3 ms·

PG says he likes going after big, bad corporations and monopolies ... A YC company to revolutionize the food industry?? :)

by wumi 18y ago

eru 18y ago
You'd have to sideline a lot of regulation and subsidies. But it might just be doable.
- mtts 18y ago
  Actually, regulation and subsidies can be good for food production. They give farmers a fighting chance against big food corporations, which helps the food supply because while a small farm may not be profitable without government subsidies, it is better at producing more calories per square meter of land under cultivation. Take, for example, green house tomatoes. They grow to enormous sizes exceedingly quickly so they're profitable, but, as anyone who's ever grown a single tomato plant on a balcony can testify, they have absolutely zero taste and rather limited nutritional value compared to the real thing. Likewise, as was touched upon in the article, high quality poultry is far more nourishing than industrially produced chicken breasts that consist mostly of water. Government subsidies allow farmers to continue producing high quality produce locally, even if it is in a manner that is, from a free market point of view, inefficient.
  - anamax 18y ago
    How many govt regulations favor the politically weak over the politically powerful? I like computer games more than tomatoes. Why shouldn't the govt subsidize my preferences? I've no objection to you buying whatever food, from whatever source, you'd like, but why shouldn't you pay for it? I'm perfectly willing to take the same deal wrt my food, video games, etc.
    - mtts 18y ago
      The point is that food is not video games. Food is a necessity for survival, unlike video games, and one that isn't best produced by the free market. If farmers are not subsidized, you get things like the current food crisis: big companies squeeze out poor third world farmers, then food becomes more expensive to produce so the big companies, who care about profit more than farming, decide to produce less of it to drive up prices, resulting in a food shortage in the third world, one that the third world can't solve anymore because its farmers are bankrupt (short version). Add to that the fact that the food produced by free market forces is often of dubious quality and nutritional value and it becomes clear, to me, that maybe farm subsidies are the lesser of two evils. I agree with you, however, that the government shouldn't subsidize video games. Or most other things.
      - jacobolus 18y ago
        > If farmers are not subsidized, you get things like the current food crisis: Actually one of the biggest problems we face today is that American corn/wheat/soybean farmers are very heavily subsidized, and it threw the whole global agricultural system out of kilter. > big companies, who care about profit more than farming, decide to produce less of it to drive up prices, resulting in a food shortage in the third world, They aren’t intentionally driving up prices, no. But that is the effect of turning large amounts of corn into ethanol. > Add to that the fact that the food produced by free market forces is often of dubious quality and nutritional value None of our current food is “produced by free market forces” so this is merely speculative.
        mtts 18y ago
        First of all, the corn / ethanol thing. That gets thrown about a lot, but it's not true. Only about 2% of the world's crop yield is used for biofuel production. So that by itself can't explain the current food crisis (which is real, but only if you live in the third world). Second of all, I should have been clearer that I meant that third world farmers should be subsidized. It's the only way for them to survive the onslaught of western multi billion agricultural companies like Monsanto, which for a large part of their production certainly are not subsidized at all (though you're right about American corn/wheat/soybean farmers : American agriculture combines the worst of the European system - aggressive subsidies - with the worst of commercial aggriculture - inefficient production - from a nutritional point of view). Third, American food is in fact produced by free market forces. It's the export to the rest of the world that is subsidized. Locally, small American farmers have been, for a large part, replaced by large agricultural conglomerates simply because those can create a large profit and buy up farm land even if the quality of their produce is at the very least debatable. European subsidies, on the other hand, go directly to farmers, allowing them to at least supply their home markets with plentiful food of often reasonably high quality. The drawback of both systems is that food exports from the west (be they subsidized directly the way American food exports are or indirectly, the way European farm produce is) is that it destroys third world agriculture, which the IMF does not allow its governments to subsidize, either directly or indirectly by slapping import tariffs on food imports to offset the subsidies of the western governments. Seeing as that this is the case (and a major reason for the food crisis) it seems to me not unreasonable to allow third world governments to subsidize as well to make the playing field somewhat level again. A better idea would of course be to not subsidize at all but I don't see the US give up its export subsidies and, especially, the EU give up its farm subsidies anytime soon.
  - eru 18y ago
    The dutch got quite good at growing greenhouse-tomatoes. They have e.g. small very tasty ones that I love. Complicated regulation and subsidies have an inherent drive to benefit anyone who can afford a lawyer. (Not that I find big farming bad in itself.)
- LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
  Don't forget Monsanto. They are a force to be reckoned with.
edw519 18y ago
There's just too much lower hanging fruit. Not much demand among the masses to revolutionize the food industry (unless you find a way to deliver junk food via broadband).
iloveyouocean 18y ago
Its interesting that in response to: "A YC company to -REVOLUTIONIZE- the food industry?"(emphasis mine) the posts center around why its not profitable, not possible, not desirable, etc. Wow, a regular bunch of free-thinking, revolutionaries around here. Sad. How about this: A company that helps educate and organize individuals and groups for cooperative food production. Sort of a distributed CFA(community farm alliance) except that a group combines its production resources to form a 'virtual farm'. And in turn, 'virtual farms' can trade in a 'virtual market'. The production could scale from the individual, to the group, to the meta-group, etc. The premise is that an individual signs up and perhaps that person is already involved in some type of food production. Based on their location and what they are producing, they are assigned to contribute to a group of people producing other, complimentary goods. This group meets up and exchanges their produce so that they regularly have a good variety of vegetables etc. Alternately, an individual can sign up and be assigned a certain production item. The site has extensive information resources, and trained farmers, agricultural engineers etc. that can be used for resources. Also, other members from local groups can help this individual if they are knowledgeable, etc. Alternately, groups of people can choose to all produce the same vegetables and then trade them to other groups. The site could invest in community garden plots and charge a small fee for the use of the soil, tools, knowledge base, etc. and in this way allow city/apartment dwellers to participate. This site would be geared towards non-professional farmers that are still interested in local, organic food production. But perhaps it could scale to be larger. Perhaps this isnt exactly, 'revolutionizing the food industry', but if the millions of people spending hours a day on social networks, etc. spent some of their time participating, this could seriously impact food production for many people. I dont know, just off the top of my head, but surely its better to at least TRY to come up with an idea, rather than list off all the reasons its not possible or too hard.
- wumi 18y ago
  what's stopping you from building this?

PG says he likes going after big, bad corporations and monopolies ... A YC company to revolutionize the food industry?? :)

by wumi 18y ago

PG says he likes going after big, bad corporations and monopolies ... A YC company to revolutionize the food industry?? :)

eru 18y ago

You'd have to sideline a lot of regulation and subsidies. But it might just be doable.

mtts 18y ago
Actually, regulation and subsidies can be good for food production. They give farmers a fighting chance against big food corporations, which helps the food supply because while a small farm may not be profitable without government subsidies, it is better at producing more calories per square meter of land under cultivation. Take, for example, green house tomatoes. They grow to enormous sizes exceedingly quickly so they're profitable, but, as anyone who's ever grown a single tomato plant on a balcony can testify, they have absolutely zero taste and rather limited nutritional value compared to the real thing. Likewise, as was touched upon in the article, high quality poultry is far more nourishing than industrially produced chicken breasts that consist mostly of water. Government subsidies allow farmers to continue producing high quality produce locally, even if it is in a manner that is, from a free market point of view, inefficient.
- anamax 18y ago
  How many govt regulations favor the politically weak over the politically powerful? I like computer games more than tomatoes. Why shouldn't the govt subsidize my preferences? I've no objection to you buying whatever food, from whatever source, you'd like, but why shouldn't you pay for it? I'm perfectly willing to take the same deal wrt my food, video games, etc.
  - mtts 18y ago
    The point is that food is not video games. Food is a necessity for survival, unlike video games, and one that isn't best produced by the free market. If farmers are not subsidized, you get things like the current food crisis: big companies squeeze out poor third world farmers, then food becomes more expensive to produce so the big companies, who care about profit more than farming, decide to produce less of it to drive up prices, resulting in a food shortage in the third world, one that the third world can't solve anymore because its farmers are bankrupt (short version). Add to that the fact that the food produced by free market forces is often of dubious quality and nutritional value and it becomes clear, to me, that maybe farm subsidies are the lesser of two evils. I agree with you, however, that the government shouldn't subsidize video games. Or most other things.
    - jacobolus 18y ago
      > If farmers are not subsidized, you get things like the current food crisis: Actually one of the biggest problems we face today is that American corn/wheat/soybean farmers are very heavily subsidized, and it threw the whole global agricultural system out of kilter. > big companies, who care about profit more than farming, decide to produce less of it to drive up prices, resulting in a food shortage in the third world, They aren’t intentionally driving up prices, no. But that is the effect of turning large amounts of corn into ethanol. > Add to that the fact that the food produced by free market forces is often of dubious quality and nutritional value None of our current food is “produced by free market forces” so this is merely speculative.
      - mtts 18y ago
        First of all, the corn / ethanol thing. That gets thrown about a lot, but it's not true. Only about 2% of the world's crop yield is used for biofuel production. So that by itself can't explain the current food crisis (which is real, but only if you live in the third world). Second of all, I should have been clearer that I meant that third world farmers should be subsidized. It's the only way for them to survive the onslaught of western multi billion agricultural companies like Monsanto, which for a large part of their production certainly are not subsidized at all (though you're right about American corn/wheat/soybean farmers : American agriculture combines the worst of the European system - aggressive subsidies - with the worst of commercial aggriculture - inefficient production - from a nutritional point of view). Third, American food is in fact produced by free market forces. It's the export to the rest of the world that is subsidized. Locally, small American farmers have been, for a large part, replaced by large agricultural conglomerates simply because those can create a large profit and buy up farm land even if the quality of their produce is at the very least debatable. European subsidies, on the other hand, go directly to farmers, allowing them to at least supply their home markets with plentiful food of often reasonably high quality. The drawback of both systems is that food exports from the west (be they subsidized directly the way American food exports are or indirectly, the way European farm produce is) is that it destroys third world agriculture, which the IMF does not allow its governments to subsidize, either directly or indirectly by slapping import tariffs on food imports to offset the subsidies of the western governments. Seeing as that this is the case (and a major reason for the food crisis) it seems to me not unreasonable to allow third world governments to subsidize as well to make the playing field somewhat level again. A better idea would of course be to not subsidize at all but I don't see the US give up its export subsidies and, especially, the EU give up its farm subsidies anytime soon.
- eru 18y ago
  The dutch got quite good at growing greenhouse-tomatoes. They have e.g. small very tasty ones that I love. Complicated regulation and subsidies have an inherent drive to benefit anyone who can afford a lawyer. (Not that I find big farming bad in itself.)
LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
Don't forget Monsanto. They are a force to be reckoned with.

edw519 18y ago

There's just too much lower hanging fruit. Not much demand among the masses to revolutionize the food industry (unless you find a way to deliver junk food via broadband).

iloveyouocean 18y ago

Its interesting that in response to: "A YC company to -REVOLUTIONIZE- the food industry?"(emphasis mine) the posts center around why its not profitable, not possible, not desirable, etc. Wow, a regular bunch of free-thinking, revolutionaries around here. Sad. How about this: A company that helps educate and organize individuals and groups for cooperative food production. Sort of a distributed CFA(community farm alliance) except that a group combines its production resources to form a 'virtual farm'. And in turn, 'virtual farms' can trade in a 'virtual market'. The production could scale from the individual, to the group, to the meta-group, etc. The premise is that an individual signs up and perhaps that person is already involved in some type of food production. Based on their location and what they are producing, they are assigned to contribute to a group of people producing other, complimentary goods. This group meets up and exchanges their produce so that they regularly have a good variety of vegetables etc. Alternately, an individual can sign up and be assigned a certain production item. The site has extensive information resources, and trained farmers, agricultural engineers etc. that can be used for resources. Also, other members from local groups can help this individual if they are knowledgeable, etc. Alternately, groups of people can choose to all produce the same vegetables and then trade them to other groups. The site could invest in community garden plots and charge a small fee for the use of the soil, tools, knowledge base, etc. and in this way allow city/apartment dwellers to participate. This site would be geared towards non-professional farmers that are still interested in local, organic food production. But perhaps it could scale to be larger. Perhaps this isnt exactly, 'revolutionizing the food industry', but if the millions of people spending hours a day on social networks, etc. spent some of their time participating, this could seriously impact food production for many people. I dont know, just off the top of my head, but surely its better to at least TRY to come up with an idea, rather than list off all the reasons its not possible or too hard.

wumi 18y ago
what's stopping you from building this?