4 ms·
Its 2020 and we still have farmers destroying crops rather than having some sensible state backed cost floor price guarantee to just buy excess and distribute i
by zanny 7y ago
Its 2020 and we still have farmers destroying crops rather than having some sensible state backed cost floor price guarantee to just buy excess and distribute it freely. You can definitely guard against exploitation by doing the math on what the maxima is between the volatility of pegging it to market prices vs the delay in using historical means.
I'd much rather get a quart of state milk once or twice a year for free while paying .2% more sales tax than having usable food destroyed.
- achamayou 7y agoHow do you distribute it out freely without affecting the market price? If packaging and transport are a substantial part of the cost, which they are for milk, who’s going to pay that cost?
- kevingadd 7y agoThe GP literally said "state backed", so obviously the state is going to pay it.
- abfan1127 7y agoan by the state, he means everyone else.
- kevingadd 7y agoYes, that's how governments and taxes work. The entire nation pays (at various levels depending on their income/resources) collectively to provide public services that cannot easily be provided on an individual basis. In the Free Market similar approaches are used for things like insurance.
- dehrmann 7y agoThey're destroying crops because there's a surplus due to changes on the demand side. What they do with crops isn't all that important right now, as long as there's government support so that they replant next season. > I'd much rather get a quart of state milk once or twice a year for free while paying .2% more sales tax than having usable food destroyed. Once you realize wasting food isn't bad and a surplus actually implies resiliency, that statement is just confusing to read. Governments subsidizing farmers to overproduce so that shocks to the system don't cause famines is a good thing. That just means there's either waste or obesity.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoExcept here the demand for food didn't disappear, it shifted from HoReCa (hotels/restaurants/catering) to groceries. People don't suddenly need less food during a pandemic, so the food that rots on the field now is that much less food in peoples's bellies.
- dehrmann 7y ago> it shifted from HoReCa (hotels/restaurants/catering) to groceries Some did, but take the tomato example in the article. Almost every sandwich from a restaurant will have a tomato slice. Home-made sandwiches, not as much. Some for sure, but less. > People don't suddenly need less food during a pandemic They might eat less, and they certainly eat differently. The US is overweight; it already needs less food than is produced. There's a good chance people are less active, so they need fewer calories, and produce tends to be low in calories, anyway. The only calorically interesting food in the story was milk. Milk sales have been in decline for a while, so this mostly school government milk not reflecting at-home consumption, and large amounts of cheese used by restaurants.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago> they certainly eat differently Anecdotal evidence I've seen, which is corroborated by my own study of N=two adults in the household, suggests that people may eat more. Staying at home and trying to manage stress seems to involve eating more. And white collar workers in particular won't have much different energy expenditure under quarantine than they did when working. Produce tends to be low in calories, but high in other nutrients. It's not like making it available would displace staples, and it's better to eat fruits&vegs than multivitamin pills.
- sliken 7y agoKeep in mind that home kitchens typically don't waste much food. Sure sometimes leftovers get pitched, but generally what you buy is what you eat. Restaurants on the other hand waste an impressive amount of food.