4 ms·

Food is also a "basic need", does that mean we should enslave farmers with regulation? Or just enslave the rest of us in order to pay farmers? Edit: I'm sugges

Food is also a "basic need", does that mean we should enslave farmers with regulation? Or just enslave the rest of us in order to pay farmers? Edit: I'm suggesting that feeding (and housing) yourself is a personal responsibility, not a collective one. And that the instrument we use to enforce basic order and peaceful coexistence (punish noncompliance with imprisonment) is far to blunt for enforcing cooperation (helping each other find food/shelter).

themitigating 5y ago
Do people horde food as an investment? Regardless it's extremely affordable for most people
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  yes? Food staples are commodities, just like steel, oil and chocolate, and are speculated on by commodities traders.
  - kazen44 5y ago
    people dont hoard food to make the supply on the market less though. throughout history. society has not been kind to people who tried this. scalping staple foods usually leads to bread riots. and because food is absolutely biologically required to survive, those usually turned very violent.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      They do, to varying degrees, just not enough to be noticable. Commodities traders buy and hold all the time. The thing about free markets is that you need a hell of a lot of collusion to do what you're suggesting because someone always stands to gain from misguided speculation. This is actually exactly the issue with housing. The market is controlled by municipalities who are elected by NIMBYs. The only reasonable thing to do in these conditions is to buy as much housing as you can, since your assets are protected from competition (local densification) by the government. We've literally regulated ourselves into this crisis. The solution can't be more regulation. Edit: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_middle_housing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_middle_housing
- DeathArrow 5y ago
  Someone hoarding farmland like Bill Gates does so indirectly.
arcticbull 5y ago
It's not an issue in the US because the Farm Bill continues to subsidize the cost of growing staple crops in the US (in some cases to below the cost of production), and also, SNAP ensures folks at the lower end of the income scale have access to basic nutrition needs. It's socialized at both ends, really. This would be an interesting topic if food in the US weren't already the cheapest in the entire world. [1] [1] https://www.ecowatch.com/worlds-cheapest-food-is-in-the-u-s-but-at-what-cost-1881610127.html https://www.ecowatch.com/worlds-cheapest-food-is-in-the-u-s-...
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  I agree that food is subsidised, but I disagree it should be. We should be curtailing government control of the economy, not expanding it. Edit: just look at the massive harm caused by subsidising corn.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    The government I agree shouldn't be subsidizing harmful agricultural practices, but it shouldn't necessarily be a laissez-faire system either. The government should incentivize good behavior. However, I agree there are probably better ways of managing access to food with less regulation, such as repealing the Farm Bill and offering UBI payments in lieu so individuals can decide what they want to eat.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      > The government should incentivize good behavior Yes exactly, incentivize not mandate. People should be free to cooperate/not cooperate as they see fit, don't you think? Why UBI? That's just more mandatory cooperation - the productive are forced to subsidize the non-productive. Can't it be optional?
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        The reality is that we have too many people on earth as compared to the amount of work that needs to get done. We can either force the extra people to do useless work, or we can tax the robots and pass on the gains to everyone. The sooner we accept that this is the inescapable future of humanity, the better off we all shall be. At the end of the day, it's our responsibility to make sure everyone has some bare minimum standard of living because life is a lottery. We can either make it supply side push or demand side pull.
remexre 5y ago
Are there people treating food as an appreciating asset?
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  Sure there are, food is traded on commodities markets just like everything else.
  - xboxnolifes 5y ago
    Which works nothing like the housing market.
  - nmfisher 5y ago
    If government policy was designed so that the price of food was outstripping income growth, that would definitely be a problem.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      why does the outcome have to be due to the design of government policy? Why can't it just be a consequence of the free interaction of people?
      - imtringued 5y ago
        Because everyone told me to blame the government.
      - nmfisher 5y ago
        Because government policy heavily influences the price of housing, which is an essential good?
      - reducesuffering 5y ago
        Because the government: 1. Manipulates interest rates directly affecting house prices 2. Changes tax rates depending on housing (mortgage interest) 3. Buys mortgages 4. Zones areas which can restrict or increase supply based on policy. Yes, if they didn’t do any of these, people wouldn’t blame government policy and we’d see what a functioning market results in.
DeathArrow 5y ago
The US government is fighting to make homes less affordable through subsidizing mortgages with Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. Subsidizing mortgages just push prices up. If their intent was to make homes more affordable they would intervene in the offer side not on the demand side. It would simply have been better to just make a construction company and sell homes at cost.

themitigating 5y ago

Do people horde food as an investment? Regardless it's extremely affordable for most people

thegrimmest 5y ago
yes? Food staples are commodities, just like steel, oil and chocolate, and are speculated on by commodities traders.
- kazen44 5y ago
  people dont hoard food to make the supply on the market less though. throughout history. society has not been kind to people who tried this. scalping staple foods usually leads to bread riots. and because food is absolutely biologically required to survive, those usually turned very violent.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    They do, to varying degrees, just not enough to be noticable. Commodities traders buy and hold all the time. The thing about free markets is that you need a hell of a lot of collusion to do what you're suggesting because someone always stands to gain from misguided speculation. This is actually exactly the issue with housing. The market is controlled by municipalities who are elected by NIMBYs. The only reasonable thing to do in these conditions is to buy as much housing as you can, since your assets are protected from competition (local densification) by the government. We've literally regulated ourselves into this crisis. The solution can't be more regulation. Edit: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_middle_housing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_middle_housing
DeathArrow 5y ago
Someone hoarding farmland like Bill Gates does so indirectly.

arcticbull 5y ago

It's not an issue in the US because the Farm Bill continues to subsidize the cost of growing staple crops in the US (in some cases to below the cost of production), and also, SNAP ensures folks at the lower end of the income scale have access to basic nutrition needs. It's socialized at both ends, really. This would be an interesting topic if food in the US weren't already the cheapest in the entire world. [1] [1] https://www.ecowatch.com/worlds-cheapest-food-is-in-the-u-s-but-at-what-cost-1881610127.html https://www.ecowatch.com/worlds-cheapest-food-is-in-the-u-s-...

thegrimmest 5y ago
I agree that food is subsidised, but I disagree it should be. We should be curtailing government control of the economy, not expanding it. Edit: just look at the massive harm caused by subsidising corn.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  The government I agree shouldn't be subsidizing harmful agricultural practices, but it shouldn't necessarily be a laissez-faire system either. The government should incentivize good behavior. However, I agree there are probably better ways of managing access to food with less regulation, such as repealing the Farm Bill and offering UBI payments in lieu so individuals can decide what they want to eat.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    > The government should incentivize good behavior Yes exactly, incentivize not mandate. People should be free to cooperate/not cooperate as they see fit, don't you think? Why UBI? That's just more mandatory cooperation - the productive are forced to subsidize the non-productive. Can't it be optional?
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      The reality is that we have too many people on earth as compared to the amount of work that needs to get done. We can either force the extra people to do useless work, or we can tax the robots and pass on the gains to everyone. The sooner we accept that this is the inescapable future of humanity, the better off we all shall be. At the end of the day, it's our responsibility to make sure everyone has some bare minimum standard of living because life is a lottery. We can either make it supply side push or demand side pull.

remexre 5y ago

Are there people treating food as an appreciating asset?

thegrimmest 5y ago
Sure there are, food is traded on commodities markets just like everything else.
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  Which works nothing like the housing market.
- nmfisher 5y ago
  If government policy was designed so that the price of food was outstripping income growth, that would definitely be a problem.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    why does the outcome have to be due to the design of government policy? Why can't it just be a consequence of the free interaction of people?
    - imtringued 5y ago
      Because everyone told me to blame the government.
    - nmfisher 5y ago
      Because government policy heavily influences the price of housing, which is an essential good?
    - reducesuffering 5y ago
      Because the government: 1. Manipulates interest rates directly affecting house prices 2. Changes tax rates depending on housing (mortgage interest) 3. Buys mortgages 4. Zones areas which can restrict or increase supply based on policy. Yes, if they didn’t do any of these, people wouldn’t blame government policy and we’d see what a functioning market results in.

DeathArrow 5y ago

The US government is fighting to make homes less affordable through subsidizing mortgages with Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. Subsidizing mortgages just push prices up. If their intent was to make homes more affordable they would intervene in the offer side not on the demand side. It would simply have been better to just make a construction company and sell homes at cost.