5 ms·

Yes, in the long term having less of a dependence on the global supply chain is better for the local economy, climate, and people. But during that transition, a

Yes, in the long term having less of a dependence on the global supply chain is better for the local economy, climate, and people. But during that transition, a lot of people are going to be negatively affected. Today, it's my opinion that our culture has an unhealthy fascination and addiction towards products and goods that have a cost that is not reflective of the real value to sustainable supply the demand. Too many things these days are subsidized to create consumer demand and those dependencies are unhealthy and unsustainable. "Like the links in a chain, one by one they will start to give until the chain collapses." Ideally, consumers will have to pay the real value for those products and goods or go without until they can afford it. It's entirely possible that in your example, both prices are reflective of the real cost to grow, maintain, and distribute bananas. As a consumer, the price of $0.4/lb is cheaper and will keep more money in my pocket (or does it?) when compared to the $6/lb price. However, as a consumer I should take into account the other factors of that cost, for example, how much did it cost to ship those bananas to my local store? How much does it cost for the farmers to support their families? Should I even be eating bananas right now? Can I take a break from bananas and save up to afford the bananas that are closer to me? Is it better to support the local farmers in my region, or the farmers across the world? Maybe both? We need to be asking more questions about the big picture.

gruez 8y ago
>However, as a consumer I should take into account the other factors of that cost, for example, how much did it cost to ship those bananas to my local store? It's factored into the price, so I'm not sure why we should pay special attention to it. >How much does it cost for the farmers to support their families? >Can I take a break from bananas and save up to afford the bananas that are closer to me? Is it better to support the local farmers in my region, or the farmers across the world? Maybe both? Again, I'm not sure how this is relevant. Farming bananas probably pays better than whatever other business they can do, otherwise they'd switch over to the higher paying business. If you want to help lift people out of poverty, donate to aid organizations, don't not buy their bananas (which is what keeps them fed in the first place!). Buying "local" bananas might not even be the most environmentally friendly solution, considering you might be growing them in sub-optimal climate conditions. Furthermore, choosing inferior (in price or quality) products just to support your clan sounds a lot like protectionism.
- adreamingsoul 8y ago
  I'm sorry, I didn't intend to offend. My previous reply was just a glimpse into some of the thinking behind my opinions. In addition to working in the tech field, I also work with farmers and my opinions are from my own experiences, research, and study. From what I understand, the price of 90% of what you buy in a grocery store is not the real cost to produce and delivery that item to the grocery store. That price is heavily influenced by what the market value is of the commodity, which at the moment is mostly driven by industrial farming operations. Industrial farming relies on their massive scale to make a profit, and they also rely on predictable growing conditions to obtain those results, which is also a tangential problem. Non-industrial farming operations (local farmers, family famers, etc...) rely on multiple sources of income, resources, and commodities to break even. Typically, one of the partners of the farm has a full or part time job to cover OPEX, and any profits made from farming is used for CAPEX. At the end of the day, the farmer has to decided to either compete with the industrial farmers and unrealistic market values, or they bypass that and sell straight to consumers. Another issue, is that for everyone else who doesn't live near farmers, they are accustomed to market values that are not reflective of the real cost to produce those goods. As of right now, the market value is reflective of industrial operations that use both scale and subsidies to produce cheap food. My entire point, is that this trend is not sustainable for consumers, farmers, or nature. So in addition to the next financial crisis, we will also be seeing a dramatic change in our food production and distribution system.
  - gruez 8y ago
    >I'm sorry, I didn't intend to offend. None taken. >From what I understand, the price of 90% of what you buy in a grocery store is not the real cost to produce and delivery that item to the grocery store. >That price is heavily influenced by what the market value is of the commodity, which at the moment is mostly driven by industrial farming operations. >Industrial farming relies on their massive scale to make a profit, [...] >Non-industrial farming operations (local farmers, family famers, etc...) rely on multiple sources of income, resources, and commodities to break even. Typically, one of the partners of the farm has a full or part time job to cover OPEX, and any profits made from farming is used for CAPEX. At the end of the day, the farmer has to decided to either compete with the industrial farmers and unrealistic market values, or they bypass that and sell straight to consumers. I don't get what you're saying. Large farms have larger economies of scale, so they can out-compete smaller farms on commodities. This is basic economics. How is this increased efficiency intrinsically bad? Why should consumers pay more for food that's produced by inefficient small scale operations? You say that the price you pay doesn't represent the "real cost", but obviously it does, otherwise the farm will go out of business operating at a loss. The only other explanation is externalities, but you haven't really explained what negative externalities big farms are producing that small farms aren't. >[...] and they also rely on predictable growing conditions to obtain those results, which is also a tangential problem. Is there a reason why industrial farms are more reliant on predictable growing conditions than a smaller farm? If anything large farms can weather shocks better than small operations because they have better expertise to mitigate the negative effects and bigger bankroll to avoid bankruptcy. >Another issue, is that for everyone else who doesn't live near farmers, they are accustomed to market values that are not reflective of the real cost to produce those goods. disagree. in the same way that living next to a GM plant doesn't accustom me to the the real cost in producing a car. >As of right now, the market value is reflective of industrial operations that use both scale and subsidies to produce cheap food. scale: as I said earlier, I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with economies of scale associated with large scale operations. If anything, they're a net benefit to society because they have higher efficiency. subsidies: this mainly hinges on whether large scale operations get more subsidies (relative to size) compared to small scale operations. I haven't done any research on this so I won't comment either way.

gruez 8y ago

>However, as a consumer I should take into account the other factors of that cost, for example, how much did it cost to ship those bananas to my local store? It's factored into the price, so I'm not sure why we should pay special attention to it. >How much does it cost for the farmers to support their families? >Can I take a break from bananas and save up to afford the bananas that are closer to me? Is it better to support the local farmers in my region, or the farmers across the world? Maybe both? Again, I'm not sure how this is relevant. Farming bananas probably pays better than whatever other business they can do, otherwise they'd switch over to the higher paying business. If you want to help lift people out of poverty, donate to aid organizations, don't not buy their bananas (which is what keeps them fed in the first place!). Buying "local" bananas might not even be the most environmentally friendly solution, considering you might be growing them in sub-optimal climate conditions. Furthermore, choosing inferior (in price or quality) products just to support your clan sounds a lot like protectionism.

adreamingsoul 8y ago
I'm sorry, I didn't intend to offend. My previous reply was just a glimpse into some of the thinking behind my opinions. In addition to working in the tech field, I also work with farmers and my opinions are from my own experiences, research, and study. From what I understand, the price of 90% of what you buy in a grocery store is not the real cost to produce and delivery that item to the grocery store. That price is heavily influenced by what the market value is of the commodity, which at the moment is mostly driven by industrial farming operations. Industrial farming relies on their massive scale to make a profit, and they also rely on predictable growing conditions to obtain those results, which is also a tangential problem. Non-industrial farming operations (local farmers, family famers, etc...) rely on multiple sources of income, resources, and commodities to break even. Typically, one of the partners of the farm has a full or part time job to cover OPEX, and any profits made from farming is used for CAPEX. At the end of the day, the farmer has to decided to either compete with the industrial farmers and unrealistic market values, or they bypass that and sell straight to consumers. Another issue, is that for everyone else who doesn't live near farmers, they are accustomed to market values that are not reflective of the real cost to produce those goods. As of right now, the market value is reflective of industrial operations that use both scale and subsidies to produce cheap food. My entire point, is that this trend is not sustainable for consumers, farmers, or nature. So in addition to the next financial crisis, we will also be seeing a dramatic change in our food production and distribution system.
- gruez 8y ago
  >I'm sorry, I didn't intend to offend. None taken. >From what I understand, the price of 90% of what you buy in a grocery store is not the real cost to produce and delivery that item to the grocery store. >That price is heavily influenced by what the market value is of the commodity, which at the moment is mostly driven by industrial farming operations. >Industrial farming relies on their massive scale to make a profit, [...] >Non-industrial farming operations (local farmers, family famers, etc...) rely on multiple sources of income, resources, and commodities to break even. Typically, one of the partners of the farm has a full or part time job to cover OPEX, and any profits made from farming is used for CAPEX. At the end of the day, the farmer has to decided to either compete with the industrial farmers and unrealistic market values, or they bypass that and sell straight to consumers. I don't get what you're saying. Large farms have larger economies of scale, so they can out-compete smaller farms on commodities. This is basic economics. How is this increased efficiency intrinsically bad? Why should consumers pay more for food that's produced by inefficient small scale operations? You say that the price you pay doesn't represent the "real cost", but obviously it does, otherwise the farm will go out of business operating at a loss. The only other explanation is externalities, but you haven't really explained what negative externalities big farms are producing that small farms aren't. >[...] and they also rely on predictable growing conditions to obtain those results, which is also a tangential problem. Is there a reason why industrial farms are more reliant on predictable growing conditions than a smaller farm? If anything large farms can weather shocks better than small operations because they have better expertise to mitigate the negative effects and bigger bankroll to avoid bankruptcy. >Another issue, is that for everyone else who doesn't live near farmers, they are accustomed to market values that are not reflective of the real cost to produce those goods. disagree. in the same way that living next to a GM plant doesn't accustom me to the the real cost in producing a car. >As of right now, the market value is reflective of industrial operations that use both scale and subsidies to produce cheap food. scale: as I said earlier, I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with economies of scale associated with large scale operations. If anything, they're a net benefit to society because they have higher efficiency. subsidies: this mainly hinges on whether large scale operations get more subsidies (relative to size) compared to small scale operations. I haven't done any research on this so I won't comment either way.