an obvious thought is that the government should do something about disastrous famine.

yet many argue that the amount of damage caused by government interference outweighs the positive effects.

they suggest that the so-called laws of the market be followed to operate.

if there is a scarcity, the shortage will raise the price of that commodity: for example, if wheat is scarce, more will then be produced because it is worth producing, and in due course the shortage will automatically be corrected.

on the other hand, government efforts to force farmers to sell their produce cheaply can have a disastrous effects.

the grain-producers and merchants hoard their grain for later sales.

they also tend to produce less of a commodity from which they grained little or no profit.

so, they argue, government interference causes famines rather than mitigating or preventing them.