2 ms·

Those riches are not distributed optimally. Additionally, the US is a major agricultural exporter. The food voucher program is likely more about sweeping dome

Those riches are not distributed optimally. Additionally, the US is a major agricultural exporter. The food voucher program is likely more about sweeping domestic poverty under the rug, so that no one can complain about shipping food abroad across the globe, even as people are starving at home. It isn't enough to keep everybody fed all the time, but it is just enough to keep people from blocking the train tracks that go from the grain elevators and meatpackers to the seaports. This is a somewhat cynical view, I admit.

martin_bech 9y ago
That could surely explain some of it. And since foodstamps apparently account for 48bln usd yearly, one could also assume, that a lot of companies directly, or indirectly make a lot of money of it, and are determined to keep the status quo.
yellowapple 9y ago
"Those riches are not distributed optimally." Define "optimally". What's optimal for the rich is probably not optimal for the poor, and vice versa.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  My definition of optimal includes a provision that most people are able to plan their meals at least a week in advance, and no one ever has uncertainty over the place and time where they can eat their next meal. Like those candy bar ads imply, people tend to make poor decisions when they are hungry, but the results in the real world aren't always amusing, or solvable by a timely application of chocolate and nougat. The total quantity of food-producing capital in the US is large enough that it boggles my mind that there could be anyone in the country that can't always afford to eat nutritious foods, but such people exist. And they make poor financial decisions, because they have to constantly live in the short run, and are never able to plan far enough ahead to buy their way out of poverty. Optimal would be when everyone has the ability to carefully consider and negotiate every financial decision, without being forced to act contrary to their own long-term interests by some exigent circumstance or necessity. Oxygen and water are mostly sorted already, but food security and secure shelter are also required before people can start thinking past tomorrow, and considering "do nothing" as a viable alternative to a negotiated deal.

martin_bech 9y ago

That could surely explain some of it. And since foodstamps apparently account for 48bln usd yearly, one could also assume, that a lot of companies directly, or indirectly make a lot of money of it, and are determined to keep the status quo.

yellowapple 9y ago

"Those riches are not distributed optimally." Define "optimally". What's optimal for the rich is probably not optimal for the poor, and vice versa.

logfromblammo 9y ago
My definition of optimal includes a provision that most people are able to plan their meals at least a week in advance, and no one ever has uncertainty over the place and time where they can eat their next meal. Like those candy bar ads imply, people tend to make poor decisions when they are hungry, but the results in the real world aren't always amusing, or solvable by a timely application of chocolate and nougat. The total quantity of food-producing capital in the US is large enough that it boggles my mind that there could be anyone in the country that can't always afford to eat nutritious foods, but such people exist. And they make poor financial decisions, because they have to constantly live in the short run, and are never able to plan far enough ahead to buy their way out of poverty. Optimal would be when everyone has the ability to carefully consider and negotiate every financial decision, without being forced to act contrary to their own long-term interests by some exigent circumstance or necessity. Oxygen and water are mostly sorted already, but food security and secure shelter are also required before people can start thinking past tomorrow, and considering "do nothing" as a viable alternative to a negotiated deal.