4 ms·

I cant ever foresee a situation where I think the government is in the best position to decide what farmers grow, what livestock is produced and what I should p

by S_A_P 8y ago

I cant ever foresee a situation where I think the government is in the best position to decide what farmers grow, what livestock is produced and what I should put on my plate. just no.

maxxxxx 8y ago
That's what you have in the US right now though. Subsidies go to unhealthy foods.
jacknews 8y ago
Why is the opposite of capitalism always government? Feral free-market capitalism clearly isn't delivering what we want when it comes to food, but the alternative isn't communism. It's better incentives and/or punishments for the market. That certainly is where government (which, incidentally, represents the people, or should do), has a place.
- bluecalm 8y ago
  I am not sure what you mean by feral free market but what we have in US and EU doesn't look like that. There are tons of subsidies and regulations making a lot of things unprofitable to grow (cause you get cash for free when you grow junk food) and a lot of things unpractical (hard to have small simple farm when you have to comply with tons of laws just to ask eggs from a few hens you have).
  - jacknews 8y ago
    By 'feral' I mean 'unfettered', wild. I agree the subsidies are not helpful, but I think they exist to politically support farmers rather than to encourage particular foods. That said (to use the latest irksomely popular phrase), I don't think the agricultural subsidies are the whole, or even major part of the story of the food environment.
- S_A_P 8y ago
  My thought on this is that how else would you compel change in the market? I don't think any other entity could do so. Of course I am no expert in this so I am willing to listen and consider what the alternatives are. Also just want to clarify that I do not think that our state of agribusiness is perfect and not in need of some systemic change. There are tons of perverse incentives out there that have created some of the problems we face. However, I feel like a lot of that was caused by government intervention. I don't see this as a left vs right issue either, as both sides are guilty here.
  - jacknews 8y ago
    Of course, but they don't need to plan what crops are grown, or what's on your plate. There could be a sugar tax for example. Or even better a 'health tax' pegged to a 'health index' of some kind, quite possibly with both government and private involvement. Lots of possibilities But one thing seems clear, that capitalism is ultimately only interested in profit. It should be tailored to align better with society's needs.
- CompelTechnic 8y ago
  Food producers are able to design such a wide variety of processed foods that it would be easy to get wolf-in-sheep's clothing unhealthy delicious snacks past most any government taxation scheme designed to stop them.
  - jacknews 8y ago
    In the same way it's possible to slip unhealthy foods to unsuspecting consumers. A classic arms race, it can't be avoided. But the healthiness measurements don't necessarily have to be dictated directly by government. Government could set uo an independent health assessment index, or market of some kind.
- marcosdumay 8y ago
  Isn't it always government? Who else would create those incentives/punishments? The opposite of organic liberal organization is planned mandatory organization. It's a matter of discussing what plan is a good one.
EliRivers 8y ago
Isn't that part of how the UK managed not to starve in the early 1940s? Seems like it was a good idea for them.

by S_A_P 8y ago

I cant ever foresee a situation where I think the government is in the best position to decide what farmers grow, what livestock is produced and what I should put on my plate. just no.

maxxxxx 8y ago

That's what you have in the US right now though. Subsidies go to unhealthy foods.

jacknews 8y ago

Why is the opposite of capitalism always government? Feral free-market capitalism clearly isn't delivering what we want when it comes to food, but the alternative isn't communism. It's better incentives and/or punishments for the market. That certainly is where government (which, incidentally, represents the people, or should do), has a place.

bluecalm 8y ago
I am not sure what you mean by feral free market but what we have in US and EU doesn't look like that. There are tons of subsidies and regulations making a lot of things unprofitable to grow (cause you get cash for free when you grow junk food) and a lot of things unpractical (hard to have small simple farm when you have to comply with tons of laws just to ask eggs from a few hens you have).
- jacknews 8y ago
  By 'feral' I mean 'unfettered', wild. I agree the subsidies are not helpful, but I think they exist to politically support farmers rather than to encourage particular foods. That said (to use the latest irksomely popular phrase), I don't think the agricultural subsidies are the whole, or even major part of the story of the food environment.
S_A_P 8y ago
My thought on this is that how else would you compel change in the market? I don't think any other entity could do so. Of course I am no expert in this so I am willing to listen and consider what the alternatives are. Also just want to clarify that I do not think that our state of agribusiness is perfect and not in need of some systemic change. There are tons of perverse incentives out there that have created some of the problems we face. However, I feel like a lot of that was caused by government intervention. I don't see this as a left vs right issue either, as both sides are guilty here.
- jacknews 8y ago
  Of course, but they don't need to plan what crops are grown, or what's on your plate. There could be a sugar tax for example. Or even better a 'health tax' pegged to a 'health index' of some kind, quite possibly with both government and private involvement. Lots of possibilities But one thing seems clear, that capitalism is ultimately only interested in profit. It should be tailored to align better with society's needs.
CompelTechnic 8y ago
Food producers are able to design such a wide variety of processed foods that it would be easy to get wolf-in-sheep's clothing unhealthy delicious snacks past most any government taxation scheme designed to stop them.
- jacknews 8y ago
  In the same way it's possible to slip unhealthy foods to unsuspecting consumers. A classic arms race, it can't be avoided. But the healthiness measurements don't necessarily have to be dictated directly by government. Government could set uo an independent health assessment index, or market of some kind.
marcosdumay 8y ago
Isn't it always government? Who else would create those incentives/punishments? The opposite of organic liberal organization is planned mandatory organization. It's a matter of discussing what plan is a good one.

EliRivers 8y ago

Isn't that part of how the UK managed not to starve in the early 1940s? Seems like it was a good idea for them.