3 ms·

I'd rather have wheat and no money, than money and no wheat. I suppose the people who would buy Kansas wheat would be anyone who wants wheat. The US currently c

I'd rather have wheat and no money, than money and no wheat. I suppose the people who would buy Kansas wheat would be anyone who wants wheat. The US currently considers food security a vital part of national security. The blue states in this scenario can outsource their food production if they want, and hope there's never any conflict which stops those shipments.

ceejayoz 2y ago
> I'd rather have wheat and no money, than money and no wheat. This has largely been a settled argument for about 10k years, as we transitioned to agriculture. Most people prefer buying wheat to growing it.
- LetMePostMore 2y ago
  Yes, and it is hard to buy wheat when the price skyrockets due to interstate conflict. It's even harder to buy wheat when no one will sell to you.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > Yes, and it is hard to buy wheat when the price skyrockets due to interstate conflict. Even harder to grow it in meaningful quantities on a subsistence farming basis. > It's even harder to buy wheat when no one will sell to you. Which, unless your plan is to blockade the blue states, Canada and Brazil will happily do.
    - LetMePostMore 2y ago
      There's a big reason why the US subsidizes domestic food production, and you'd be throwing that all out by relying on other countries for food. Good luck, let's hope Brazil and the US always see eye to eye on everything.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        > There's a big reason why the US subsidizes domestic food production… Yes, and your proposed plan - the subsidized states refusing to sell the food to the subsidising ones - removes that reason entirely. Blue states would see inflation. Red states would see an economic collapse.
        LetMePostMore 2y ago
        National security doesn't stop being a thing if the US splits into two countries. It's just the national security interest of Blue America would not directly align with the national security interest of Red America. Blue America would probably still choose to maintain domestic food production for national security interests, but would just pay a whole lot more to subsidize the production than they are currently paying.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        Maybe! And blue states will retaliate. Need medical care? Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb are all HQed in New Jersey, Pfizer in NYC, AbbVie in Chicago… We know who wins in trade wars. No one.
        LetMePostMore 2y ago
        That was basically my original point - OP made it sound like red states only exist via the largesse of blue states. I'm not really sure why my points have received so much push back, but OP received basically none at all for offering essentially a symmetrical argument to my own.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > OP made it sound like red states only exist via the largesse of blue states. They are quite well subsidized, yes. https://apnews.com/article/north-america-business-local-taxes-ap-top-news-politics-2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c https://apnews.com/article/north-america-business-local-taxe... > Connecticut residents paid an average of $15,643 per person in federal taxes in 2015, according to a report by the Rockefeller Institute of Government. Massachusetts paid $13,582 per person, New Jersey paid $13,137 and New York paid $12,820. > At the other end, Mississippi residents paid an average of $5,740 per person, while West Virginia paid $6,349, Kentucky paid $6,626 and South Carolina paid $6,665. > Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar the state sent to Washington in 2015, according to the Rockefeller study. West Virginia received $2.07, Kentucky got $1.90 and South Carolina got $1.71. > Meanwhile, New Jersey received 74 cents in federal spending for tax every dollar the state sent to Washington. New York received 81 cents, Connecticut received 82 cents and Massachusetts received 83 cents. We like this setup, but I suspect blue states have more options for grain than red states have for doctors.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > Yes, and it is hard to buy wheat when the price skyrockets due to interstate conflict. Not if you have the money. > It's even harder to buy wheat when no one will sell to you. Yeah, but the world is more than the US, and as well as money, the blue states have ports.
fzeroracer 2y ago
As a thought for you: Red states heavily rely on undocumented laborers in order for farms to survive because even with their heavy subsidies they are not able to afford hiring Americans even at minimum wage. In this scenario where the red states are actively chasing away the workforce they need to survive, how are they going to maintain food production?
- LetMePostMore 2y ago
  You're telling me that you believe the richest country in the history of the world, with some of the highest levels of mechanization and industrialization in the history of the world, with some of the most efficient agricultural production in the history of the world, cannot afford to grow food without essentially slave labor?
  - fzeroracer 2y ago
    Yes, that's an objective fact. Something like 40-50% of farmworkers are undocumented, even more if you consider immigrants as part of the pile.
    - LetMePostMore 2y ago
      It's a fact(I guess?) that they are that percentage of farmworkers. It's not a fact that without them that farms would not survive in America.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        Sure it is. We've tried it: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/07/31/634442195/when-the-u-s-government-tried-to-replace-migrant-farmworkers-with-high-schoolers https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/07/31/634442195/wh... We already can't find enough labor: https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-farm-labor-guestworkers/ https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-farm-labor-guestworke... and unemployment is historically very low.
lovich 2y ago
Luckily the blue states have ample access to multiple other food sources. They also have access to all the ports importing phosphorus used in the supply chain to produce the fertilizer necessary for the red states to achieve such high yields. It turns out that the modern world has an infinitely more complex economy and supply chain than just wheat and money
- LetMePostMore 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - lovich 2y ago
    You got dogpiled because the OPs response is into perceived suffering being caused to the blue states already, and proposing that they respond in turn. When you jumped in with your comments about wheat, it was not interpreted by the repliers as pointing out that they could also hurt them, it was perceived as you saying something along the lines of "well were gonna turn up the screws on ya then" That elicits a fairly predictable reaction from most people. Additionally they do have ports but most of their capacity is in the trivially blockaded Gulf of America
  - bilbo0s 2y ago
    You're all out in no man's land in any case. Blue states don't produce as much food because they don't have to. As soon as they would have to, they could. They'd take a bit of a hit on the price, but that's about it. Red states don't need blue state money because they can sell their food elsewhere. (Well, maybe not to the best markets at the best prices in the current trade war climate but you get my drift.) They'd just take a bit of a hit on the price. The unhappy reality is that different regions of this nation don't really need each other for base essentials. Now, for industrial inputs or outputs? Yeah, totally different story. But that's not regionality as much as it is just "everyone is dependent on Texas and California if you go far enough down the industrial rabbit hole". Even that's just convenience though. Pretty much anywhere in the nation they can scale up to make what they need. They just don't because it's convenient to allow others to do it. As soon as those others make it inconvenient, they'll do it themselves.

ceejayoz 2y ago

> I'd rather have wheat and no money, than money and no wheat. This has largely been a settled argument for about 10k years, as we transitioned to agriculture. Most people prefer buying wheat to growing it.

LetMePostMore 2y ago
Yes, and it is hard to buy wheat when the price skyrockets due to interstate conflict. It's even harder to buy wheat when no one will sell to you.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > Yes, and it is hard to buy wheat when the price skyrockets due to interstate conflict. Even harder to grow it in meaningful quantities on a subsistence farming basis. > It's even harder to buy wheat when no one will sell to you. Which, unless your plan is to blockade the blue states, Canada and Brazil will happily do.
  - LetMePostMore 2y ago
    There's a big reason why the US subsidizes domestic food production, and you'd be throwing that all out by relying on other countries for food. Good luck, let's hope Brazil and the US always see eye to eye on everything.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > There's a big reason why the US subsidizes domestic food production… Yes, and your proposed plan - the subsidized states refusing to sell the food to the subsidising ones - removes that reason entirely. Blue states would see inflation. Red states would see an economic collapse.
      - LetMePostMore 2y ago
        National security doesn't stop being a thing if the US splits into two countries. It's just the national security interest of Blue America would not directly align with the national security interest of Red America. Blue America would probably still choose to maintain domestic food production for national security interests, but would just pay a whole lot more to subsidize the production than they are currently paying.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        Maybe! And blue states will retaliate. Need medical care? Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb are all HQed in New Jersey, Pfizer in NYC, AbbVie in Chicago… We know who wins in trade wars. No one.
        LetMePostMore 2y ago
        That was basically my original point - OP made it sound like red states only exist via the largesse of blue states. I'm not really sure why my points have received so much push back, but OP received basically none at all for offering essentially a symmetrical argument to my own.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > OP made it sound like red states only exist via the largesse of blue states. They are quite well subsidized, yes. https://apnews.com/article/north-america-business-local-taxes-ap-top-news-politics-2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c https://apnews.com/article/north-america-business-local-taxe... > Connecticut residents paid an average of $15,643 per person in federal taxes in 2015, according to a report by the Rockefeller Institute of Government. Massachusetts paid $13,582 per person, New Jersey paid $13,137 and New York paid $12,820. > At the other end, Mississippi residents paid an average of $5,740 per person, while West Virginia paid $6,349, Kentucky paid $6,626 and South Carolina paid $6,665. > Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar the state sent to Washington in 2015, according to the Rockefeller study. West Virginia received $2.07, Kentucky got $1.90 and South Carolina got $1.71. > Meanwhile, New Jersey received 74 cents in federal spending for tax every dollar the state sent to Washington. New York received 81 cents, Connecticut received 82 cents and Massachusetts received 83 cents. We like this setup, but I suspect blue states have more options for grain than red states have for doctors.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > Yes, and it is hard to buy wheat when the price skyrockets due to interstate conflict. Not if you have the money. > It's even harder to buy wheat when no one will sell to you. Yeah, but the world is more than the US, and as well as money, the blue states have ports.

fzeroracer 2y ago

As a thought for you: Red states heavily rely on undocumented laborers in order for farms to survive because even with their heavy subsidies they are not able to afford hiring Americans even at minimum wage. In this scenario where the red states are actively chasing away the workforce they need to survive, how are they going to maintain food production?

LetMePostMore 2y ago
You're telling me that you believe the richest country in the history of the world, with some of the highest levels of mechanization and industrialization in the history of the world, with some of the most efficient agricultural production in the history of the world, cannot afford to grow food without essentially slave labor?
- fzeroracer 2y ago
  Yes, that's an objective fact. Something like 40-50% of farmworkers are undocumented, even more if you consider immigrants as part of the pile.
  - LetMePostMore 2y ago
    It's a fact(I guess?) that they are that percentage of farmworkers. It's not a fact that without them that farms would not survive in America.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      Sure it is. We've tried it: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/07/31/634442195/when-the-u-s-government-tried-to-replace-migrant-farmworkers-with-high-schoolers https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/07/31/634442195/wh... We already can't find enough labor: https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-farm-labor-guestworkers/ https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-farm-labor-guestworke... and unemployment is historically very low.

lovich 2y ago

Luckily the blue states have ample access to multiple other food sources. They also have access to all the ports importing phosphorus used in the supply chain to produce the fertilizer necessary for the red states to achieve such high yields. It turns out that the modern world has an infinitely more complex economy and supply chain than just wheat and money

LetMePostMore 2y ago
[flagged]
- lovich 2y ago
  You got dogpiled because the OPs response is into perceived suffering being caused to the blue states already, and proposing that they respond in turn. When you jumped in with your comments about wheat, it was not interpreted by the repliers as pointing out that they could also hurt them, it was perceived as you saying something along the lines of "well were gonna turn up the screws on ya then" That elicits a fairly predictable reaction from most people. Additionally they do have ports but most of their capacity is in the trivially blockaded Gulf of America
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  You're all out in no man's land in any case. Blue states don't produce as much food because they don't have to. As soon as they would have to, they could. They'd take a bit of a hit on the price, but that's about it. Red states don't need blue state money because they can sell their food elsewhere. (Well, maybe not to the best markets at the best prices in the current trade war climate but you get my drift.) They'd just take a bit of a hit on the price. The unhappy reality is that different regions of this nation don't really need each other for base essentials. Now, for industrial inputs or outputs? Yeah, totally different story. But that's not regionality as much as it is just "everyone is dependent on Texas and California if you go far enough down the industrial rabbit hole". Even that's just convenience though. Pretty much anywhere in the nation they can scale up to make what they need. They just don't because it's convenient to allow others to do it. As soon as those others make it inconvenient, they'll do it themselves.