of national security.
Not having enough food is a matter of national security -- people don't care about having twice as much food, but they care a whole bunch about having half as much food. So ensuring that there is always "more than enough" food is important.
What if they required that every food producer "keep a stockpile" of 1 or 2 years production availiable in the case of emergency? It wouldn't have to be the same food, but it could be a substute (ie, powered milk instead of milk) And possibly you would allow producers to contract out such a stockpile.
The more stable your supply, the less of a buffer required. Possibly farmers would only have to keep a 1 year stockpile availiable, while importers would have to keep a 2 year stockpile availiable (on US soil).
In the event of a food shortage, the US government could allow (or require) stockpiles to be depleted and reduce the impact on prices. So while fresh food would become more expensive, preserved food would become cheap, making starvation unlikely.
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.
|