44 ms·

Well strategically in an economic SHTF situation at least we could theoretically feed our populace with the surplus. But we all know that realistically, at thi

Well strategically in an economic SHTF situation at least we could theoretically feed our populace with the surplus. But we all know that realistically, at this point, the people in charge would just sell it for a pittance or dump it to manipulate market prices even if 70% of the country was starving— because this is the kind of society we’ve all created.

runako 1y ago
I hear the argument that food is different, I do. What I don't get is why any of us should care _which_ millionaire owns & operates the farm. If one millionaire isn't scaled enough to run it at a profit and has to sell to a richer millionaire or corporation, don't we still have the same net SHTF outcome?
- FollowingTheDao 1y ago
  Maybe we should nationalize farms so no one has to be hungry?
  - binary132 1y ago
    subsidizing businesses that are trapped in that role is essentially not that different from a nationalized or otherwise centrally planned industry
    - runako 1y ago
      > businesses that are trapped in that role None of them are trapped, there are bigger buyers that have capital and are willing to take them out. We don't have to subsidize millionaires with our taxes, especially if they don't want the subsidies!
- DrewADesign 1y ago
  Yeah, I’m saying that theoretically it’s a good idea because it’s food. However, that doesn’t matter because we as a society decided that our food supply is less important for feeding people than as money plumbing for rich people. The money plumbing is supposed to get the food created and allocated as efficiently as possible by rewarding innovation and competition among food businesses; unfortunately, in many instances, efficiency and innovation in plumbing hacking is as profitable or more profitable than being better food producers. The subsidies would be fine if they were helping farmers working in good faith efficiently produce food for people to eat.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

runako 1y ago

I hear the argument that food is different, I do. What I don't get is why any of us should care _which_ millionaire owns & operates the farm. If one millionaire isn't scaled enough to run it at a profit and has to sell to a richer millionaire or corporation, don't we still have the same net SHTF outcome?

FollowingTheDao 1y ago
Maybe we should nationalize farms so no one has to be hungry?
- binary132 1y ago
  subsidizing businesses that are trapped in that role is essentially not that different from a nationalized or otherwise centrally planned industry
  - runako 1y ago
    > businesses that are trapped in that role None of them are trapped, there are bigger buyers that have capital and are willing to take them out. We don't have to subsidize millionaires with our taxes, especially if they don't want the subsidies!
DrewADesign 1y ago
Yeah, I’m saying that theoretically it’s a good idea because it’s food. However, that doesn’t matter because we as a society decided that our food supply is less important for feeding people than as money plumbing for rich people. The money plumbing is supposed to get the food created and allocated as efficiently as possible by rewarding innovation and competition among food businesses; unfortunately, in many instances, efficiency and innovation in plumbing hacking is as profitable or more profitable than being better food producers. The subsidies would be fine if they were helping farmers working in good faith efficiently produce food for people to eat.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]