4 ms·

Yeah, I actually think we're relatively aligned here. I'm not saying burn it all down, free market, fuck the goals. I'm just saying, and I know this is an esti

by snayan 1mo ago

Yeah, I actually think we're relatively aligned here. I'm not saying burn it all down, free market, fuck the goals. I'm just saying, and I know this is an estimate, but if you take the $244/annum/pp estimate from studies as to the cost of supply chain management... you're looking at about $10 billion per year. Broadly, I think the goal of our supply chain management is to preserve a robust domestic dairy, poultry, and egg industry, maintain emergency production capacity, support rural communities, smooth out extreme price volatility, and ensure farmers can survive downturns. I'd just be very surprised, if we asked ourselves, ok, how can we most efficiently achieve the above, and actually tried to solve the above problems from first principles today, we'd land on the current solution. It just feels like we should be able to achieve a much better outcome for $10 billion dollars, or we should be able to achieve the equivalent of the current outcome for far less than $10 billion.

b112 1mo ago
A hate just pointing at the cost, because where does that money go? What is that cost? Is it just more cash in the pockets of producers? Who then hire people to work on the farm, and all that blather? Is it a bloated bureaucracy, which needs some trimming, but still regardless pays wages to Canadians? Are other things wrapped into that $10B? Also, it seems those numbers aren't just dairy, but chicken too? And another thing (I'm full of ideas today, sorry), we don't use hormones to increase milk production, or bulk up animals. That definitely means more cost per animal. That figure seems to also include chicken meat, not just eggs. Healthy isn't necessarily free. Look, you find horrible costs, I'll support you. I think that's fair.
- snayan 1mo ago
  Hah, no worries brother. Yeah, I agree keep bovine growth hormone the fuck out of our supply. And yes, its poultry, eggs, and milk products wrapped up in the $10 billion. I agree generally that just looking at cost often misses the bigger picture, but it's the magnitude of it here that gets me. $10 billion is equivalent to 2% of the federal budget! We spend a similar amount in the budget, $10.7 billion, to ensure the viability and sustainability of all our crown corporations with the exception of CMHC! So, a national railway, a national postal service, a public broadcaster, museums, infrastructure entities, finance institutions, housing institutions, export support, tourism, bridges, agricultural finance, and thirty other random Crown things… All made viable for approximately the equivalent of the cost born by Canadians to support chicken, egg, and milk producers. And, it's not like this is our entire food supply. Massive error bars here, but based on the average consumption numbers for Canadians in the egg, poultry, and dairy categories, which, the dairy part is admittedly quite fuzzy... But my back of the napkin math suggests that's somewhere between 10-20% of the caloric/nutritional needs of Canadians, so it's not like it's securing the majority of the food supply for Canadians, we're very much still dependent on the global food production. Ultimately, I believe what it comes down to, is that a different system that would likely be more effective at achieving similar outcomes, would force some level of support onto the federal government and hit the budget. Whereas the current system allows the government to say, we've created a system that doesn't depend on government subsidies! Yes, we've done that, but it's effectively a regressive tax that hits consumers at the checkout. Anyhow, I am not an expert on food supply, so I don't know what exactly a better solution would look like. But, we're currently all in on a system that was developed in the 1970s, and it has a feeling of 'too big to fail'. That to me, is a recipe for horrible inefficiency, and given the magnitude of the numbers, I can't help but feel that we'd be well served to take a deeper look at the situation and consider whether there's a better way to achieve the outcomes at lower cost to Canadians. Hell, even if we determine, nope switching over to a subsidy model paid by the government would cost the exact same amount for the same outcome, at least it would achieve a more equitable outcome for Canadians in switching from a regressive to a progressive tax.

by snayan 1mo ago

b112 1mo ago

A hate just pointing at the cost, because where does that money go? What is that cost? Is it just more cash in the pockets of producers? Who then hire people to work on the farm, and all that blather? Is it a bloated bureaucracy, which needs some trimming, but still regardless pays wages to Canadians? Are other things wrapped into that $10B? Also, it seems those numbers aren't just dairy, but chicken too? And another thing (I'm full of ideas today, sorry), we don't use hormones to increase milk production, or bulk up animals. That definitely means more cost per animal. That figure seems to also include chicken meat, not just eggs. Healthy isn't necessarily free. Look, you find horrible costs, I'll support you. I think that's fair.

snayan 1mo ago
Hah, no worries brother. Yeah, I agree keep bovine growth hormone the fuck out of our supply. And yes, its poultry, eggs, and milk products wrapped up in the $10 billion. I agree generally that just looking at cost often misses the bigger picture, but it's the magnitude of it here that gets me. $10 billion is equivalent to 2% of the federal budget! We spend a similar amount in the budget, $10.7 billion, to ensure the viability and sustainability of all our crown corporations with the exception of CMHC! So, a national railway, a national postal service, a public broadcaster, museums, infrastructure entities, finance institutions, housing institutions, export support, tourism, bridges, agricultural finance, and thirty other random Crown things… All made viable for approximately the equivalent of the cost born by Canadians to support chicken, egg, and milk producers. And, it's not like this is our entire food supply. Massive error bars here, but based on the average consumption numbers for Canadians in the egg, poultry, and dairy categories, which, the dairy part is admittedly quite fuzzy... But my back of the napkin math suggests that's somewhere between 10-20% of the caloric/nutritional needs of Canadians, so it's not like it's securing the majority of the food supply for Canadians, we're very much still dependent on the global food production. Ultimately, I believe what it comes down to, is that a different system that would likely be more effective at achieving similar outcomes, would force some level of support onto the federal government and hit the budget. Whereas the current system allows the government to say, we've created a system that doesn't depend on government subsidies! Yes, we've done that, but it's effectively a regressive tax that hits consumers at the checkout. Anyhow, I am not an expert on food supply, so I don't know what exactly a better solution would look like. But, we're currently all in on a system that was developed in the 1970s, and it has a feeling of 'too big to fail'. That to me, is a recipe for horrible inefficiency, and given the magnitude of the numbers, I can't help but feel that we'd be well served to take a deeper look at the situation and consider whether there's a better way to achieve the outcomes at lower cost to Canadians. Hell, even if we determine, nope switching over to a subsidy model paid by the government would cost the exact same amount for the same outcome, at least it would achieve a more equitable outcome for Canadians in switching from a regressive to a progressive tax.