4 ms·

If the demand is unelastic, stopping subsidies or introducing tariffs will increase prices ending up with the consumer and most probably hitting the poorest peo

by cgio 5y ago

If the demand is unelastic, stopping subsidies or introducing tariffs will increase prices ending up with the consumer and most probably hitting the poorest people worse. From that perspective, billions shopped to mega corps could be an ironically capitalist way to socialist means. Better ways perhaps to achieve the same but don’t know if they would align with a capitalist worldview, e.g. socialise the production, or cap profitability etc.

BoorishBears 5y ago
We already provide food assistance to our poorest, we could always redirect those subsidies directly to poor families
- susiecambria 5y ago
  You are right that we do provide food assistance but benefits are not always enough to last a month: ". . . most SNAP beneficiaries run out of food after the second or third week of the month; some of them cope by turning to local food pantries like the ones Community FoodBank of New Jersey runs." [1] In addition, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has written, "many low-income households that receive benefits still have trouble affording an adequate diet. An Institute of Medicine report identified several shortcomings with the current SNAP benefit allotment and noted that most household benefit levels are based on unrealistic assumptions about the cost of food, preparation time, and access to grocery stores. Many families face stark choices between purchasing food and paying for rent and other necessities. If they manage this shortfall by buying lower-cost but less nutritious foods, it can adversely affect their health." [2] Directing farm subsidies or any other money to current and future SNAP beneficiaries would benefit millions, including working Americans: "The number of SNAP households that have earnings while participating in SNAP has more than tripled — from about 2 million in 2000 to 6.5 million in 2017. The share of all SNAP households that have earnings while participating in SNAP has also increased — from about 27 percent in 2000 to about 31 percent in 2017." [3] Regardless of dealing with the very problematic farm subsidies, the president and congress must do something about food insecurity. [1] https://www.salon.com/2014/01/19/what_i_learned_from_a_week_on_food_stamps_paul_ryan_couldnt_be_any_more_wrong/ https://www.salon.com/2014/01/19/what_i_learned_from_a_week_... [2] [3] https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/the-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/the-supplement...
- Talanes 5y ago
  Unless that also includes raising the maximum income threshold for SNAP recipients, that would just move the burden from the absolute poorest to the marginally poor.
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    Ok so raise the maximum income threshold significantly while we're at it? It's not like both of those things are not equally likely to happen (which is to say not likely)
    - Talanes 5y ago
      But two unlikely things both happening is less likely than either one alone.
treeman79 5y ago
Socializing or capping profit will guarantee shortages.

by cgio 5y ago

BoorishBears 5y ago

We already provide food assistance to our poorest, we could always redirect those subsidies directly to poor families

susiecambria 5y ago
You are right that we do provide food assistance but benefits are not always enough to last a month: ". . . most SNAP beneficiaries run out of food after the second or third week of the month; some of them cope by turning to local food pantries like the ones Community FoodBank of New Jersey runs." [1] In addition, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has written, "many low-income households that receive benefits still have trouble affording an adequate diet. An Institute of Medicine report identified several shortcomings with the current SNAP benefit allotment and noted that most household benefit levels are based on unrealistic assumptions about the cost of food, preparation time, and access to grocery stores. Many families face stark choices between purchasing food and paying for rent and other necessities. If they manage this shortfall by buying lower-cost but less nutritious foods, it can adversely affect their health." [2] Directing farm subsidies or any other money to current and future SNAP beneficiaries would benefit millions, including working Americans: "The number of SNAP households that have earnings while participating in SNAP has more than tripled — from about 2 million in 2000 to 6.5 million in 2017. The share of all SNAP households that have earnings while participating in SNAP has also increased — from about 27 percent in 2000 to about 31 percent in 2017." [3] Regardless of dealing with the very problematic farm subsidies, the president and congress must do something about food insecurity. [1] https://www.salon.com/2014/01/19/what_i_learned_from_a_week_on_food_stamps_paul_ryan_couldnt_be_any_more_wrong/ https://www.salon.com/2014/01/19/what_i_learned_from_a_week_... [2] [3] https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/the-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/the-supplement...
Talanes 5y ago
Unless that also includes raising the maximum income threshold for SNAP recipients, that would just move the burden from the absolute poorest to the marginally poor.
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  Ok so raise the maximum income threshold significantly while we're at it? It's not like both of those things are not equally likely to happen (which is to say not likely)
  - Talanes 5y ago
    But two unlikely things both happening is less likely than either one alone.

treeman79 5y ago

Socializing or capping profit will guarantee shortages.