4 ms·

>Living in a rural area is a decision, that's fine for people to make, but I'm not sure we all need to be subsidizing it. You can stop subsidizing our internet

>Living in a rural area is a decision, that's fine for people to make, but I'm not sure we all need to be subsidizing it. You can stop subsidizing our internet, and we'll stop supplying you with cheap food. Deal?

serf 7y ago
it's totally off-topic to the discussion of this thread, but that 'cheap food' is cheap very much in part to government subsidies, already. if subsidies weren't already being used by those supplying the food, entire businesses and families would fail. 'feeding the nation' isn't all that profitable without subsidies, from most angles. so, I guess my point is that 'we'll stop supplying you with cheap food' is a hollow threat, given that the cheap food is over-produced and under-valued for the sake of an artificial economy that's largely enforced and legislated by 'citydwellers'. Most of the motivation to supply food is drawn from the incentives provided by the few in legislative power, not from profit nor moral imperative from 'rural-livers'.
- AngryData 7y ago
  Cheap food is "overproduced" so that a bad storm doesn't cause the price of bread to rise 3x in a week. Without food subsidies, food shortages are a constant threat.
  - Paradigma11 7y ago
    Why wouldn't you import the missing food then? If it's profitable to export soy from the US to china it most certrainly is profitable to import food from africa or australia after a storm.
scarmig 7y ago
We subsidize the cheap food, but whatever, I'm fine with that. Let the market incorporate the costs of broadband access into the price of food. The extra cost will almost certainly amount to fractions of a cent on the dollar.
- aguyfromnb 7y ago
  >We subsidize the cheap food Exactly: you receive cheap food in the city because it's subsidized. You are a beneficiary. Why should that be? Living in a city where it's impossible to grow food is a choice. So let's end that, along with internet subsidies (of which I'm a beneficiary) and we'll see if you're better off.
EpicEng 7y ago
Pretty sure my tax dollars are already subsidizing that food, but thanks anyway.

serf 7y ago

it's totally off-topic to the discussion of this thread, but that 'cheap food' is cheap very much in part to government subsidies, already. if subsidies weren't already being used by those supplying the food, entire businesses and families would fail. 'feeding the nation' isn't all that profitable without subsidies, from most angles. so, I guess my point is that 'we'll stop supplying you with cheap food' is a hollow threat, given that the cheap food is over-produced and under-valued for the sake of an artificial economy that's largely enforced and legislated by 'citydwellers'. Most of the motivation to supply food is drawn from the incentives provided by the few in legislative power, not from profit nor moral imperative from 'rural-livers'.

AngryData 7y ago
Cheap food is "overproduced" so that a bad storm doesn't cause the price of bread to rise 3x in a week. Without food subsidies, food shortages are a constant threat.
- Paradigma11 7y ago
  Why wouldn't you import the missing food then? If it's profitable to export soy from the US to china it most certrainly is profitable to import food from africa or australia after a storm.

scarmig 7y ago

We subsidize the cheap food, but whatever, I'm fine with that. Let the market incorporate the costs of broadband access into the price of food. The extra cost will almost certainly amount to fractions of a cent on the dollar.

aguyfromnb 7y ago
>We subsidize the cheap food Exactly: you receive cheap food in the city because it's subsidized. You are a beneficiary. Why should that be? Living in a city where it's impossible to grow food is a choice. So let's end that, along with internet subsidies (of which I'm a beneficiary) and we'll see if you're better off.

EpicEng 7y ago

Pretty sure my tax dollars are already subsidizing that food, but thanks anyway.