3 ms·

I see. So you are saying that my claim is ludicrous because food is worth less than what it costs. You are suggesting that food should be sold at a loss to the

I see. So you are saying that my claim is ludicrous because food is worth less than what it costs. You are suggesting that food should be sold at a loss to the producers. You are saying that food is a fundamental right that excuses the exploitation of a labour force that is essentially paid slave wages to feed those who want to pay for food less than what it costs. Basically, you find it ludicrous that slavery is frowned upon by..the population that is slaving to feed billions of mouths. The customer is willing to pay less for food that is reliant on long supply chains, then they deserve to starve when said supply chains fail them.

thaumasiotes 7y ago
> You are suggesting that food should be sold at a loss to the producers. Absolutely, if you're proposing that the production of food be compulsory. That would, like your original idea, be completely insane. On the other hand, I never said any of the things you seem to think I did. That was all you. What I'm saying is that if you paid more to produce food than that food is worth, you're still not going to sell it at more than it's worth. Instead, you should try to find a less stupid way to spend your time, something that is not actually worse than nothing.
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  I see. Let’s tease this out. 1. You are saying that food is worth less than what it costs. 2. Production of food is not ‘compulsory’ and that food must be produced is ‘completely insane’. I don’t understand? English is not my first language. So please help me understand. I also don’t understand this : “you should try to find a less stupid way to spend your time, something that is not actually worse than nothing”.