A lot of arguments see to be that it tastes better. I don’t want to argue subjective tastes. However, in terms of economics, the better taste would mean that there is no need to subsidize it. The market would bear the additional cost if the taste and utility of milk is there. The question posed is still relevant: why do we subsidize it? Everyone arguing how much better it is than the alternatives are just proving the point that we shouldn’t be subsidizing it.
it’s just a century long marketing scam that is now so big it would cause an economic recession to dismantle it over night. It will take a few decades for the subsidies to be lowered, and probably will never go to zero.
A taxpayer funded subsidy is a form of wealth redistribution. It takes a little bit of money from everyone and makes a tasty foodstuff more affordable for everyone. Forcing the poors to drink nasty nut juice isn’t exactly what I consider an improvement for society.
A lot of arguments see to be that it tastes better. I don’t want to argue subjective tastes. However, in terms of economics, the better taste would mean that there is no need to subsidize it. The market would bear the additional cost if the taste and utility of milk is there. The question posed is still relevant: why do we subsidize it? Everyone arguing how much better it is than the alternatives are just proving the point that we shouldn’t be subsidizing it.
it’s just a century long marketing scam that is now so big it would cause an economic recession to dismantle it over night. It will take a few decades for the subsidies to be lowered, and probably will never go to zero.
A taxpayer funded subsidy is a form of wealth redistribution. It takes a little bit of money from everyone and makes a tasty foodstuff more affordable for everyone. Forcing the poors to drink nasty nut juice isn’t exactly what I consider an improvement for society.