Comment by hvb2

21 hours ago

The world is bigger than your relatives.

I'm sure he was referring to already food insecure places. The rich countries will have food available, probably at elevated prices.

In places where there's actual famine people will do crazy things to get their hands on food.

18 comments

hvb2

Reply
roenxi  20 hours ago

If the plan isn't to stockpile food communally through a big corporation making a tidy profit for being well prepared in a disaster, and it isn't to stockpile it personally... what is the plan? There won't be any food.

There are very limited options here. Those two are, by far, the two best ones for reliably being able to access food. Someone has to build up a reserve. Literally, you should to be able to point someone out and say "this person will give me food next month, they've got a stockpile for this drought".

Ideally that someone who is very, very motivated to get it right and make it happen. Those big corporations charging extra are going to keep people fed.

> The world is bigger than your relatives.

I offer no commentary on the size of my relatives vs. the rest of the world :)

  • VorpalWay  20 hours ago

    There is another option than individuals vs corporations though: The government could and should provide for it's citizens. That is what a welfare state is all about: useing the taxes it collects from its citizens for the common good.

    I know, to the US centric crowd at HN that probably sounds insane, but as a Scandinavian this is what I would have expected in the past (though probably not these days).

    • lukan  17 hours ago

      "useing the taxes it collects from its citizens for the common good."

      Not just taxes, §14 of the german basic law for example says:

      https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_14.html

      Any property that is needed for the benefit of all (and where there is no alternative way to buy it normally etc) can be taken and redistributed.

      So like a storehouse full of food, with a starving population and broken infrastructure - can be just taken and later compensated not with wartime prices, but "normal" ones. And I believe there are at least in theory some plans for that, which military trucks go to which warehouse and what are distribution centers etc.

    • roenxi  20 hours ago

      I mean sure but if we're just going to give people the money to buy food what is the complaint about big corporations charging more?

      It isn't like anyone would be unable to afford food, because a welfare state would imply a standing agreement to buy everyone food at the taxpayer's expense if required. And it is entirely reasonable for prices to go up when there is a shortage, the people who built up stockpiles in advance need to be compensated for their foresight. Someone has to be stockpiling food.

      3 replies →

  • ben_w  17 hours ago

    > Ideally that someone who is very, very motivated to get it right and make it happen. Those big corporations charging extra are going to keep people fed.

    Governments are also actors in this, and have incentivises on a different scale than "how much money this year?"; this remains true even when those governments are literally dictatorships, though as history has shown neither businesses nor governments (democratic nor dictatorship) are correct at all times, so it's nice we've also got super-national aid programs.

  • hvb2  13 hours ago

    The problem with a company stockpiling food (or other basic need like water) in times of scarcity is that it has no obligation to distribute it evenly. This is fine for luxury items, but when it's basic needs, it gets really ugly quickly.

    > Ideally that someone who is very, very motivated to get it right and make it happen. Those big corporations charging extra are going to keep people fed.

    They (a corporation) are motivated, by profit. Meaning some people will remain fed because they can afford it. The rest will not be fed. I simply don't think that's ethical.

  • hamper653  17 hours ago

    > If the plan isn't to stockpile food communally through a big corporation making a tidy profit for being well prepared in a disaster, and it isn't to stockpile it personally... what is the plan?

    Stockpile food communally NOT through a big corporation making a tidy profit?

  • benj111  17 hours ago

    An African subsistence farmer makes what? A dollar a day. The average American makes $60k+ annually.

    So who is going to be able to afford that bag of flour?

    Further the African subsistence farmer has lost their harvest, so they don't even have that dollar.

    The rich will always be able to outspend the poor. Making things uniformly more expensive doesnt change that. The west will continue to have an obesity epidemic while the poorest starve.

  • vrganj  20 hours ago

    "Communally" and "through a big corporation making a tidy profit" are at odds.

    It's either for and by the community or it's for and by a big corporation profiteering off the misfortune of the community. It can't be both at the same time.

    The big corporations aren't "going to keep people fed", they will hoard and ration by wealth, not by need. The billionaire will get their twenty course fine dining experience, the beggar will starve. That's not keeping the people fed by any serious definition of the term.