4 ms·

The vast majority of the world’s population falls into this category: If you vote for someone who tells you they can make something cheaper they can’t actually

by sympil 2y ago

The vast majority of the world’s population falls into this category: If you vote for someone who tells you they can make something cheaper they can’t actually make cheaper, and you don’t understand the how and the why, you are not a smart voter. Your premise is wrong. There are lots of smart people who make dumb, emotionally based decisions in voting and other aspects of life. …. in a short period of time? ? What wand would government wave to make food prices decline in a short period of time? Cattle herds are at the lowest level in 73 years due to costs related to climate change (which influences beef prices), and the government isn’t going to mandate vaccination for poultry to stem Avian flu contagion The discussion was about oligopolies and their pricing power. Now you are changing the topic by talking about things that don’t have to do with oligopolies and their pricing power. I suggest you are not in a position to call other voters dumb.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
I suggest you don't understand the problem besides "oligopolies are the culprit," which is not supported by the evidence. Ag consolidation is a factor, but not the sole factor, nor one this administration will take action on. The supply side will remain unresolved, and the voter will remain angry and upset about it.
- riehwvfbk 2y ago
  OK, oh Smart One. What do we do? I'm guessing the answer is along the lines of "There's nothing that can be done about these artificially created conditions. They just are. So please die quietly, you plebes." Correct? You are conveniently forgetting that the plebes are subsidizing the status quo via their taxes. Corn subsidies. Chicken tax. These are not laws of nature and they can be repealed.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    > I'm guessing the answer is along the lines of "There's nothing that can be done about these artificially created conditions. They just are. So please die quietly, you plebes." Correct? No, not at all. I would suggest this administration maintain its monopoly busting stance Lina Khan demonstrated at the FTC [1], in concert with the DOJ [2]. I would suggest removing ag subsidies for operations over a certain size [3], and target subsidies towards smaller operations (not necessarily family farms, but simply more, smaller operations to optimize for competition and resiliency over efficiency and profits). I would suggest directly subsidizing production capacity increases that had to be proven and maintained to receive subsidies (government supported price floors, if needed), as well as fund increased biosecurity policy and implementation (to prevent supply shocks). I would suggest strong labor and worker protections to drive up wages much faster (versus the slower rate they are accelerating ahead of inflation currently). But, this is not policy that was voted for, or what conservatives will deliver on, so it is moot. > You are conveniently forgetting that the plebes are subsidizing the status quo via their taxes. Corn subsidies. Chicken tax. These are not laws of nature and they can be repealed. "The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all federal individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent." [4] Agree laws are mutable though. Increase and protect supply, increase wages, decrease consolidation. Solving for one is insufficient, solving for all three is required for the economic system to reach food security equilibrium at scale. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/ftc-accomplishments-june-2021-january-2025.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/ftc-accomplishm... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-17/biden-s-doj-antitrust-chief-leaves-trump-record-monopoly-cases https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-17/biden-s-d... | https://archive.today/FCZaW https://archive.today/FCZaW [3] https://greenfiscalpolicy.org/under-trump-farm-subsidies-soared-and-the-rich-got-richer/ https://greenfiscalpolicy.org/under-trump-farm-subsidies-soa... [4] https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2025/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in...
    - potato3732842 2y ago
      Be careful what you wish for. You're basically buying compliance with the status quo with those subsidies and rule structures that stomp out the little guy (not just in farming but in manufacturing too). If the hand ain't feeding these people they have no reason not to bite it, though with the way elections are going these days maybe the gig is already up.
      - toomuchtodo 2y ago
        On the contrary, you have to directly subsidize the "little guy" because they are unprofitable otherwise vs scale, but their value is such that you have to tip the scales with subsidies to enable their ongoing existence. You're internalizing the positive value not otherwise captured. Existing subsidy structures are what have encouraged "get big or get out" [1] in ag, hence the need to transform those subsidy structures to encourage supply chain resiliency and reserved capacity, at the cost of efficiency and scale. The last administration was making progress on this (without the subsidies I mention) [2]. Progress to improve systems of this scale takes time, and many will be unhappy with how long progress takes. Can you convince the electorate to keep voting for you while you try to fix it because it'll be worth the wait? Based on the evidence and the latest election cycle, I would say no after a preponderance of said evidence. [1] https://grist.org/article/the-butz-stops-here/ https://grist.org/article/the-butz-stops-here/ [2] https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2024/02/13/agriculture-secretary-vilsack-statement-release-2022-census-agriculture https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2024/02/...
        potato3732842 2y ago
        I'm saying that those subsidy structures are what give the federal government's tentacles a good grip on anything in the flyover states. If you have an interest in micro managing these people (which you clearly do) then it is in your interest that the grip remain tight. It's really easy for you to keep ten BiCo's from dumping hazmat, over using fertilizer, running emissions noncompliant tractors, using illegal labor, etc, etc. It is much harder, much more expensive and much more politically messy to enforce your will to an equal degree upon say, a thousand medium and small businesses. And doubly so if the bigCos are dependent upon a bunch of paper pushing and box checking to qualify for subsidy in order to be profitable at all and the medium and small businesses aren't. So if you have strong opinions about the exact details of how the beans are farmed (or whatever, the beans are metaphorical) it's in your interest to keep these agricultural economies dominated by big business and on the government teat.
- sympil 2y ago
  You wrote: They also have no appetite to understand market consolidation being a root cause contributing factor of supply shortages or pricing power (depending on your view on the topic). The person you responded to talked about oligopolies and their pricing power. If you don’t think that is the problem then why respond with the above? Argue that oligopolies are not the problem. Don’t shift the discussion later on like you did.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    I responded with what I did because complex problems do not have simple solutions. It is not "oligopolies are the problem" or "oligopolies are not the problem"; it is "the problem is multifaceted, here are potential actions that can be taken to solve for the complex problem, the likelihood of success, second order effects, etc." Also, if voters do not understand the problem, and keep voting for people who lie to them about the cause of the problems and the solutions, success is impossible (because federal policy is mandatory to solve for this, and federal policy is a function of election outcomes). Discussing this nuance is not "shifting the discussion," but broadening it to be accurate and thorough; to expect a simple yes or no answer is unreasonable, and to do so is to double down on both being factually incorrect and ignoring the complexity of the problem at hand. The system is failing (affordable food, food security), due to multiple components: ag consolidation and voters are two of those components, but not the only components that require improvements to encourage an improved system outcome. I hope this helps communicate my mental model and thought process on this problem space.

by sympil 2y ago

toomuchtodo 2y ago

I suggest you don't understand the problem besides "oligopolies are the culprit," which is not supported by the evidence. Ag consolidation is a factor, but not the sole factor, nor one this administration will take action on. The supply side will remain unresolved, and the voter will remain angry and upset about it.

riehwvfbk 2y ago
OK, oh Smart One. What do we do? I'm guessing the answer is along the lines of "There's nothing that can be done about these artificially created conditions. They just are. So please die quietly, you plebes." Correct? You are conveniently forgetting that the plebes are subsidizing the status quo via their taxes. Corn subsidies. Chicken tax. These are not laws of nature and they can be repealed.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  > I'm guessing the answer is along the lines of "There's nothing that can be done about these artificially created conditions. They just are. So please die quietly, you plebes." Correct? No, not at all. I would suggest this administration maintain its monopoly busting stance Lina Khan demonstrated at the FTC [1], in concert with the DOJ [2]. I would suggest removing ag subsidies for operations over a certain size [3], and target subsidies towards smaller operations (not necessarily family farms, but simply more, smaller operations to optimize for competition and resiliency over efficiency and profits). I would suggest directly subsidizing production capacity increases that had to be proven and maintained to receive subsidies (government supported price floors, if needed), as well as fund increased biosecurity policy and implementation (to prevent supply shocks). I would suggest strong labor and worker protections to drive up wages much faster (versus the slower rate they are accelerating ahead of inflation currently). But, this is not policy that was voted for, or what conservatives will deliver on, so it is moot. > You are conveniently forgetting that the plebes are subsidizing the status quo via their taxes. Corn subsidies. Chicken tax. These are not laws of nature and they can be repealed. "The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all federal individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent." [4] Agree laws are mutable though. Increase and protect supply, increase wages, decrease consolidation. Solving for one is insufficient, solving for all three is required for the economic system to reach food security equilibrium at scale. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/ftc-accomplishments-june-2021-january-2025.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/ftc-accomplishm... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-17/biden-s-doj-antitrust-chief-leaves-trump-record-monopoly-cases https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-17/biden-s-d... | https://archive.today/FCZaW https://archive.today/FCZaW [3] https://greenfiscalpolicy.org/under-trump-farm-subsidies-soared-and-the-rich-got-richer/ https://greenfiscalpolicy.org/under-trump-farm-subsidies-soa... [4] https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2025/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in...
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    Be careful what you wish for. You're basically buying compliance with the status quo with those subsidies and rule structures that stomp out the little guy (not just in farming but in manufacturing too). If the hand ain't feeding these people they have no reason not to bite it, though with the way elections are going these days maybe the gig is already up.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      On the contrary, you have to directly subsidize the "little guy" because they are unprofitable otherwise vs scale, but their value is such that you have to tip the scales with subsidies to enable their ongoing existence. You're internalizing the positive value not otherwise captured. Existing subsidy structures are what have encouraged "get big or get out" [1] in ag, hence the need to transform those subsidy structures to encourage supply chain resiliency and reserved capacity, at the cost of efficiency and scale. The last administration was making progress on this (without the subsidies I mention) [2]. Progress to improve systems of this scale takes time, and many will be unhappy with how long progress takes. Can you convince the electorate to keep voting for you while you try to fix it because it'll be worth the wait? Based on the evidence and the latest election cycle, I would say no after a preponderance of said evidence. [1] https://grist.org/article/the-butz-stops-here/ https://grist.org/article/the-butz-stops-here/ [2] https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2024/02/13/agriculture-secretary-vilsack-statement-release-2022-census-agriculture https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2024/02/...
      - potato3732842 2y ago
        I'm saying that those subsidy structures are what give the federal government's tentacles a good grip on anything in the flyover states. If you have an interest in micro managing these people (which you clearly do) then it is in your interest that the grip remain tight. It's really easy for you to keep ten BiCo's from dumping hazmat, over using fertilizer, running emissions noncompliant tractors, using illegal labor, etc, etc. It is much harder, much more expensive and much more politically messy to enforce your will to an equal degree upon say, a thousand medium and small businesses. And doubly so if the bigCos are dependent upon a bunch of paper pushing and box checking to qualify for subsidy in order to be profitable at all and the medium and small businesses aren't. So if you have strong opinions about the exact details of how the beans are farmed (or whatever, the beans are metaphorical) it's in your interest to keep these agricultural economies dominated by big business and on the government teat.
sympil 2y ago
You wrote: They also have no appetite to understand market consolidation being a root cause contributing factor of supply shortages or pricing power (depending on your view on the topic). The person you responded to talked about oligopolies and their pricing power. If you don’t think that is the problem then why respond with the above? Argue that oligopolies are not the problem. Don’t shift the discussion later on like you did.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  I responded with what I did because complex problems do not have simple solutions. It is not "oligopolies are the problem" or "oligopolies are not the problem"; it is "the problem is multifaceted, here are potential actions that can be taken to solve for the complex problem, the likelihood of success, second order effects, etc." Also, if voters do not understand the problem, and keep voting for people who lie to them about the cause of the problems and the solutions, success is impossible (because federal policy is mandatory to solve for this, and federal policy is a function of election outcomes). Discussing this nuance is not "shifting the discussion," but broadening it to be accurate and thorough; to expect a simple yes or no answer is unreasonable, and to do so is to double down on both being factually incorrect and ignoring the complexity of the problem at hand. The system is failing (affordable food, food security), due to multiple components: ag consolidation and voters are two of those components, but not the only components that require improvements to encourage an improved system outcome. I hope this helps communicate my mental model and thought process on this problem space.