4 ms·

That is hilariously optimistic. Massive crop failures on the other side of the world could alter your quality of life to a degree you might be surprised by.

gruez 3y ago
>Massive crop failures on the other side of the world could alter your quality of life to a degree you might be surprised by. Again, this is something that's going to be a humanitarian disaster for the developing world, but a non-issue for the developed world because: 1. they can afford agricultural subsidies/crop insurance to protect farmers 2. they can afford consumer subsidies (eg. reliefs that european governments gave to consumers after the ukarine invasion) 3. there's tremendous slack in the food system. In the US only 27% of crops are used for feeding humans, the rest are used for livestock and biofuel [1] 4. Food represents a small fraction of Americans (and likely other developed countries)'s overall budget around 11%, and only a small fraction of that is actually spent on the crop itself[2]. In the worst case we have to switch to eating meats every week rather than every day and spend a bit more of our budget on food, but that's not exactly "fucked". [1] https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel-animal-feed https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel... [2] https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/food-prices-and-spending/?topicId=2b168260-a717-4708-a264-cb354e815c67 https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistic...
- jakeinspace 3y ago
  To clarify, I meant secondary economic/trade effects, not that the US directly depends on foreign food. If Asia experienced widespread famine and had its capability to export dry up suddenly, that would impact western standards of living quite a lot.
- antisthenes 3y ago
  > 1. they can afford agricultural subsidies/crop insurance to protect farmers Insurance relies on a relatively small chance of a bad event occurring. If there are widespread failures, insurance companies may refuse to insure anything altogether. Systemic risks are not typically solved by insurance companies (see 2008 housing crisis, current Florida housing market insurance debacle) > 2. they can afford consumer subsidies For how long? If the answer is "forever, until we reverse all CO2 emitted", that might change the math for subsidies considerably. > 3. there's tremendous slack in the food system. In the US only 27% of crops are used for feeding humans, the rest are used for livestock and biofuel Livestock food is not slack. > 4. Food represents a small fraction of Americans (and likely other developed countries)'s overall budget around 11% Sometimes a small change in margin makes a big difference in decision making. If you go from 5% profitability to -5% (10% swing), you suddenly turn on the behavior on its head. How many households would be insolvent if their food % went from 11 to 15? What about 11 to 22?
  - gruez 3y ago
    >For how long? If the answer is "forever, until we reverse all CO2 emitted", that might change the math for subsidies considerably. For long enough so that farming can adapt (eg. technology improvements and/or moving agriculture to all the previously inarable land up north), or in the worst case for people to readjust their expectations for not eating meat for every meal of the day. >Livestock food is not slack. Why not? Corn is corn right? It might not be the sweet corn that you're used to, but it's still edible as food. Think corn tortillas or corn flakes[1] >Sometimes a small change in margin makes a big difference in decision making. If you go from 5% profitability to -5% (10% swing), you suddenly turn on the behavior on its head. No, because producers can raise prices to pass on costs to consumers. >How many households would be insolvent if their food % went from 11 to 15? What about 11 to 22? 1. I mean, there's definitely going to be an non-zero amount of people that goes hungry due to any price rise, but that's why my original comment said "most developed country residents", not "everyone". Apparently in 2007-2008 there was a food price crisis, but given how it's not remotely in the american consciousness it's fair to say the impact on global food prices for the average american is negligible. 2. If you look at the same source you see that in the 1960s americans spent 17% of their income on food. Clearly it's doable in the past. 3. While it's true that most americans live paycheck to paycheck, I suspect the phenomena is mostly driven by equilibrium rather than lack of material wealth (ie. they're living paycheck to paycheck because of lifestyle inflation). If you look at the data broken down by income level[3], there's a surprisingly high amount of people making $100k+ but still living paycheck to paycheck. This leads me to believe that while they a good chunk of people living paycheck to paycheck can find the money eventually. They just have to make lifestyle sacrifices elsewhere. In the worst case they can revert to eating rice and beans, which isn't great but also isn't exactly "fucked". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_corn#Uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_corn#Uses [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_world_food_price_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_world_food_p... [3] https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/PYMNTS-New-Reality-Check-August-September-2022.pdf https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/PYMNTS-New... (page 9)
HDThoreaun 3y ago
The US is food and energy independent. If the rest of the world collapses the US will just close borders and trade. There'd be an effect, not a huge one.

gruez 3y ago

>Massive crop failures on the other side of the world could alter your quality of life to a degree you might be surprised by. Again, this is something that's going to be a humanitarian disaster for the developing world, but a non-issue for the developed world because: 1. they can afford agricultural subsidies/crop insurance to protect farmers 2. they can afford consumer subsidies (eg. reliefs that european governments gave to consumers after the ukarine invasion) 3. there's tremendous slack in the food system. In the US only 27% of crops are used for feeding humans, the rest are used for livestock and biofuel [1] 4. Food represents a small fraction of Americans (and likely other developed countries)'s overall budget around 11%, and only a small fraction of that is actually spent on the crop itself[2]. In the worst case we have to switch to eating meats every week rather than every day and spend a bit more of our budget on food, but that's not exactly "fucked". [1] https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel-animal-feed https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel... [2] https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/food-prices-and-spending/?topicId=2b168260-a717-4708-a264-cb354e815c67 https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistic...

jakeinspace 3y ago
To clarify, I meant secondary economic/trade effects, not that the US directly depends on foreign food. If Asia experienced widespread famine and had its capability to export dry up suddenly, that would impact western standards of living quite a lot.
antisthenes 3y ago
> 1. they can afford agricultural subsidies/crop insurance to protect farmers Insurance relies on a relatively small chance of a bad event occurring. If there are widespread failures, insurance companies may refuse to insure anything altogether. Systemic risks are not typically solved by insurance companies (see 2008 housing crisis, current Florida housing market insurance debacle) > 2. they can afford consumer subsidies For how long? If the answer is "forever, until we reverse all CO2 emitted", that might change the math for subsidies considerably. > 3. there's tremendous slack in the food system. In the US only 27% of crops are used for feeding humans, the rest are used for livestock and biofuel Livestock food is not slack. > 4. Food represents a small fraction of Americans (and likely other developed countries)'s overall budget around 11% Sometimes a small change in margin makes a big difference in decision making. If you go from 5% profitability to -5% (10% swing), you suddenly turn on the behavior on its head. How many households would be insolvent if their food % went from 11 to 15? What about 11 to 22?
- gruez 3y ago
  >For how long? If the answer is "forever, until we reverse all CO2 emitted", that might change the math for subsidies considerably. For long enough so that farming can adapt (eg. technology improvements and/or moving agriculture to all the previously inarable land up north), or in the worst case for people to readjust their expectations for not eating meat for every meal of the day. >Livestock food is not slack. Why not? Corn is corn right? It might not be the sweet corn that you're used to, but it's still edible as food. Think corn tortillas or corn flakes[1] >Sometimes a small change in margin makes a big difference in decision making. If you go from 5% profitability to -5% (10% swing), you suddenly turn on the behavior on its head. No, because producers can raise prices to pass on costs to consumers. >How many households would be insolvent if their food % went from 11 to 15? What about 11 to 22? 1. I mean, there's definitely going to be an non-zero amount of people that goes hungry due to any price rise, but that's why my original comment said "most developed country residents", not "everyone". Apparently in 2007-2008 there was a food price crisis, but given how it's not remotely in the american consciousness it's fair to say the impact on global food prices for the average american is negligible. 2. If you look at the same source you see that in the 1960s americans spent 17% of their income on food. Clearly it's doable in the past. 3. While it's true that most americans live paycheck to paycheck, I suspect the phenomena is mostly driven by equilibrium rather than lack of material wealth (ie. they're living paycheck to paycheck because of lifestyle inflation). If you look at the data broken down by income level[3], there's a surprisingly high amount of people making $100k+ but still living paycheck to paycheck. This leads me to believe that while they a good chunk of people living paycheck to paycheck can find the money eventually. They just have to make lifestyle sacrifices elsewhere. In the worst case they can revert to eating rice and beans, which isn't great but also isn't exactly "fucked". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_corn#Uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_corn#Uses [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_world_food_price_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_world_food_p... [3] https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/PYMNTS-New-Reality-Check-August-September-2022.pdf https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/PYMNTS-New... (page 9)

HDThoreaun 3y ago

The US is food and energy independent. If the rest of the world collapses the US will just close borders and trade. There'd be an effect, not a huge one.