3 ms·

That's a universal argument for industrializing all food production. No food is a necessary foodstuff. It does not follow that all our food should be industrial

That's a universal argument for industrializing all food production. No food is a necessary foodstuff. It does not follow that all our food should be industrially produced. (Free market food production will end up industrially produced, because that's how you minimize costs and maximize profits. I, for one, don't want to live in a country like that and will vote for laws that help prevent it happening.)

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Free market food production will end up industrially produced, because that's how you minimize costs and maximize profits Post-war Americans prioritised price. So the market made industrial food. (There was also the influence of World War II’s military-oriented factories pivoting to peacetime production.) The situation is not the same today. There is demand for non-industrially produced food among those who can afford it. For those who can’t, I find it morally disturbing that those of us who can afford it want to tell them what they can and cannot buy. If a low-income person decides to spend their food voucher on industrially-produced cheese so they can use the surplus on fruits and vegetables (or pizzas), that’s their choice. In any case, if the goal is less industrially-produced cheese, our subsidy regime accomplished that inefficiently.
- barrkel 8y ago
  The trouble is that there's a ratchet effect which makes non-industrial food increasingly uncompetitive over time, and the only people who can afford decent goods and services are those who are wealthy. I wrote a long comment on this over a year ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13306700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13306700 I'm sorry for your feeling of disturbance. I can't help your sense of righteous indignation, but I don't believe free markets always deliver superior results to democracy.
- taborj 8y ago
  > If a low-income person decides to spend their food voucher on industrially-produced cheese so they can use the surplus on fruits and vegetables (or pizzas), that’s their choice. That only works if there are no carry-on effects of their eating habits (i.e. subsidized health costs, etc). If we can reduce those carry-on costs by forcing the purchase of healthier options, then the system is more sustainable. Add to that the fact that food subsidy programs are not intended to be a lifestyle -- they're supposed to be there to help people in times of need, a crutch to help them between jobs, not a solution to their joblessness. In other words, there should be some motivating factor to become self-sufficient.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> Free market food production will end up industrially produced, because that's how you minimize costs and maximize profits Post-war Americans prioritised price. So the market made industrial food. (There was also the influence of World War II’s military-oriented factories pivoting to peacetime production.) The situation is not the same today. There is demand for non-industrially produced food among those who can afford it. For those who can’t, I find it morally disturbing that those of us who can afford it want to tell them what they can and cannot buy. If a low-income person decides to spend their food voucher on industrially-produced cheese so they can use the surplus on fruits and vegetables (or pizzas), that’s their choice. In any case, if the goal is less industrially-produced cheese, our subsidy regime accomplished that inefficiently.

barrkel 8y ago
The trouble is that there's a ratchet effect which makes non-industrial food increasingly uncompetitive over time, and the only people who can afford decent goods and services are those who are wealthy. I wrote a long comment on this over a year ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13306700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13306700 I'm sorry for your feeling of disturbance. I can't help your sense of righteous indignation, but I don't believe free markets always deliver superior results to democracy.
taborj 8y ago
> If a low-income person decides to spend their food voucher on industrially-produced cheese so they can use the surplus on fruits and vegetables (or pizzas), that’s their choice. That only works if there are no carry-on effects of their eating habits (i.e. subsidized health costs, etc). If we can reduce those carry-on costs by forcing the purchase of healthier options, then the system is more sustainable. Add to that the fact that food subsidy programs are not intended to be a lifestyle -- they're supposed to be there to help people in times of need, a crutch to help them between jobs, not a solution to their joblessness. In other words, there should be some motivating factor to become self-sufficient.