4 ms·

Next time you’re about to complain about farm subsidies, take a moment to appreciate that the US makes more food than it needs and we don’t depend on imports fr

Next time you’re about to complain about farm subsidies, take a moment to appreciate that the US makes more food than it needs and we don’t depend on imports from China to put food on the table.

convolvatron 5y ago
that might be true independent of farm subsidies. we don't really know. it is pretty clear that there are government programs being used to buy votes. which is a pretty stupid way to spend public money.
- unanswered 5y ago
  As opposed to all of those dollars flowing into extremely republican-leaning cities... Oh wait.
  - convolvatron 5y ago
    i was very careful to phrase that in a way that was neurtral to which party was paying off whom its a terrible waste either way
  - namdnay 5y ago
    I always though cities were net contributors to taxation/redistribution?
    - adventured 5y ago
      You mean before we count their high environmental cost? Cities are higher net tax contributors due to population density. If we're going to fairly consider the equation, we have to include their high emissions over the decades and the price of that. Fossil fuel based electricity & heat production is by far the worst offender, 1/3 of all emissions. To say nothing of the food requirements of cities (agriculture alone being ~11% of emissions), which are potent emissions contributors. As such, should cities be made to pay for the vast destruction they've caused over time? Across a century, US cities were heavily utilizing cheap coal power to sustain their elevated population density. They took a very low cost, low penalty ride on helping to destroy the planet. Global climate change didn't happen in a day. There's a fair question of distribution of cost, reparations for the fossil fuel consumption & use of cities in the form of a tax to cover their century of past sins. A person might retort: yes, but, cities are more efficient than rural arrangements pound for pound. The issue is total emissions output, in the discussion of total cost (net tax +/- contribution equation), which is what the threat is with climate change. Low population rural areas can't destroy the planet with their resource demands, only large populations can do that. Then a person might retort: but what else were all of those people in cities going to do? Not exist at all? Starve? Go without electricity? I'd suggest environmental reparations via taxation for the net damage the cities did cause (if we're looking at fairly balancing the net tax contribution equation, that is; if their inflated tax net gets counted courtesy of elevated population density, then we must also consider their environmental cost).
      - megablast 5y ago
        > You mean before we count their high environmental cost? Are you saying those people in cities, spread out over the countryside instead would have a lower environmental cost??? Absolutely not. > Across a century, US cities were heavily utilizing cheap coal power to sustain their elevated population density. Whereas the country side used what for power?? Magic?? > Low population rural areas can't destroy the planet with their resource demands, only large populations can do that. The problem is not cities then. The problem is people. Most of our current problems are due to too many people. And yes, more people spread over a larger area are would be worse.
fullstop 5y ago
We pay farmers to _not_ produce crops.
actually_a_dog 5y ago
Is it still okay if I complain about the colossal amount of food waste that takes place in the US?
- handrous 5y ago
  Food waste's a function of food prices. Raising prices is how you reduce it. We have a lot of waste, because food is cheap.
- coding123 5y ago
  Over half of the fresh fruit and veggies at the grocery store is thrown out. I wouldn't be surprised it it was more like 95% for specific foods. I have a feeling that onions don't have this problem, but the Avocados, I see like maybe the same batch sitting for 2 days and on the 3rd you can't even pick one up because it's so ripe it's basically mush. Then salad bags, I imagine that shredded lettuce doesn't go to waste (it's popular for tacos), but pretty much the rest is probably thrown out. What's the solution? I know that grocery stores make Guacamole that sits in the fridge and that helps it age slower, but the vast majority of the Avocados are just wasted.
shalmanese 5y ago
Can you point to a country in 2020 that was affected by food shortages because they depended on food imports from China? Also, the US food supply chain was disrupted in 2020 despite not relying on imports.
adrr 5y ago
Can’t really ship perishables from China. What’s the shelf life of lettuce or strawberries? One week at most? Other crops are protected by tariffs or pest quarantines like sugar, garlic, onions, citrus fruits.

Next time you’re about to complain about farm subsidies, take a moment to appreciate that the US makes more food than it needs and we don’t depend on imports from China to put food on the table.

convolvatron 5y ago

that might be true independent of farm subsidies. we don't really know. it is pretty clear that there are government programs being used to buy votes. which is a pretty stupid way to spend public money.

unanswered 5y ago
As opposed to all of those dollars flowing into extremely republican-leaning cities... Oh wait.
- convolvatron 5y ago
  i was very careful to phrase that in a way that was neurtral to which party was paying off whom its a terrible waste either way
- namdnay 5y ago
  I always though cities were net contributors to taxation/redistribution?
  - adventured 5y ago
    You mean before we count their high environmental cost? Cities are higher net tax contributors due to population density. If we're going to fairly consider the equation, we have to include their high emissions over the decades and the price of that. Fossil fuel based electricity & heat production is by far the worst offender, 1/3 of all emissions. To say nothing of the food requirements of cities (agriculture alone being ~11% of emissions), which are potent emissions contributors. As such, should cities be made to pay for the vast destruction they've caused over time? Across a century, US cities were heavily utilizing cheap coal power to sustain their elevated population density. They took a very low cost, low penalty ride on helping to destroy the planet. Global climate change didn't happen in a day. There's a fair question of distribution of cost, reparations for the fossil fuel consumption & use of cities in the form of a tax to cover their century of past sins. A person might retort: yes, but, cities are more efficient than rural arrangements pound for pound. The issue is total emissions output, in the discussion of total cost (net tax +/- contribution equation), which is what the threat is with climate change. Low population rural areas can't destroy the planet with their resource demands, only large populations can do that. Then a person might retort: but what else were all of those people in cities going to do? Not exist at all? Starve? Go without electricity? I'd suggest environmental reparations via taxation for the net damage the cities did cause (if we're looking at fairly balancing the net tax contribution equation, that is; if their inflated tax net gets counted courtesy of elevated population density, then we must also consider their environmental cost).
    - megablast 5y ago
      > You mean before we count their high environmental cost? Are you saying those people in cities, spread out over the countryside instead would have a lower environmental cost??? Absolutely not. > Across a century, US cities were heavily utilizing cheap coal power to sustain their elevated population density. Whereas the country side used what for power?? Magic?? > Low population rural areas can't destroy the planet with their resource demands, only large populations can do that. The problem is not cities then. The problem is people. Most of our current problems are due to too many people. And yes, more people spread over a larger area are would be worse.

fullstop 5y ago

We pay farmers to _not_ produce crops.

actually_a_dog 5y ago

Is it still okay if I complain about the colossal amount of food waste that takes place in the US?

handrous 5y ago
Food waste's a function of food prices. Raising prices is how you reduce it. We have a lot of waste, because food is cheap.
coding123 5y ago
Over half of the fresh fruit and veggies at the grocery store is thrown out. I wouldn't be surprised it it was more like 95% for specific foods. I have a feeling that onions don't have this problem, but the Avocados, I see like maybe the same batch sitting for 2 days and on the 3rd you can't even pick one up because it's so ripe it's basically mush. Then salad bags, I imagine that shredded lettuce doesn't go to waste (it's popular for tacos), but pretty much the rest is probably thrown out. What's the solution? I know that grocery stores make Guacamole that sits in the fridge and that helps it age slower, but the vast majority of the Avocados are just wasted.

shalmanese 5y ago

Can you point to a country in 2020 that was affected by food shortages because they depended on food imports from China? Also, the US food supply chain was disrupted in 2020 despite not relying on imports.

adrr 5y ago

Can’t really ship perishables from China. What’s the shelf life of lettuce or strawberries? One week at most? Other crops are protected by tariffs or pest quarantines like sugar, garlic, onions, citrus fruits.