3 ms·

A market-priced system for food in the United States would still allow for a massive amount of slack in the case of a supply shock. The typical American probabl

A market-priced system for food in the United States would still allow for a massive amount of slack in the case of a supply shock. The typical American probably eats 20-30% more calories than are properly healthy for them, and many of their calories come from extremely feed and land-intensive sources like beef. Of course, you wouldn't switch to this all at once. You'd announce that you are gradually cutting farm subsidies over the next ten years. The least profitable (efficient) operations would close. This would also develop slack in the form of unused land, which could be held in reserve in case of a supply shock like the one you're hypothesizing.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
This might work if income were more equally distributed. If food becomes more scarce and the typical American has to eat 20-30% fewer calories, the price of food will spike significantly. People at the bottom will be priced out and will starve without government intervention. Managing the food supply to make sure there's always a healthy surplus makes a lot of sense to me. The problem with holding land in reserve, as you're suggesting, is that it takes at least an entire growing season to start producing from that land. That might be too long in the case of a famine.
mattmanser 7y ago
Yes, because corn grows in 3 days when you realize there's a shortage, there won't also be a seed shortage, or a labor shortage, when you want that furloughed land to start producing. And panic buying also isn't a thing. It sounds like you're just about qualified to go write a little red book with your deep insights into something you don't understand and get millions of people killed from famine, have history repeat itself. Maybe we should cull all the sparrows too? Real pests I hear.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  > Yes, because corn grows in 3 days Our food reserves are huge. > And panic buying also isn't a thing. Panic buying can only eat up a tiny little fraction of a year's food supply. > [just insults]
dabbledash 7y ago
“Don’t worry if food gets too expensive, you could stand to lose some weight anyway.” I don’t think I can give a response to this that’s acceptable on HN, but wow.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  Is there something wrong with what I said? Is it impolitic to observe that most Americans exist in a serious caloric surplus? I am not excluding myself here or making any moral judgment on those who do. It's just a fact, and it is relevant to the concern that Americans might starve if the food supply contracted.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago

This might work if income were more equally distributed. If food becomes more scarce and the typical American has to eat 20-30% fewer calories, the price of food will spike significantly. People at the bottom will be priced out and will starve without government intervention. Managing the food supply to make sure there's always a healthy surplus makes a lot of sense to me. The problem with holding land in reserve, as you're suggesting, is that it takes at least an entire growing season to start producing from that land. That might be too long in the case of a famine.

mattmanser 7y ago

Yes, because corn grows in 3 days when you realize there's a shortage, there won't also be a seed shortage, or a labor shortage, when you want that furloughed land to start producing. And panic buying also isn't a thing. It sounds like you're just about qualified to go write a little red book with your deep insights into something you don't understand and get millions of people killed from famine, have history repeat itself. Maybe we should cull all the sparrows too? Real pests I hear.

Dylan16807 7y ago
> Yes, because corn grows in 3 days Our food reserves are huge. > And panic buying also isn't a thing. Panic buying can only eat up a tiny little fraction of a year's food supply. > [just insults]

dabbledash 7y ago

“Don’t worry if food gets too expensive, you could stand to lose some weight anyway.” I don’t think I can give a response to this that’s acceptable on HN, but wow.

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
Is there something wrong with what I said? Is it impolitic to observe that most Americans exist in a serious caloric surplus? I am not excluding myself here or making any moral judgment on those who do. It's just a fact, and it is relevant to the concern that Americans might starve if the food supply contracted.