3 ms·
This is for good reason though. You want to overproduce significantly in ordinary times so that if there is a big negative shock you will still be able to produ
by ls612 6mo ago
This is for good reason though. You want to overproduce significantly in ordinary times so that if there is a big negative shock you will still be able to produce enough to feed everyone merely by not destroying the excess anymore.
- voxl 6mo agoThere is no reason to obliterate food, you should give it away to those in need.
- Alupis 6mo agoPeople do not eat tart cherries directly. They are processed into other goods, like pie filling, juice concentrate, etc. Sweet cherries have no such regulation, and are the ones you consume directly as a fruit - without any additional processing.
- Dylan16807 6mo agoThat's a nice bit of trivia but it doesn't really affect the comment you're replying to. It's still food, full of flavor and calories, and able to be used by a home cook (by making a pie).
- Alupis 6mo agoIf you researched this regulation even a little, you'd see the crops are rarely destroyed. They are far more often exported, diverted to secondary markets, donated, or carried-over into next-season's stock. It's interesting to me how people are quick to comment about things they know nothing about... > It's still food, full of flavor and calories Tart cherries have about 1-2 calories per cherry, and do not taste good without a lot of sugar. That's why they are used in commercial processing, not generally sold as a fruit in grocery stores.
- Dylan16807 6mo ago> If you researched this regulation even a little Yeah yeah yeah I saw that in your other comment. That's a completely different argument. The argument you made in this comment is still a bad one. It's interesting to me how people are quick to move the goalposts...
- Alupis 6mo agoSo you understood the crop we're discussing is rarely destroyed - and more often donated, diverted to secondary markets (ie. sold in grocery stores), or exported - yet still felt compelled to say a home cook could use them? What was even the point of your snarky comment then?
- Dylan16807 6mo ago> So you understood the crop we're discussing is rarely destroyed - and more often donated, diverted to secondary markets (ie. sold in grocery stores), or exported - yet still felt compelled to say a home cook could use them? In the context of someone talking about home cooks using them, and you acting like "People do not eat tart cherries directly." is a counterargument, yes I felt compelled to correct that. The incorrect thing you were implying had nothing to do with how often they're actually destroyed. So why would that stop me?
- Alupis 6mo agoPeople do not eat tart cherries directly. The overwhelming majority of people will never process them into something edible either. "People in need" are not going to spend time and money processing tart cherries into juice concentrate or pie filling... especially when a can of either is cheaper than the raw ingredients to make your own. Your point is ridiculous, absurd and pedantic beyond any reasonable purpose.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- nh23423fefe 6mo agoOk drive to Michigan and haul away 3 tons of cherries.
- unglaublich 6mo agoBut in a pure market that would mean that during overproduction times, prices should be low. Which they artificially aren't through industry price fixing.
- bee_rider 6mo agoI’m not sure what a pure market is. The result that free markets are Prato optimal, though, requires conditions like low barriers to entry, perfect information, and low cost transactions… none of which seem very well met in the case of agriculture.
- adgjlsfhk1 6mo agoIt turns out that low barriers to entry, perfect information and low cost transactions are almost never present.