6 ms·

I try to do the same with meat. I can easily afford it and do it seldom. 60-100$ price for bio beef is not a problem. My internal issue has more to do with th

I try to do the same with meat. I can easily afford it and do it seldom. 60-100$ price for bio beef is not a problem. My internal issue has more to do with the conflict of me being able to afford the best meat on the market but a lot more can't. Can I tell poor people to stop buying cheap meat while still consuming it myself?

CaptArmchair 5y ago
> Can I tell poor people to stop buying cheap meat while still consuming it myself? Aren't the more interesting questions: why are so many individiuals poor? can't afford to buy produce at an "ethically reasonable" price point?
- TheCapeGreek 5y ago
  Making your product available to the widest amount of people possible can also drive the mass-production practices talked about in this thread. So it's not just people being poor, it's that poor people are a huge market!
  - airhead969 5y ago
    The US govt subsidizes many grains and provides socialism to farmers to make soda and burgers cheap, at the cost of healthcare and the climate. Often, fast food is only what poor people can afford.
    - CaptArmchair 5y ago
      True enough. I wouldn't call it "socialism" though. The reality is that individual / independent farming isn't economically viable since farmers have to compete with these large factory farms. Most farmers running factory farms at the behest of large private corporations who define what the farmer can and can't do because they invest in these farms. Factory farms aren't diverse farms: they produce only one specific commodity e.g. meat, dairy, grain, soy beans,... The price the farmer can get is entirely defined by those large commercial interests. Just think about the notion that farmers, by contract, need to buy seeds from these corporations. Seeds which are protected by intellectual property law. As a result, the practice of seed saving - which is thousands of years old - has become a liability as there's a risk of patent infringement. As a result, farmers aren't just forced to buy seeds, they have to buy those seeds every year, and they can't really choose between suppliers by contract. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_saving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_saving Such practices render farmers into anything but employees in name. It would be "socialist" if the farmer retained their freedom and their vote in how the farm is run. Legally speaking, they still do have that freedom and that agency as a legally independent business. But in practice, the exploitative nature of the economic relationship between farmers, the markets and these corporations has turned that pretty much into a meaningless concepts. In that regard, the subsidization of agriculture doesn't benefit the farmers. It benefits those corporations through these entirely skewed market dynamics.
      - elite_hackers3 5y ago
        Well you’d be wrong, it is indeed socialism.
      - jfengel 5y ago
        I think the OP was sarcastically noting that "socialism" is often used to mean "anything the government does that doesn't benefit me". Including many farmers, at least by stereotype.

CaptArmchair 5y ago

> Can I tell poor people to stop buying cheap meat while still consuming it myself? Aren't the more interesting questions: why are so many individiuals poor? can't afford to buy produce at an "ethically reasonable" price point?

TheCapeGreek 5y ago
Making your product available to the widest amount of people possible can also drive the mass-production practices talked about in this thread. So it's not just people being poor, it's that poor people are a huge market!
- airhead969 5y ago
  The US govt subsidizes many grains and provides socialism to farmers to make soda and burgers cheap, at the cost of healthcare and the climate. Often, fast food is only what poor people can afford.
  - CaptArmchair 5y ago
    True enough. I wouldn't call it "socialism" though. The reality is that individual / independent farming isn't economically viable since farmers have to compete with these large factory farms. Most farmers running factory farms at the behest of large private corporations who define what the farmer can and can't do because they invest in these farms. Factory farms aren't diverse farms: they produce only one specific commodity e.g. meat, dairy, grain, soy beans,... The price the farmer can get is entirely defined by those large commercial interests. Just think about the notion that farmers, by contract, need to buy seeds from these corporations. Seeds which are protected by intellectual property law. As a result, the practice of seed saving - which is thousands of years old - has become a liability as there's a risk of patent infringement. As a result, farmers aren't just forced to buy seeds, they have to buy those seeds every year, and they can't really choose between suppliers by contract. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_saving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_saving Such practices render farmers into anything but employees in name. It would be "socialist" if the farmer retained their freedom and their vote in how the farm is run. Legally speaking, they still do have that freedom and that agency as a legally independent business. But in practice, the exploitative nature of the economic relationship between farmers, the markets and these corporations has turned that pretty much into a meaningless concepts. In that regard, the subsidization of agriculture doesn't benefit the farmers. It benefits those corporations through these entirely skewed market dynamics.
    - elite_hackers3 5y ago
      Well you’d be wrong, it is indeed socialism.
    - jfengel 5y ago
      I think the OP was sarcastically noting that "socialism" is often used to mean "anything the government does that doesn't benefit me". Including many farmers, at least by stereotype.