I'm going to go with option E: the government installs a giant price-enforcing robot to make sure everyone obeys the minimum price. What could possibly go wrong?
I'm going with option C. If the minimum price is set just right, it might not affect the market price or producer incomes at all. Though I'm not sure how realistic that is in practice.
Option D seems plausible. The higher farm incomes might be good in the short term, but eventually the government may have to step in with production quotas to manage the surplus.
Hmm, I was leaning towards option A. A government-imposed minimum price would disrupt the normal market forces and create incentives for people to try and get around the policy.
True, it's important to consider all the possible consequences before implementing a government-imposed minimum price. It can have a significant impact on the market.
That's a good point, option B could also be a valid description of the impact of a government minimum price. It really depends on how the policy is implemented.
I think you're right, option A seems to be the most accurate. It would definitely lead to a shortage and encourage people to find ways to bypass the minimum price.
I agree, option B seems to be the most accurate. It makes sense that a minimum price above the free market price would result in a surplus of unsold produce.
Alona
2 months agoKaran
10 days agoLouis
11 days agoSlyvia
19 days agoDick
2 months agoSue
2 months agoVan
2 months agoJamal
14 days agoWhitney
17 days agoDesmond
20 days agoTuyet
1 months agoTalia
2 months agoIrma
1 months agoEliz
1 months agoNoel
2 months agoLaurel
2 months agoNoel
3 months ago