859
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by Neurologist@mander.xyz to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 77 points 3 months ago

Easy there OP, do you think food is some kind of "human right" or something? Before you know it, people will be saying housing is too.

[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 77 points 3 months ago

In 2021, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution that everyone has a right to food and the UN should work to eliminate world hunger. It passed 186 for and 2 against. The two countries that disagreed were the United States and Isreal.

[-] Neurologist@mander.xyz 48 points 3 months ago

This fact makes me viscerally angry

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 20 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Not to defend them, but that only makes them less hypocritical than others. Talk (and UN resolutions) are cheap, and most countries don't guarantee food or shelter in practice. Finland is the only one that comes to mind as actually achieving this.

Edit: perhaps the downvoters would like to prove me wrong by providing their own examples?

load more comments (14 replies)
[-] p3n@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

There is a very logical progression of basic human needs. Without oxygen, a human will die in less than an hour. We need clean breathable air. Without water, a human a will die in less than a month. We need clean drinkable water. Without food a human will die in less than a year. Shelter is trickier because people can die of exposure and hypothermia in a matter of hours, but may be able to survive without it.

  • Air for profit
  • Water for profit <- This exists
  • Food for profit <- We are here
  • Shelter for profit
[-] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 months ago

Minor correction: You're technically right, but you will die in less than a week without water and less than a month without food.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 53 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

During the Great Depression the federal government literally paid farmers to not harvest crops because allowing that much food to be produced would dilute the market and bring down crop prices.

During the Great Depression.

A time when people were starving and there were virtually no forms of welfare.

When millions were thrust into poverty for reasons entirely out of their control.

The federal government paid farmers to create less food to protect profit margins.

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 months ago

Nowadays they largely pay for the food and give it to to people. We got gallons of eggs at one point from that.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Farmers have bills to pay, too. If the price of growing food doesn't cover the cost to make it they'll go out of business. Then there will be one less farm to grow food. If there's no farms and we're totally reliant on imports, that's a strategic weakness.

It's the same reason we prop up carmakers when they go out of business: Manufacturing capacity is a strategic asset just like farmland.

[-] Slowy@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago

Then subsidize the farmers by the amount you were paying them to not harvest the food ? They don’t make any money when they aren’t selling it at all either, without this intervention…

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Which leads to even cheaper food prices and even more subsidies, and then you have a planned economy.

Oh wait.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] jimitsoni18@lemmy.zip 37 points 3 months ago
[-] endofline@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The reasons behind it are quite simple:

  1. Food spoils very quickly, so mostly if you don't consume it locally you need to quickly export which is quite expensive. Very often it's simply cheaper to utilize it for example as fertilizer.
  2. Storing food is costly.
  3. The best option would be not to produce an excess of food but 1) demand is hard to predict 2) crops output is hard to predict 3) for legal reasons like contractual obligations it's better to produce more than less.
  4. Current markets are hardly free: see https://www.history.com/news/government-cheese-dairy-farmers-reagan
[-] UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world 24 points 3 months ago

In today's world every person who starves, who does without, who suffers unnecessarily..

Does so only because someone wants it so . Not because there is not enough

[-] kingshrubb@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago
[-] Theharpyeagle@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I seriously encourage everyone to read this book, even if you read it back in school and found it boring. It's incredibly topical to this day.

I also just read In Dubious Battle for the first time and recommend it. A great illustration on why it's so hard to get together and organize when it seems like it should be easy.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 months ago

It was rather radicalizing finding out that the world makes three times as many calories per person than is necessary to feed every person on this planet, but because we're idiots living in a class society in the year 12024 HE, luxury restaurants regularly dump slightly subprime ingredients in the trash while thousands starve.

[-] Neurologist@mander.xyz 6 points 3 months ago

Does this statistic include calories fed to livestock or not?

[-] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/global-food?tab=chart&facet=none&country=OWID_WRL~OWID_SAM~OWID_NAM~OWID_EUR~OWID_AFR~OWID_ASI~OWID_OCE&hideControls=true&Food=Total&Metric=Food+available+for+consumption&Per+Capita=false&Unit=Kilocalories+per+day

This specifically talks about food.

According to health.com, the average person needs between 1600 to 3000 kilocalories a day depending on sex and age.

According to Our World In Data, even Africa, the continent with the least food reserves, has enough to give everyone roughly 2500 kcal, which ought to be more or less enough given how people with higher and lower caloric needs balance out. Seeing as how developed countries have more than enough, if a portion of that went to Africa and Asia, everyone could eat.

Calories are a rough measure, and according to Bahadur et al. we are overproducing grains but underproducing fruits, but the wretched of the Earth and the prisoners of starvation are not even getting that grain.

Edit: I have been informed that "calories" in nutrition are in fact "large-C calories", A.K.A. kilocalories. On the other hand, the OWiD numbers, which document the number of kcal available per day, still suggest that we have enough to feed everyone. I have altered the comment accordingly.

[-] ammonium@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Small nitpick: When we talk about calories in food we actually mean kcal

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago
[-] endofline@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago

Schopenhauer was right even before the internet came :-)

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

It, unfortunately, is an efficient distribution of labor, at least relative to other systems. Not because wasting food for profit isn't fucking heinous, but because the mobility of investor capital and responsiveness of market prices is less inefficient than reciprocal economies or central planning.

However, we are at a point in human society where raw efficiency is no longer the bottleneck for our quality of life. Capitalism was an ugly solution to a real problem, but we can probably bid it farewell at this point, if only we can dislodge the elites who benefit from perpetuating it.

[-] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

All we need is something that could realistically replace it, and a complete rewriting of all of our laws to allow for it to happen.

Easy enough.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Market socialism, ez. Shame about the whole "entrenched powers that be" bit.

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Seems like you could get most of the way there by just keeping the current system but adding a social dividend which would form a basic income for everyone. If the dividend is pegged to economic growth then it should also be fairly resistant to inflation.

[-] Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago
[-] WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

And that loops back around to the "powers at be" problem.

[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

We don't even need to go that far (although it would be nice). We could just make it illegal for stores to throw out perfectly good food and instead force them to donate it to food banks. They can even get a charity write-off as a treat.

[-] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

The owner class will never willingly give up power, their actions are why capitalism is a religion.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Of course. Hence "dislodge" rather than "ask nicely".

[-] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

I tend to lean more towards 'consume' and 'mulch', myself. Though I understand why others would find that distasteful.

Has to happen every few hundred years it seems, slave uprisings. When the owner class gets too fat and cruel towards the hands that make their wealth, those hands have to pick up some stones sometimes to remind them why noblesse oblige was once not considered optional.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago

It, unfortunately, is an efficient distribution of labor

Uh... No. I feel like half the fucking western world works on finance, which is quite literally just maximizing the revalorization of capital for the few at the top. Besides, how can be the only system in history to have millions of people unemployed, be efficient at distributing labor?

responsiveness of market prices is less inefficient than reciprocal economies or central planning

This is empirically false. You can't provide a scientific source for this because it's wrong. Central planning is the most efficient tool, that's why Amazon and Walmart (extremely centrally planned systems which have power to control their supply chains at will) systematically outcompete all other businesses. Amazon doesn't outcompete other stores being "a competitive market of warehouses", it's a digitalised, centrally-planned behemoth that can so much as smell when a customer is going to conceive making a purchase, and generate all the immediate responses in the supply chain from manufacturing to distribution to optimise the whole thing.

If you wanna talk about countries, please explain how the transition from planned economies to free markets plunged the entirety of Eastern Europe into a deep crisis that killed millions and ruined millions more of lives, to the point of many countries like Belarus, Russia or Ukraine not really having recovered from the impact in 30+ years. So much for the efficiency of capitalism, amirite? A centrally planned economy is what brought the USSR from being a poor, backwards-ass agrarian country in 1917, to defeating the Nazis and being the second power of the world by the 60s.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago
[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Damn it, ~~Bobby~~ Capitalism.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
859 points (94.7% liked)

Political Memes

5455 readers
2825 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS