3 ms·

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

by 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.

by lovich 2y ago

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.