3 ms·

It's true that there's no shortage of food. In fact we're throwing away more than enough food to feed everyone in the country, around half the food that we pro

It's true that there's no shortage of food. In fact we're throwing away more than enough food to feed everyone in the country, around half the food that we produce. That's not very efficient. Meanwhile we stigmatize people who need food assistance, make them jump through bureaucratic hoops designed to demoralize and suppress them, demand that they present proof that their children deserve to not starve, even while incentivizing them to remain in need of food assistance. That's not very effective. So food production isn't doing 'rather well' yet, more like 'almost acceptable but needs work'. (Still much better than it was a century or two ago.)

WalterBright 10y ago
It's doing very well indeed if you compare it to any other system tried for producing food. It is still experiencing price declines (unlike health care). For example, steak was a luxury when I was a kid. Now, it's cheap as dirt at $6.99 a pound. I'll take its imperfections any day over the gaping holes and incredible costs in the not-so-free-market health care system.
- lovich 10y ago
  A lot of the cheapness of food is coming from using natural resources at an unsustainable rate, like draining the Ogallala Aquifer at far beyond its replenishment rate. I'd call that more along the lines of kicking the problems along for someone in the future to deal with all at once and not "doing very well"
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    The spectre of famine ended in the US around 1800 with free market agriculture, long before anyone heard of the Ogallala Aquifer. It also ended for every other country that adopted free market agriculture. Non-free market agriculture, on the other hand, has a pretty sorry historical record with no evidence that it was more sustainable or equitable.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > The spectre of famine ended in the US around 1800 with free market agriculture I'm not sure how you define "famine", but many people have been malnourished since; some are right now AFAIK. Think of the Great Depression, for example, for a much greater scale problem. I would bet some have starved. But most of all, any research you have would be appreciated; I feel like everyone, including me, is a bit naked out here.
      - WalterBright 10y ago
        One objective way is to look at average height, which increased throughout the 19th century in the US, and increased in other countries when they adopted free market agriculture. Height is a good proxy for having sufficient nutritious food.
        hackuser 10y ago
        > One objective way is to look at average height, which increased throughout the 19th century in the US, and increased in other countries when they adopted free market agriculture. Height is a good proxy for having sufficient nutritious food. An insightful way to look at it; thanks. However, the question at hand isn't about the average, but the low end: Was there malnutrition or starvation? Yes, there was and is. EDIT: See this post for some numbers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13298775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13298775 I'm not debating whether free market food works very well for 90% in wealthy countries (just a guess at a number) and far better than whatever was done in the 18th century, but that doesn't mean we should call it sufficient or the 'best of all possible worlds'. If millions (tens of millions?) of people in wealthy countries and (hundreds of millions? billions?) in other countries are not getting sufficient food, that's failure - just less failure than we experienced before.
        WalterBright 10y ago
        Compare free market food production with any other system. Starvation in the world is in countries without free market agriculture.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > cheap as dirt at $6.99 a pound Cheap for most people reading HN, but unaffordable for many. > It's doing very well indeed if you compare it to any other system tried for producing food Yes for producing (AFAIK) but not for distributing. I believe, but have no research to back it up, that countries with better social safety nets have less malnourishment than the U.S.
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    The USDA recommendation for a healthy amount of beef per day is 5-6 ounces. That's about $2.25 per day. Heck, a pound of apples cost more than that. A loaf of bread costs more than that. $6.99 is the regular price, too - it's often on sale as it nears its expiration date. How cheap does it have to be before it is successful?
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > How cheap does it have to be before it is successful? A good question, but the fact is that many cannot afford sufficient food. A quick search turned up this article from 2014 at the top (and many others too): Hunger in America: 1 in 7 rely on food banks http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/17/hunger-study-food/14195585/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/17/hunger-... 1 in 7 Americans is around 45 million people (I know that's taking the headline at face value, but clearly there are many people who need it).
      - WalterBright 10y ago
        If they're getting fed by a food bank, then they are getting fed. Making steak cheaper than it already is isn't going to make any difference.
        hackuser 10y ago
        For a smart guy, it must take work ... I have no doubt you can see what that comment seems to overlook.

WalterBright 10y ago

It's doing very well indeed if you compare it to any other system tried for producing food. It is still experiencing price declines (unlike health care). For example, steak was a luxury when I was a kid. Now, it's cheap as dirt at $6.99 a pound. I'll take its imperfections any day over the gaping holes and incredible costs in the not-so-free-market health care system.

lovich 10y ago
A lot of the cheapness of food is coming from using natural resources at an unsustainable rate, like draining the Ogallala Aquifer at far beyond its replenishment rate. I'd call that more along the lines of kicking the problems along for someone in the future to deal with all at once and not "doing very well"
- WalterBright 10y ago
  The spectre of famine ended in the US around 1800 with free market agriculture, long before anyone heard of the Ogallala Aquifer. It also ended for every other country that adopted free market agriculture. Non-free market agriculture, on the other hand, has a pretty sorry historical record with no evidence that it was more sustainable or equitable.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > The spectre of famine ended in the US around 1800 with free market agriculture I'm not sure how you define "famine", but many people have been malnourished since; some are right now AFAIK. Think of the Great Depression, for example, for a much greater scale problem. I would bet some have starved. But most of all, any research you have would be appreciated; I feel like everyone, including me, is a bit naked out here.
    - WalterBright 10y ago
      One objective way is to look at average height, which increased throughout the 19th century in the US, and increased in other countries when they adopted free market agriculture. Height is a good proxy for having sufficient nutritious food.
      - hackuser 10y ago
        > One objective way is to look at average height, which increased throughout the 19th century in the US, and increased in other countries when they adopted free market agriculture. Height is a good proxy for having sufficient nutritious food. An insightful way to look at it; thanks. However, the question at hand isn't about the average, but the low end: Was there malnutrition or starvation? Yes, there was and is. EDIT: See this post for some numbers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13298775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13298775 I'm not debating whether free market food works very well for 90% in wealthy countries (just a guess at a number) and far better than whatever was done in the 18th century, but that doesn't mean we should call it sufficient or the 'best of all possible worlds'. If millions (tens of millions?) of people in wealthy countries and (hundreds of millions? billions?) in other countries are not getting sufficient food, that's failure - just less failure than we experienced before.
        WalterBright 10y ago
        Compare free market food production with any other system. Starvation in the world is in countries without free market agriculture.
hackuser 10y ago
> cheap as dirt at $6.99 a pound Cheap for most people reading HN, but unaffordable for many. > It's doing very well indeed if you compare it to any other system tried for producing food Yes for producing (AFAIK) but not for distributing. I believe, but have no research to back it up, that countries with better social safety nets have less malnourishment than the U.S.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  The USDA recommendation for a healthy amount of beef per day is 5-6 ounces. That's about $2.25 per day. Heck, a pound of apples cost more than that. A loaf of bread costs more than that. $6.99 is the regular price, too - it's often on sale as it nears its expiration date. How cheap does it have to be before it is successful?
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > How cheap does it have to be before it is successful? A good question, but the fact is that many cannot afford sufficient food. A quick search turned up this article from 2014 at the top (and many others too): Hunger in America: 1 in 7 rely on food banks http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/17/hunger-study-food/14195585/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/17/hunger-... 1 in 7 Americans is around 45 million people (I know that's taking the headline at face value, but clearly there are many people who need it).
    - WalterBright 10y ago
      If they're getting fed by a food bank, then they are getting fed. Making steak cheaper than it already is isn't going to make any difference.
      - hackuser 10y ago
        For a smart guy, it must take work ... I have no doubt you can see what that comment seems to overlook.