4 ms·

> Hunger is present pretty much only in conflict zones. How do you explain the existence of food banks in peaceful first world countries?

StilesCrisis 2mo ago
Without trying to sound crass, food banks _are_ the reason we don't see people dying of starvation in first world countries. If people need food, a food bank will give it to them no questions asked.
- felixgallo 2mo ago
  Unfortunately this is not just precarious, it's extremely vulnerable to changing political conditions. Many of the food bank services in my state have lost significant funding owing to the use of words like 'women' or 'black' in their grants, which were duly grepped for and shut down. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Cuts-to-Woke-Programs-Fact-Sheet.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Cuts-t... Civilization can't rely effectively on systems that are this fragile.
  - StilesCrisis 2mo ago
    > Civilization can't rely effectively on systems that are this fragile. That's American politics in a nutshell. We've spent 250 years assuming scruples and common decency would be sufficient.
    - nradov 2mo ago
      Is it not sufficient? Americans give more to charity than citizens of any other developed country. The arguments that all food aid should be routed through government bureaucracies are entirely unconvincing. I'd rather donate to organizations like Second Harvest than pay higher taxes. https://www.shfb.org/ https://www.shfb.org/
      - xboxnolifes 2mo ago
        Does this account for the portion of taxes that go to the type of efforts that donations do? If not, is it really giving more? OR is it giving less and feeling better about it?
        gowld 2mo ago
        On average, Americans donate 1-2% of income, while spending 7-20% less on contributions to government. On the other hand, Americans receive less for the government, and spend more on caring for themselves (health care) than Europeans receive from the government. To sort that you, you'd have to figure out how cost-efficient the two models are, for services provided.
      - DFHippie 2mo ago
        We used to live in a world where individual virtue was what everyone fell back on. That is the default state. It has many problems -- free riding by the selfish, for one, but also a lack of capacity to prepare for large-scale disasters like the Great Depression. We have a government precisely to solve this sort of problem. It works (when it is competent and not corrupt) for defense, international trade, and the enforcement of law. Solving resource distribution and aid coordination is right in its wheelhouse.
      - DFHippie 2mo ago
        It is my understanding that this claim about Americans' charitable giving does not disaggregate giving to food banks, Girl Scout cookie drives, political causes, the environment, cultural events, religious institutions, etc. Much of this charitable giving does not feed the hungry or house the homeless.
        monkpit 2mo ago
        Plus the fact that there’s bias in the first place - citizens in a country where they know social programs will care for their needy would not need to donate.
OttoVonBizark 2mo ago
The fact food banks exist suggest over all food scarcity is solved in that specific culture. - if it wasn't there wouldn't be any spare food for a food bank
xyzzy123 2mo ago
Food is allocated using a variety of mechanisms in peaceful first world countries, primarily money but also via government assistance, kinship, friendship, community, etc. At any given time many people have problems with one or more of those systems. Money is easy to run out of because it's used for everything, the government can be slow and difficult, relationships can fray, people can be isolated, etc. Food banks exist as a backstop for when the regular means of allocating are not working. The problem isn't "scarcity" per se, it's more of an allocation thing. Who has a claim on enough food to stay alive? Everyone! But what foods can they claim? How much? What specific channel / institution (with associated allocation rules) will distribute it to them? What are the conditions and controls? etc. Allocating things can be difficult. An allocation mechanism with no controls will see fraud, waste and abuse. Even when an institution is willing to give things away no questions asked, there are (often invisible until you think about them) conditions like "please don't claim huge quantities and resell what we're giving you, that would be unfair to others". It's also interesting to think about the fact that you can't fix food scarcity in general by simply giving hungry people money, because money is too fungible.
- cassianoleal 2mo ago
  > It's also interesting to think about the fact that you can't fix food scarcity in general by simply giving hungry people money, because money is too fungible. Is that a fact? Do you have references to back it?
  - jandrewrogers 2mo ago
    The widespread existence of secondary markets for SNAP benefits, which convert subsidized food for poor people into cash, carries this implication. This is pretty normal in some poor communities and that cash is commonly diverted to various vices. Some malnutrition is a consequence of this. Adding friction to the conversion of welfare benefits to cash is a feature. You can't force poor people to spend cash on proper nutrition and a minority of them don't. It isn't a moral judgement but an observable fact. A lot of policies around welfare are targeted at trying to prevent this minority from slowly killing themselves in public.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
hgomersall 2mo ago
There's plenty of food, just not the political will to make sure everyone can afford to buy it.
ratelimitsteve 2mo ago
As part of the solution to the hard problem of food: distribution.

StilesCrisis 2mo ago

Without trying to sound crass, food banks _are_ the reason we don't see people dying of starvation in first world countries. If people need food, a food bank will give it to them no questions asked.

felixgallo 2mo ago
Unfortunately this is not just precarious, it's extremely vulnerable to changing political conditions. Many of the food bank services in my state have lost significant funding owing to the use of words like 'women' or 'black' in their grants, which were duly grepped for and shut down. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Cuts-to-Woke-Programs-Fact-Sheet.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Cuts-t... Civilization can't rely effectively on systems that are this fragile.
- StilesCrisis 2mo ago
  > Civilization can't rely effectively on systems that are this fragile. That's American politics in a nutshell. We've spent 250 years assuming scruples and common decency would be sufficient.
  - nradov 2mo ago
    Is it not sufficient? Americans give more to charity than citizens of any other developed country. The arguments that all food aid should be routed through government bureaucracies are entirely unconvincing. I'd rather donate to organizations like Second Harvest than pay higher taxes. https://www.shfb.org/ https://www.shfb.org/
    - xboxnolifes 2mo ago
      Does this account for the portion of taxes that go to the type of efforts that donations do? If not, is it really giving more? OR is it giving less and feeling better about it?
      - gowld 2mo ago
        On average, Americans donate 1-2% of income, while spending 7-20% less on contributions to government. On the other hand, Americans receive less for the government, and spend more on caring for themselves (health care) than Europeans receive from the government. To sort that you, you'd have to figure out how cost-efficient the two models are, for services provided.
    - DFHippie 2mo ago
      We used to live in a world where individual virtue was what everyone fell back on. That is the default state. It has many problems -- free riding by the selfish, for one, but also a lack of capacity to prepare for large-scale disasters like the Great Depression. We have a government precisely to solve this sort of problem. It works (when it is competent and not corrupt) for defense, international trade, and the enforcement of law. Solving resource distribution and aid coordination is right in its wheelhouse.
    - DFHippie 2mo ago
      It is my understanding that this claim about Americans' charitable giving does not disaggregate giving to food banks, Girl Scout cookie drives, political causes, the environment, cultural events, religious institutions, etc. Much of this charitable giving does not feed the hungry or house the homeless.
      - monkpit 2mo ago
        Plus the fact that there’s bias in the first place - citizens in a country where they know social programs will care for their needy would not need to donate.

OttoVonBizark 2mo ago

The fact food banks exist suggest over all food scarcity is solved in that specific culture. - if it wasn't there wouldn't be any spare food for a food bank

xyzzy123 2mo ago

Food is allocated using a variety of mechanisms in peaceful first world countries, primarily money but also via government assistance, kinship, friendship, community, etc. At any given time many people have problems with one or more of those systems. Money is easy to run out of because it's used for everything, the government can be slow and difficult, relationships can fray, people can be isolated, etc. Food banks exist as a backstop for when the regular means of allocating are not working. The problem isn't "scarcity" per se, it's more of an allocation thing. Who has a claim on enough food to stay alive? Everyone! But what foods can they claim? How much? What specific channel / institution (with associated allocation rules) will distribute it to them? What are the conditions and controls? etc. Allocating things can be difficult. An allocation mechanism with no controls will see fraud, waste and abuse. Even when an institution is willing to give things away no questions asked, there are (often invisible until you think about them) conditions like "please don't claim huge quantities and resell what we're giving you, that would be unfair to others". It's also interesting to think about the fact that you can't fix food scarcity in general by simply giving hungry people money, because money is too fungible.

cassianoleal 2mo ago
> It's also interesting to think about the fact that you can't fix food scarcity in general by simply giving hungry people money, because money is too fungible. Is that a fact? Do you have references to back it?
- jandrewrogers 2mo ago
  The widespread existence of secondary markets for SNAP benefits, which convert subsidized food for poor people into cash, carries this implication. This is pretty normal in some poor communities and that cash is commonly diverted to various vices. Some malnutrition is a consequence of this. Adding friction to the conversion of welfare benefits to cash is a feature. You can't force poor people to spend cash on proper nutrition and a minority of them don't. It isn't a moral judgement but an observable fact. A lot of policies around welfare are targeted at trying to prevent this minority from slowly killing themselves in public.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

hgomersall 2mo ago

There's plenty of food, just not the political will to make sure everyone can afford to buy it.

ratelimitsteve 2mo ago

As part of the solution to the hard problem of food: distribution.