5 ms·

> lets us anticipate droughts distribution and crop failures months ahead of time. If by “us” you mean big corporations, which will then buy the stuff and sell

by huijzer 1mo ago

> lets us anticipate droughts distribution and crop failures months ahead of time. If by “us” you mean big corporations, which will then buy the stuff and sell it at a premium later, then I agree.

roenxi 1mo ago
If you think that is going to happen, you can buy up some supplies and store them yourself. I have relatives with some impressive and substantial pantries because they're prepared to be snowed in for an extended period of time. Running out of food is possible the least novel problem humanity has ever encountered. And what would you rather happen? If they don't store up a surplus then everyone will run out of food and prices will go up anyway. If there is less food because of a drought, prices are going up. If corporations start building up a stockpile then prices aren't going to go up as much as if there were no reserves. TLDR; Yes. Good. It is a great day when there is food available at the local supermarket.
- hvb2 1mo ago
  The world is bigger than your relatives. I'm sure he was referring to already food insecure places. The rich countries will have food available, probably at elevated prices. In places where there's actual famine people will do crazy things to get their hands on food.
  - roenxi 1mo ago
    If the plan isn't to stockpile food communally through a big corporation making a tidy profit for being well prepared in a disaster, and it isn't to stockpile it personally... what is the plan? There won't be any food. There are very limited options here. Those two are, by far, the two best ones for reliably being able to access food. Someone has to build up a reserve. Literally, you should to be able to point someone out and say "this person will give me food next month, they've got a stockpile for this drought". Ideally that someone who is very, very motivated to get it right and make it happen. Those big corporations charging extra are going to keep people fed. > The world is bigger than your relatives. I offer no commentary on the size of my relatives vs. the rest of the world :)
    - vrganj 1mo ago
      "Communally" and "through a big corporation making a tidy profit" are at odds. It's either for and by the community or it's for and by a big corporation profiteering off the misfortune of the community. It can't be both at the same time. The big corporations aren't "going to keep people fed", they will hoard and ration by wealth, not by need. The billionaire will get their twenty course fine dining experience, the beggar will starve. That's not keeping the people fed by any serious definition of the term.
      - newsclues 1mo ago
        You don’t know co-ops exist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative
        defrost 1mo ago
        My local co-op is nearly a hundred years old now and has a combined members land area larger than the United Kingdom: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGjGsyMe_F8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGjGsyMe_F8 * https://www.cbh.com.au/about-cbh/what-we-do https://www.cbh.com.au/about-cbh/what-we-do Thanks to being globally remote, easily isolated and events like WWII and COVID we're picky about having reserves (seed, fuel, grain) in storage to ride out <reasonable levels of shit happens>.
      - hamper653 1mo ago
        > "Communally" and "through a big corporation making a tidy profit" are at odds. Not really. Corporations are social by essence, and on a much bigger scale than anything that came before. That’s precisely what makes socialism possible.
        krapp 1mo ago
        >Corporations are social by essence, and on a much bigger scale than anything that came before. Corporations are transactional by essence, not social. Any relationship within or with a corporation has the singular goal of making the corporation money. Food deserts exist because corporations aren't social. Supermarkets and stores aren't there feed the community, they sell food only to those who can afford it, and only for a profit. If it comes down to it they'll station cops outside the store with shotguns to keep the poors away and let the food rot on the shelves because that's how capitalism works. That's the exact opposite of everything socialism is supposed to stand for.
ben_w 1mo ago
Many farmers are subsidised specifically so that food is over-produced in most years, specifically to ensure than in bad years people don't go hungry. Corporations may indeed be taking advantage of this, demanding prices so low that the farmers don't get the benefit of those subsidies. However: > buy the stuff and sell it at a premium later Is the point of a futures market. Futures let people trade a thing before they even know how supply and demand will balance, guaranteeing a price for the producer and letting them plan purchases of machinery and maintenance, with the risks (in bad years) and profit margins (in good years) going up the supply chain.
- deepsun 1mo ago
  Another reason why most countries subsidise their agriculture is because in times of war you don't want your enemy to starve you. That's mostly about high calories foods, not fancy salads though.
  - epolanski 1mo ago
    It would be just easier to not wage war by the way. Can't think of many countries besides Canada and US that would not starve in NATO if such a necessity arose, and that's because they produce lots of cereals. All the other countries in NATO are major food importers.
    - RandomLensman 1mo ago
      Being a major importers of olive oil is probably not such a big deal. The EU is pretty self-sufficient for food, for example - can change a bit the food and agg mix if needed (and some countries have emergency stores as well).
    - tonyedgecombe 1mo ago
      >All the other countries in NATO are major food importers. All apart from France, Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Turkey, Italy and Ireland. Interestingly the US is borderline now depending on how you measure food imports and exports.
mhh__ 1mo ago
Seems to work pretty well. The alternative is either no food or no prices.
dukeyukey 1mo ago
I mean do we not want food to be stored for tough times? And the people who do this storing should get paid for it?
xhkkffbf 1mo ago
So are we supposed to demonize the big corporations for making a profit or celebrate them for planning ahead and making sure we don't starve? I'm not so sure these days.

by huijzer 1mo ago

roenxi 1mo ago

If you think that is going to happen, you can buy up some supplies and store them yourself. I have relatives with some impressive and substantial pantries because they're prepared to be snowed in for an extended period of time. Running out of food is possible the least novel problem humanity has ever encountered. And what would you rather happen? If they don't store up a surplus then everyone will run out of food and prices will go up anyway. If there is less food because of a drought, prices are going up. If corporations start building up a stockpile then prices aren't going to go up as much as if there were no reserves. TLDR; Yes. Good. It is a great day when there is food available at the local supermarket.

hvb2 1mo ago
The world is bigger than your relatives. I'm sure he was referring to already food insecure places. The rich countries will have food available, probably at elevated prices. In places where there's actual famine people will do crazy things to get their hands on food.
- roenxi 1mo ago
  If the plan isn't to stockpile food communally through a big corporation making a tidy profit for being well prepared in a disaster, and it isn't to stockpile it personally... what is the plan? There won't be any food. There are very limited options here. Those two are, by far, the two best ones for reliably being able to access food. Someone has to build up a reserve. Literally, you should to be able to point someone out and say "this person will give me food next month, they've got a stockpile for this drought". Ideally that someone who is very, very motivated to get it right and make it happen. Those big corporations charging extra are going to keep people fed. > The world is bigger than your relatives. I offer no commentary on the size of my relatives vs. the rest of the world :)
  - vrganj 1mo ago
    "Communally" and "through a big corporation making a tidy profit" are at odds. It's either for and by the community or it's for and by a big corporation profiteering off the misfortune of the community. It can't be both at the same time. The big corporations aren't "going to keep people fed", they will hoard and ration by wealth, not by need. The billionaire will get their twenty course fine dining experience, the beggar will starve. That's not keeping the people fed by any serious definition of the term.
    - newsclues 1mo ago
      You don’t know co-ops exist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative
      - defrost 1mo ago
        My local co-op is nearly a hundred years old now and has a combined members land area larger than the United Kingdom: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGjGsyMe_F8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGjGsyMe_F8 * https://www.cbh.com.au/about-cbh/what-we-do https://www.cbh.com.au/about-cbh/what-we-do Thanks to being globally remote, easily isolated and events like WWII and COVID we're picky about having reserves (seed, fuel, grain) in storage to ride out <reasonable levels of shit happens>.
    - hamper653 1mo ago
      > "Communally" and "through a big corporation making a tidy profit" are at odds. Not really. Corporations are social by essence, and on a much bigger scale than anything that came before. That’s precisely what makes socialism possible.
      - krapp 1mo ago
        >Corporations are social by essence, and on a much bigger scale than anything that came before. Corporations are transactional by essence, not social. Any relationship within or with a corporation has the singular goal of making the corporation money. Food deserts exist because corporations aren't social. Supermarkets and stores aren't there feed the community, they sell food only to those who can afford it, and only for a profit. If it comes down to it they'll station cops outside the store with shotguns to keep the poors away and let the food rot on the shelves because that's how capitalism works. That's the exact opposite of everything socialism is supposed to stand for.

ben_w 1mo ago

Many farmers are subsidised specifically so that food is over-produced in most years, specifically to ensure than in bad years people don't go hungry. Corporations may indeed be taking advantage of this, demanding prices so low that the farmers don't get the benefit of those subsidies. However: > buy the stuff and sell it at a premium later Is the point of a futures market. Futures let people trade a thing before they even know how supply and demand will balance, guaranteeing a price for the producer and letting them plan purchases of machinery and maintenance, with the risks (in bad years) and profit margins (in good years) going up the supply chain.

deepsun 1mo ago
Another reason why most countries subsidise their agriculture is because in times of war you don't want your enemy to starve you. That's mostly about high calories foods, not fancy salads though.
- epolanski 1mo ago
  It would be just easier to not wage war by the way. Can't think of many countries besides Canada and US that would not starve in NATO if such a necessity arose, and that's because they produce lots of cereals. All the other countries in NATO are major food importers.
  - RandomLensman 1mo ago
    Being a major importers of olive oil is probably not such a big deal. The EU is pretty self-sufficient for food, for example - can change a bit the food and agg mix if needed (and some countries have emergency stores as well).
  - tonyedgecombe 1mo ago
    >All the other countries in NATO are major food importers. All apart from France, Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Turkey, Italy and Ireland. Interestingly the US is borderline now depending on how you measure food imports and exports.

mhh__ 1mo ago

Seems to work pretty well. The alternative is either no food or no prices.

dukeyukey 1mo ago

I mean do we not want food to be stored for tough times? And the people who do this storing should get paid for it?

xhkkffbf 1mo ago

So are we supposed to demonize the big corporations for making a profit or celebrate them for planning ahead and making sure we don't starve? I'm not so sure these days.