4 ms·

Well we can't grow corn in Manhattan.

elsonrodriguez 7y ago
It amazes me how out of touch people are with the value of our agriculture. I'd say that we marginalize rural communities, but that's an understatement. We keep them out of mind instead, while they're putting food on not just our tables, but tables around the world. Thank you for putting it so succicintly.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> we can't grow corn in Manhattan Subsidising farms is one thing. We do that directly and indirectly. As a result, we massively over-produce food. Most farmland is owned by wealthy individuals and large companies. There are better ways to help the marginal farmer than paying for multi-million dollar lines to millionaires’ remote villas.
- HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
  Corn doesn't need internet, but the kids whose parents grow corn can, do, and will seriously benefit from the knowledge available via the Internet (also known as the information superhighway). Not building out infrastructure now means that as the population grows we will be chronically behind on it. Given most farmland is owned by wealthy individuals and large companies, there are better ways to help the marginal farmer than paying for multi-million dollar lines to millionaires’ remote villas. So the workers who work for those millionaires and who live out in the middle of nowhere don't matter? That is not a very nice world outlook. Where would you be without your StackOverflow, Reddit help, or wikiHow? I started learning my way around UNIX command lines on the family Mac when I was about eight- had it not been for the internet, I probably would have given up a long time ago. Truth be told, the internet in cities would be better if it weren't for the monopolies that companies have been granted over large geographical areas. There's a lot of issues to fix here- marginalizing one group to help another is not cool.
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > the workers who work for those millionaires and who live out in the middle of nowhere don't matter? I’m not saying they shouldn’t get internet. I’m saying that shouldn’t be paid for by the public. These are costs most properly allocated to rural employers. (The current regime is, in effect, a wealth transfer from the public to the employer’s owners. It incentivises plonking things in the middle of nowhere and throwing the costs on everyone else while a minority profits extravagantly.) If the problem is rural poverty, fix that directly. This is an inefficient way to help the rural poor in that most of its benefit goes to the rural rich.

It amazes me how out of touch people are with the value of our agriculture. I'd say that we marginalize rural communities, but that's an understatement. We keep them out of mind instead, while they're putting food on not just our tables, but tables around the world. Thank you for putting it so succicintly.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> we can't grow corn in Manhattan Subsidising farms is one thing. We do that directly and indirectly. As a result, we massively over-produce food. Most farmland is owned by wealthy individuals and large companies. There are better ways to help the marginal farmer than paying for multi-million dollar lines to millionaires’ remote villas.

HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
Corn doesn't need internet, but the kids whose parents grow corn can, do, and will seriously benefit from the knowledge available via the Internet (also known as the information superhighway). Not building out infrastructure now means that as the population grows we will be chronically behind on it. Given most farmland is owned by wealthy individuals and large companies, there are better ways to help the marginal farmer than paying for multi-million dollar lines to millionaires’ remote villas. So the workers who work for those millionaires and who live out in the middle of nowhere don't matter? That is not a very nice world outlook. Where would you be without your StackOverflow, Reddit help, or wikiHow? I started learning my way around UNIX command lines on the family Mac when I was about eight- had it not been for the internet, I probably would have given up a long time ago. Truth be told, the internet in cities would be better if it weren't for the monopolies that companies have been granted over large geographical areas. There's a lot of issues to fix here- marginalizing one group to help another is not cool.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > the workers who work for those millionaires and who live out in the middle of nowhere don't matter? I’m not saying they shouldn’t get internet. I’m saying that shouldn’t be paid for by the public. These are costs most properly allocated to rural employers. (The current regime is, in effect, a wealth transfer from the public to the employer’s owners. It incentivises plonking things in the middle of nowhere and throwing the costs on everyone else while a minority profits extravagantly.) If the problem is rural poverty, fix that directly. This is an inefficient way to help the rural poor in that most of its benefit goes to the rural rich.