5 ms·

Does it matter that they are foreign owners? Would any of this be better if the owners happened to be US citizens?

• namibj 7y ago
  Fun fact: it would be trivially cheap for the population to pay those crop growers off to make it economically infeasible for them to grow. Just pay them their profits + 1% and you're done. It's _really_ not that much, and easier/cheaper than residential water conservation (which doesn't really matter anyways).
  • nostrademons 7y ago
    The real cost isn't in the money needed to pay off farmers to not grow things, it's to the consumers that won't have their favorite foods available. Americans love their corn, rice, beef, almonds, pistachios, and avocados, all of which are very water-intensive crops. The high agricultural water consumption is basically consumers saying "I value my beef more than my lawn", which is pretty accurate. We hear about residential water conservation (which, as you mention, is a literal drop in the bucket) because nobody's seriously suggesting banning meat, but given the choice between water shortages (as long as it doesn't get to the point where drinking water is endangered) or going without favorite foods, most people would take the water shortages. Chances are, even a significant portion of vegans would rather go with the water shortage if everyone was a vegan and it was no longer an effective way to signal cultural values.
    • asdff 7y ago
      Yet you can do without almonds, pistachios, avocados, etc. and I bet no one will miss it. The only reason why people like these things is that they are cheap, available in every supermarket, and normalized as a food choice by advertising. Remove the subsidy and watch the market evaporate, because no one in the world likes avocados enough to pay $10 each. American interests aren't created by individual preferences, but advertising from entrenched corporations that shift real interests, like having food, into more profitable interests, like buying almonds.
• coldtea 7y ago
  Only if you believe in sovereignty, and want the best deal for your country and its citizens first and foremost.
  • pjc50 7y ago
    Sure, but then why should any other country not retaliate on America? The great achievement of globalisation was levelling out a rights-based system between countries so that we could invest over there and in return they could invest over here. "Americans have special rights in America, but your country has to grant Americans a fair playing field versus your own citizens" is colonialism, and one step down from banana republics (where Americans had superior property rights to non-Americans in Honduras)
    • coldtea 7y ago
      >Sure, but then why should any other country not retaliate on America? The great achievement of globalisation was levelling out a rights-based system between countries so that we could invest over there and in return they could invest over here. I thought the great achievement of globalization was furthering Raegan's/Thacher's neoliberal agenda, turning industrial jobs into a race for the bottom where the global lowest wage bidder wins, and undoing a century of labor protections and working/middle class safety nets -- all the while destroying the planet with increased BS trade. >"Americans have special rights in America, but your country has to grant Americans a fair playing field versus your own citizens" Who said other countries have to do that? Other countries should prioritize their own citizen's well being too.