3 ms·

Agriculture is bottom of the barrel business because no political power worth its weight allows price gouging. Food has to be kept as cheap as possible because

by oblio 1y ago

Agriculture is bottom of the barrel business because no political power worth its weight allows price gouging. Food has to be kept as cheap as possible because otherwise the economy doesn't work. The workaround for this is subsidies, but those don't scale. You can't agriculture your way into Google Ads, the money printing machine.

ericyd 1y ago
Could you elaborate on "subsidies don't scale"? In the US, farm subsidies are a huge chunk of our budget and, to the best of my understanding, help keep food prices low. I'm not informed enough to know if it's an inefficient solution though.
- Onavo 1y ago
  The subsidies are combined with cheap indentured semi legal labor from south of the border. Remove either one and the whole system falls apart.
  - SoftTalker 1y ago
    Indentured?
    - tocs3 1y ago
      This reply is a little off the cuff but the "Indentured" is referring to the fact that the workers cannot just pick up and leave without consequences. They do not have transportation so would have to just walk home and are not holding the visas so hey could face consequences involving law enforcement.
- owie829 1y ago
  that is incorrect. 2023 US Payments to agriculture [1] were $10.972 billion. That is 0.04% of GDP or ~0.697% of the federal budget[2] for 2023. It spiked slightly in 2020, but has been a small portion of the budget for a long time. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/L312041A027NBEA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/L312041A027NBEA [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M318191Q027NBEA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M318191Q027NBEA [3] https://imgur.com/a/dwgS0m6 https://imgur.com/a/dwgS0m6
  - ericyd 1y ago
    I guess it's a matter of perspective, I know 0.7% isn't the biggest item in the budget but it's a fairly large line item to my mind. Either way I still wonder what the "does not scale" comment meant. Edit: re-reading my comment, I regret my word choice, "a huge chunk" is obviously incorrect.
    - vkou 1y ago
      First of all, 11 billion is 0.17% of the federal budget. (Which is ~6 trillion). You were looking at a quarterly budget, not the annual one. Secondly, that 0.17% that is spent on food security has dramatically better ROI than the 1.7% of it that is spent on, to pick a random line item... maintaining 5 (of 11) carrier strike groups[1]. --- [1] For contrast, the entire rest of the world put together has exactly 2 carrier strike groups. Somehow, I'd have to prioritize people getting three meals a day over nearly anything else the government could be doing.
EA-3167 1y ago
Would I be correct in assuming that your name comes from 'The Point'? What a classic! I also appreciate your point about the reality of agriculture, I think too often people miss just how narrow the margins there are and why farm life has always been so financially unstable. It used to be the weather that could make or break you, and it still is, but not world commodity markets, the price of fuel and fertilizer, and trends in a number of areas can all do it as well. Add in the top-down pressure to keep prices low and bottom-up pressure to target migrants and... what a rough mix.
alexashka 1y ago
You can't anything your way to miracle profits without destroying society in the process. I suppose destroying society for profit is top of the barrel for people like you.
- oblio 1y ago
  > people like you I'm a regular Joe on the internet, with a regular job. And regarding agriculture and your comment, that's how people with actual power think. Think of almost all major advances we've had, especially in terms of reducing costs. The vast majority of cost savings (and therefore improving quality of life for the average person) can be summarized as: * put plastic (and fossil fuel derived materials) in EVERYTHING: if you don't believe this me, go to Amazon (or any supermarket, really) and pick a random product category and see how much the non-plastic version costs, frequently it's much, much more expensive (kudos to stainless steel and aluminum products frequently still holding the flag; but coming with other downsides, obviously) * (more relevant to our discussion): industrialize human suffering and/or general environment degradation (push production to countries where labor and environmental/sustainability laws are lax and abuses are rampant): if you don't believe me, go to Amazon (or any supermarket, really) and pick a random product category and try to research their supply chain to see if it's produced ethically and sustainably Oh, for bonus points, a huge percentage of the world economy works on BOTH at the same time.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > You can't anything your way to miracle profits without destroying society in the process Wat. You really don’t see any technology that created win-wins?
  - salawat 1y ago
    No such thing as a win-win. Just a lose we haven't come up with a name or explanation for yet.
    - ben_w 1y ago
      "Destroying society" was itself a win-win in a lot of cases, given how many pre-industrial societies in Europe were literally feudalism before and who replaced it with democracy and liberty. I think the total elimination of smallpox was pretty one-sided, too; this remains the case even despite people who look at vaccines skeptically, because such skepticism isn't the fault of vaccines.

by oblio 1y ago

ericyd 1y ago

Could you elaborate on "subsidies don't scale"? In the US, farm subsidies are a huge chunk of our budget and, to the best of my understanding, help keep food prices low. I'm not informed enough to know if it's an inefficient solution though.

Onavo 1y ago
The subsidies are combined with cheap indentured semi legal labor from south of the border. Remove either one and the whole system falls apart.
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  Indentured?
  - tocs3 1y ago
    This reply is a little off the cuff but the "Indentured" is referring to the fact that the workers cannot just pick up and leave without consequences. They do not have transportation so would have to just walk home and are not holding the visas so hey could face consequences involving law enforcement.
owie829 1y ago
that is incorrect. 2023 US Payments to agriculture [1] were $10.972 billion. That is 0.04% of GDP or ~0.697% of the federal budget[2] for 2023. It spiked slightly in 2020, but has been a small portion of the budget for a long time. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/L312041A027NBEA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/L312041A027NBEA [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M318191Q027NBEA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M318191Q027NBEA [3] https://imgur.com/a/dwgS0m6 https://imgur.com/a/dwgS0m6
- ericyd 1y ago
  I guess it's a matter of perspective, I know 0.7% isn't the biggest item in the budget but it's a fairly large line item to my mind. Either way I still wonder what the "does not scale" comment meant. Edit: re-reading my comment, I regret my word choice, "a huge chunk" is obviously incorrect.
  - vkou 1y ago
    First of all, 11 billion is 0.17% of the federal budget. (Which is ~6 trillion). You were looking at a quarterly budget, not the annual one. Secondly, that 0.17% that is spent on food security has dramatically better ROI than the 1.7% of it that is spent on, to pick a random line item... maintaining 5 (of 11) carrier strike groups[1]. --- [1] For contrast, the entire rest of the world put together has exactly 2 carrier strike groups. Somehow, I'd have to prioritize people getting three meals a day over nearly anything else the government could be doing.

EA-3167 1y ago

Would I be correct in assuming that your name comes from 'The Point'? What a classic! I also appreciate your point about the reality of agriculture, I think too often people miss just how narrow the margins there are and why farm life has always been so financially unstable. It used to be the weather that could make or break you, and it still is, but not world commodity markets, the price of fuel and fertilizer, and trends in a number of areas can all do it as well. Add in the top-down pressure to keep prices low and bottom-up pressure to target migrants and... what a rough mix.

alexashka 1y ago

You can't anything your way to miracle profits without destroying society in the process. I suppose destroying society for profit is top of the barrel for people like you.

oblio 1y ago
> people like you I'm a regular Joe on the internet, with a regular job. And regarding agriculture and your comment, that's how people with actual power think. Think of almost all major advances we've had, especially in terms of reducing costs. The vast majority of cost savings (and therefore improving quality of life for the average person) can be summarized as: * put plastic (and fossil fuel derived materials) in EVERYTHING: if you don't believe this me, go to Amazon (or any supermarket, really) and pick a random product category and see how much the non-plastic version costs, frequently it's much, much more expensive (kudos to stainless steel and aluminum products frequently still holding the flag; but coming with other downsides, obviously) * (more relevant to our discussion): industrialize human suffering and/or general environment degradation (push production to countries where labor and environmental/sustainability laws are lax and abuses are rampant): if you don't believe me, go to Amazon (or any supermarket, really) and pick a random product category and try to research their supply chain to see if it's produced ethically and sustainably Oh, for bonus points, a huge percentage of the world economy works on BOTH at the same time.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> You can't anything your way to miracle profits without destroying society in the process Wat. You really don’t see any technology that created win-wins?
- salawat 1y ago
  No such thing as a win-win. Just a lose we haven't come up with a name or explanation for yet.
  - ben_w 1y ago
    "Destroying society" was itself a win-win in a lot of cases, given how many pre-industrial societies in Europe were literally feudalism before and who replaced it with democracy and liberty. I think the total elimination of smallpox was pretty one-sided, too; this remains the case even despite people who look at vaccines skeptically, because such skepticism isn't the fault of vaccines.