Genuine question. Does this mean that the average person can start a chicken farm today and earn massive profits? What is stopping an enterprising person from grabbing those profits?
In that time we could very well go from scarcity to glut with current producers as bird flu works itself out and they regain capacity. And it’s not like you wouldn’t be subject to your flock(?) of chickens getting the disease.
That’s not too say there isn’t opportunity here (there might be) or that people aren’t reacting to it (my brother in law just repopulated his home coop), but in general agriculture is a highly competitive business with low margin’s and “obvious” profit opportunities are riskier than they appear.
Of course you know the joke about two economists walking through a busy train station. One points out a $20 bill on the ground, the other says it's obviously fake, because if it wasn't someone would have picked it up already
possible the infrastructure won't be complete before prices go down. possible that prices will go down before you recoup the costs.
On the other hand, depending where you live and local rules, it is easy to have a few layer chickens for eggs. Having 4 or 5 chickens can mean 3 eggs a day which can keep you supplied. Costs would be a coop, food, water, and chicks. Layer feed where I live is 18 bucks for 50 lbs which can last for quite a while with that small number of chickens.
Edit: The takeaway is answering the post I'm replying to as to why anyone can't just start selling eggs.
Edit edit: Child's axe-grinding notwithstanding, I really am just pointing out that USDA regulations are why the average person can't just start selling eggs. That's merely a descriptive statement, and in no way implies "all regulations are bad," which is, frankly, a level of discourse posters here should aim higher than.
Also, Unregulated eggs are not a solution.
What is the takeaway from your comment, it’s unclear.
Edit: OP replied to this comment as an edit to their original, that makes it very awkward to actually respond to their reply. The reply also didn’t address the points because it amounted to saying “the take away is that I replied to someone”.
That comment appears to be an “all regulations are by definition bad!” viewpoint. Please explain What usda regulation caused the shortage? Was it new? If not, why did it not cause the shortage previously. Those clarifying details should be easy to provide presuming it wasn’t a knee jerk comment.
You have to hire a lawer who follows these things, interprets them. Then you have to craft new changes in the way you do things (no matter what things you do or how) to adapt, and you have to also signal that so you won't get audited/inspected (which is a huge cost in time & resources even if there are 0 violations).
And that's before the cost of the actual regulation.
a reactionary “all regulation bad” view is too simplistic and doesn’t make for good discourses.
but what do I know, I must be biased because I’m not a fan of asbestos.
What is the purpose of those comments?
We saw the same thing in early LAN engineering when Ethernet fought it out with Token Ring. Oversimplifying a bit: Token Ring provided a highly regulated guaranteed delivery protocol with lots of complexity and overhead and Ethernet just spurted packets out onto the wire and let the nodes figure out collisions. Can you guess which one is considerably more performant and easier to implement? Even so, Ethernet still has plenty of rules and complexity, just considerably less than Token Ring.
Thanks for the negging, makes for intelligent comments just like posting one line regan slogans for “humor”
Don't be so condescending and you might notice that commenters here are quite a bit above that level.
Since you mention, "Yes" could be a nuclear tier rhetorical slogan. "What do you stand for?" "Yes!" Who can't get behind that positive can do attitude!? I don't know what a regan is, but I'm happy to help him, her, or it out at my standard consulting rate.
Sure let's go with that :)
I'd summarize it like so: while it is theoretically possible fore regulation to be net-positive, it is vastly net-negative on average and especially cumulative. And we aren't able or willing to figure out which ones are positive/negative beforehand, so zero new regulation would be the optimal strategy.
Plus, we need to hold all other variables equal, so we can be sure what the causation is. And best of all we should use the gold standard, randomized controlled trials. With this method, some states/countries get randomly selected to implement a policy, but they don't even know about it, and to make it double blind, we also don't know about it until after the trial.
Anything less is unscientific, frankly.
Actually, even then, you'll have a problem - not from the USDA, but from your local zoning board/HOA/anybody in the government your neighbors can get in touch with.