This is an opinion editorial by Mickey Koss, a West Point graduate with a degree in economics. He spent four years in the infantry before transitioning to the Finance Corps.
Dutch Farmers are out in strength as a new pollution policy[1] is expected to cause one in three livestock farmers in the country to lose their businesses. While I think we can all agree that less pollution is better, the proposed solution doesn’t even fix the problem, it just moves the pollution somewhere else. The only thing the Netherlands seems to actually be reducing is domestic food security at the expense of their farmers.
Fiat society breeds fiat mindsets; fiat mindsets breed fiat solutions. If we can’t see the problem anymore, then it must have been fixed, right?
The government wants farmers to reduce pollution stemming from animal waste. An admiral goal — a low time-preference goal. I don’t think anyone would disagree with this policy in principle. The unreasonable timeline, however, seems to be a coercive measure to force these farmers out of business.
Will Dutch animal product consumption go down based on this legislation?
What will happen to emissions now that animal products presumably have to travel further to reach markets?
What does the government think about animal waste in the locations from which the Netherlands will need to import their goods now?
It’s hard not to think that decisions like this weren’t really thought out on a long time horizon. Fiat currencies lack scarcity, the absence of which obscures the idea of trade-offs. In a system without scarcity, people are tricked into thinking they can have their beef and eat it too; if I can’t see the poop, then it’s no longer a problem.
Incentives Are Stronger Than Coercion
The view of
