171–180 of 191 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Subsidies and government things are subject to disclosure laws, private contracts don't.
Subsidies add opacity to the market, so that the true cost of something is obscured from the consumer.
I understand the appeal ideologically, but in practice what you are suggesting would increase inequality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Subsidies add opacity to the market, so that the true cost of something is obscured from the consumer.
Reducing the cost of critical goods is sometimes necessary. Should milk cost 20+$/gallon? I understand the appeal ideologically, but in practice what you are suggesting would increase inequality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't like seeing groups shoehorn welfare into other areas. If you've got an income (or cash welfare) problem, fix that. I'd prefer a better solution, but when one isn't available (and likely not forthcoming), needs of real people outweigh my economic principles: These people need food. It's the same in engineering: As much as we would wish otherwise, sometimes the 'right' solution isn't available and we need to…
You aren't disagreeing. People need food, so fund a food bank . Don't create absurdly contorted markets to preserve unnecessary waste streams to be reprurposed for food banks.
Yes. But in reality, removing the 'contortions' does not imply increasing direct funding for food banks.
It's misleading to defend a change on the basis that it would lead to a pareto improvement if accompanied by another change, when in reality the two can vary independently and there's no good reason to assume they won't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't get it. You could argue that the poor need food more than farmers need money. That same argument could be made to any business, though. Why are farmers more obligated to donate to the poor than anyone else? One of the arguments for subsidies to farmers is that they are the "feeders of people". Sounds to me like they want privileges, why not a few obligations for a change?
If Imperfect Foods's business model works out, it sounds like farmers will see an increase in profits. I don't see why that couldn't coincide with a decrease in subsidies. In an ideal world, we could even redirect that money towards the poor - potentially making up for the impact to food banks.
This seems true but irrelevant. The claim that things would be better for everyone, were X accompanied by policies Y and Z, is not a real defence of X unless you have good reason to believe that it really will be accompanied by Y and Z.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Farmers (at least in the US) don't get any subsidies for vegetables.
This is not an accurate statement: see the USDA info on non-crop specific programs that are counted as farm support programs: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/fruit-tree-nuts/policy...
https://www.pcrm.org/health/reports/agriculture-and-health-p...
> Between 1995 and 2009, USDA distributed more than $246 billion ($246,000,000,000) in subsidies. The subsidy system, updated approximately every five years, provides financial support primarily to producers of “commodity crops,” which include more than a dozen nonperishable crops. However, five commodity crops—corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, and rice—receive the vast majority of subsidies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see nothing wrong with: selling something if a paying market is found for that, instead of giving it away for free. I do see something wrong with: creating that paying market by lying. I suspect most of those conscientious people who think they are helping farmers and reducing food waste would not be paying for this produce if they knew that it was being taken away from poor people.
In that case, you should never buy anything, because anything manufactured might be donated if you hadn't bought it.
(But it doesn't sound silly if you summarise it accurately, does it?)
This produce used to be readily available to food banks but now that “ugly” and “imperfect” produce can turn a profit, they are less available to those in need. So the argument is as follows: Farmers were donating food to the poor because they couldn't sell it. Imperfect Produce figured out how to sell that food, so now farmers are selling it instead of donating it. This is bad because now poor people get less food.…
I think op's point is that ugly food business is based on peoples charitable instincts, while those same customers are not aware the food would not in fact be wasted. so the consumers are buying it for wrong reasons
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's not trash. It's food that was being used. I don't think most of Imperfect Produce's customers would subscribe if they knew this food was previously being eaten by people in need. Their entire marketing and product concept is based on a lie.
Imperfect Produce's customers are more than welcome to donate their cost savings or other food to people in need if they are dissatisfied with how much someone else is donating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's not trash. It's food that was being used. I don't think most of Imperfect Produce's customers would subscribe if they knew this food was previously being eaten by people in need. Their entire marketing and product concept is based on a lie.
What? So you're mad for what reason exactly? You can say that about most things - if something doesn't have an available market, other people will use the sub-optimal thing. I don't see why that's a problem or why people wouldn't pay money for something other people use for free. If it makes you feel better, you can think of it as supporting farms, because once farms become unprofitable to run as a business, nobody w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Subsidies add opacity to the market, so that the true cost of something is obscured from the consumer.
Reducing the cost of critical goods is sometimes necessary. Should milk cost 20+$/gallon? I understand the appeal ideologically, but in practice what you are suggesting would increase inequality.
Humans should end their diary addiction, it would help with obesity, and a whole other host of health conditions.