Tell Americans What They're Really Paying for Their Food
ideas.theatlantic.com
Tell Americans What They're Really Paying for Their Food
1–10 of 22 posts
Re: Tell Americans What They're Really Paying for Their Food
#2I just saw Food Inc. Fits with the article.
Re: Tell Americans What They're Really Paying for Their Food
#3I just saw Food Inc. Fits with the article. http://www.foodincmovie.com/
+1. And it's not just price, its quality too. Even if you avoid processed junk and go after raw meats, veggies and fruit, you're still eating manufactured, as opposed to grown, sub-standard stuff.
My friends who come here to visit, after sharing their initial comments about the US, almost always compliment their overall very positive impression of the country with mandatory: "... but the food... sorry but it tastes like shit here, how can you eat this? Even Coca Cola is much worse, why is that?"
Re: Tell Americans What They're Really Paying for Their Food
#4Obama's original budget cut $30B of subsidies to big agriculture. It struck me at the time that this was a tangible sign of being serious about change, not only because of the subsidies but because of everything that cutting them represents. It was going to be an interesting test case to follow. Well, we didn't have to follow it for very long: Congress immediately restored them. Thus the system perpetuates itself.
Re: Tell Americans What They're Really Paying for Their Food
#5Could it have something to do with the fact the U.S. is the biggest champion of the "free market" and thus antithetically opposed to local food?
For more info, check out this essay by Wendell Berry:
Re: Tell Americans What They're Really Paying for Their Food
#6Heh, I was just reading about how Japan's government (over a millennium ago) impoverished itself through exemptions from the land tax. The exemptions were originally meant to foster religion and reward special service, but the government left loopholes by which the land tax exemptions spread to a considerable fraction of arable land in Japan. For example, owners of taxed land would sell their land to a tax-exempt lord or monastery, then rent the land back from him. Monasteries exploded in number and size as tax exemption and other government perks turned religion into an attractive career. Since the whole burden of funding the government rested on the shrinking remnant of taxable land, this meant financial ruin for many taxpayers, who could only save themselves by selling their land... often to a tax-exempt landholder.
The concept is entirely different, but there is a surface similarity: a government program aimed at a small group of people (American family farmers, Japanese monks and favored families) was taken over by shrewd businessmen and turned into a thriving welfare business, at great cost to taxpayers and little benefit to anyone except a small number of fat cats who milk the system for all it's worth.
Re: Tell Americans What They're Really Paying for Their Food
#7The purpose of subsidies is food security for the US. Importing food at a cheaper rate will likely adversely impact local production, which may be important in the future. The US is already dependent on other countries for its energy supplies. Nations go to war over such stuff.
Re: Tell Americans What They're Really Paying for Their Food
#8Heh, I was just reading about how Japan's government (over a millennium ago) impoverished itself through exemptions from the land tax. The exemptions were originally meant to foster religion and reward special service, but the government left loopholes by which the land tax exemptions spread to a considerable fraction of arable land in Japan. For example, owners of taxed land would sell their land to a tax-exempt lor…
It would be silly to think the subsidies are "aimed" at the family farmers since there are so few of them; they are just pawn in the game. It's partially about riot control (via cheap food), and probably more about relieving people of their pesky self sufficiency by making farming unprofitable.
Re: Tell Americans What They're Really Paying for Their Food
#9The purpose of subsidies is food security for the US. Importing food at a cheaper rate will likely adversely impact local production, which may be important in the future. The US is already dependent on other countries for its energy supplies. Nations go to war over such stuff.
this comment is false... and absurd. Trade with other nations decreases the chance of war because it creates a fabric of inter-dependency.
Isolationist approaches like talking about "foreign oil" and "dependency on foreign x" are the real cause of war. How many Americans hate some of our biggest trading partners (China, Saudi, Mexico) b/c we are told that it's an "us vs them" issue?
Look at it this way, if you are a president and you want to go to war, it's far easier when nobody in your country knows anyone in the target country (b/c there is no trade) and when nobody in your country stands to lose a job b/c the war will be against a customer!
Re: Tell Americans What They're Really Paying for Their Food
#10Obama's original budget cut $30B of subsidies to big agriculture. It struck me at the time that this was a tangible sign of being serious about change, not only because of the subsidies but because of everything that cutting them represents. It was going to be an interesting test case to follow. Well, we didn't have to follow it for very long: Congress immediately restored them. Thus the system perpetuates itself.
But then he appointed Harkin to Agriculture. Now, maybe it was the idea of spurring reform from the inside (and helping his re-election). But I was disappointed in that status quo, esp. since Obama reads Pollan. Getting bills through congress really is like herding cats, but what do you expect when they're presented with the same fluffy ball?