this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
924 points (86.2% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
26776 readers
4632 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If they cap prices on food, then you'll see food shortages instead of expensive food
How so? In my country, certain basic food items are priced capped AND rationed, meaning you're only allowed to buy a certain amount of it at a time.
> but but but muh freedum market$$
No! Worldwide, the agricultural sector is THE MOST SUBSIDISED economic field. You can't have it both ways. If taxpayers' money is used to prop up your business, you have a duty to the taxpayers and country.
Subsidies may distort the market but they don't change the existence of the supply/demand curve. Any producer of a product is going to sell their goods to the highest bidder, and if someone is capping what a product can sell for that means capping what they can purchase the product for. Grocery stores aren't going to sell for a loss.
If the central government enacts a scheme of rationing and central purchasing, that's one thing. But in a free market situation if a grocery in country A will buy lentils for €1 a kg and country B can only pay €.50 then the lentils are getting sold to country A until that demand is fulfilled. Which means shortages in country B.
Considering how much billionaires hoard, im happy just tacking a sales quota on at the same time so they just have to eat losses for a bit. People eating is more important, and frankly anything that forces the robber barons to lose money back into the system is a good thing
Why wouldn't they just close their business if it was unprofitable
They could, and if they do, the land it occupied should be seized and turned into a community owned cooperative.
Cool, so, the government can just turn into bandits if we don't like what private citizens do on their own land. Oh, and if they complain, why not just send them to the gulag?
A society that values an individuals right to profit over the collectives right to eat is not a just or moral society, and it is the collective responsibility of the many to change the society to preclude from such possibilities. If that means sending mentally ill speculators and unethical industrial farmers to prison, then so be it. Better than sending the poor and minorities there for crimes of poverty only necessitated by others greed in the first place.
Speaking of gulags, why does the US have both the highest prison population and highest per capita prison population in the world, if we don’t already send people to the gulag?
You might have a point if communist nations didn't have a history of dismal agricultural failures and capitalist countries didn't have a history of food surplus. Lmao
Also, whataboutism with the US prison population doesn't excuse locking up political prisoners, since you're apparently fine apologizing for that.
Political prisoners like Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Fred Burton, “Xinachitli” Alvaro Hernandez, Reverend Joy Powell, Ghassan Elashi, Mufid Abdulqader and Shukri Abu-Baker, Eric King, Daniel Hale, Alex Saab, Ed Poindexter, Veronza Bowers, Jessica Reznicek, Emmanuel Quinones, or any of the hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers illegally detained at the border and held in concentration camps every year? Or lest we forget Edward Snowden, who fled the nation to avoid becoming a political prisoner, or Chelsea Manning who spent 7 years as a political prisoner, or Julian Assange of course?
Look, I’m not defending political prisoners, I’m calling out your random talk of gulag as what it is, a lack of reflection on the most heavily criminalized and incarcerated society in known history and a rabid reactionary whataboutism when faced with the inherent injustice the system we currently have represents.
You couldn't list off the political prisoners of communist regimes in a month if you never stopped typing. And yes, I got your point. It was whataboutism. You want to talk about overuse of prisons in the US, you can, but the US doesn't lock up people because they disagree with the government. Every communist regime has. Brutal authoritarianism is a defining feature of communism.
They literally do. They manufacture crimes with no witnesses nor evidence against prominent dissidents and imprison them for life.
Whatever lies you need to tell yourself, kiddo
Me: provides a list of political prisoners in the US
You: ThE uS dOeSnT hAvE pOlItIcAl PrIsOnErS.
The whataboutism is YOURS. You brought up gulags. I only asked you why the US has the highest population of prisoners in the history of humanity.
Taking the first person on that list, he was convicted of murder. If you think he didn't do it, okay, and he denies it, but he has had his applications for clemency, appeals, and a jury trial to press his case. He's not a political prisoner, he's a convicted murderer. Whether you think he's guilty or not. Dead people aren't invented. That's not a "made up crime."
This is one reason why I have a hard time talking to people like you. You assume a conclusion and deny even the possibility that someone convicted of murder may have done it, then draw a conspiracy about political motives for imprisonment.
Okay, kid. Here's an experiment for you. You say the US locks up political prisoners and is worse than communist nations. Go to the street right outside the White House and hold a sign with your favorite criticism of Joe Biden. Then, go fly to China and go interview people in Tianenmen Square about what precisely happened there in 1989. See what happens.
Jfc. Make an honest fucking argument. You and I could talk about how to reduce the prison population here, but the fact is that however flawed the US justice system is, it is punishing people for crimes, not political thought or agitation. You and I may think some sentences are excessive, or some crimes shouldn't be crimes, or sentences should be committed.
But the Chinese government will lock you up in prison if you disagree with the ruling party. Here, the opposition has multiple fucking TV networks with seats in the White House press room. Fucking clown show.
There is definitive evidence in Peltier’s case that the witnesses were coerced by the FBI, which makes their testimony inadmissible, yet the white supremacist judge still allowed it to be entered and used against him. There’s no evidence, just manufactured consent to placate tubes like you with no critical thinking skills.
I have already been threatened by the government for my ENTIRELY PEACEFUL speech, because they don’t like when you stand on the corner with signs that have the names of murderous police officers. Told that if I continued doing what I did, I’d be put “in the ground.” Totally normal behavior for a non-totalitarian police force.
His lawyers have had lots of time to make that argument in court. I'm not in jail because I haven't gotten into a shootout with the FBI. And I note that you're still here, in our imperfect country, ignoring my entire point and trying to pretend that you don't have free speech. Yet, still speaking.
Yeah it's not cool to seize commercially zoned land when a corporation is idling on it because it doesn't like a policy, that's a communism guys!
However, seizing residential land so that we can build another casino on it... that's just the wonderous free market at work!
Edit: eminent domain isn't communism, pick up a grade school civics book
Eminent domain involves compensation at fair market value, not theft. And typically, we use property taxes to motivate property owners to find economically productive uses for their land/buildings.
a) you'd be surprised how little the "fair market value" often is under eminent domain
b) no we don't, if we did we'd be largely following georgism... The majority of current property taxes tax improvements on the land, not the land itself. It's often cheaper to have an empty lot than a functioning business.
Land value taxes are great. But even without them, it makes little sense to have a potentially functioning, commercially viable plot of land sitting empty. Any rational company is going to sell or lease that land out. Including farmers.
As long as it's commercially viable.
"It makes little sense" and yet it happens all of the time precisely because unlike the fictional policy set you concocted for your argument, we actually don't incentivize people to make the best use of their land through property taxes.
Most localities in the US tax land improvements instead of the land itself, which is the exact opposite of what you were saying we do.
I've never seen a property tax scheme which isn't partly based on the land value. So....
The portion of the tax due to land value in and of itself is paltry compared to the tax collected on land improvements.
People living in condos have no actual land they own and yet are taxed a percentage of the resale value of the improvement (i.e. what they actually own) yearly.
Just because you have no idea how property taxes work doesn't mean that they work the way you dreamed up.
When you get a bill for your taxes it itemizes the amount paid to land value vs the amount paid due to improvements. Want to take a guess which amount is bigger?
I've always seen the same tax rate on land value as improvement value. And yes, I do know how property taxes work. I pay them in three states, you arrogant child.
Even if the rates are identical, the amounts are lower because "unimproved" land has less "fair market value", humble grampy!
In California, the property taxes also don't even rise with the value of property generally. So someone newly buying a condo will pay much, much more in property taxes than say someone that holds a vacant lot for decades....like there are in Oakland...where they had to pass a ballot measure to start taxing people for holding onto vacant lots... Which according to you could never exist....cuz of property taxes.
Most food here is locally produced, I don't see how that would create a shortage. Like people aren't going to sell their grocery stores cuz their margins are thin again and farming is so heavily subsidised that I don't see it effecting farmers.
If a local producer can get more selling to someone in the next country, they will. Basic economics. Prohibit them from doing so and they might plant something more profitable or just say "fuck it" and let their fields lie fallow, if they're not making a profit. Farming ain't free and farmers are on thin margins.
Small farms are long gone. Farmers the the most heavily subsidized sector in the country, and they’re not run by Ma and pa, but big multi-national corporations who use extractive agriculture that damages the soil, results in worse yields than more sustainable agriculture, and requires insane amounts of chemical fertilizers. I have really almost no sympathy for monoculture farmers who grow thousands of acres of almonds using trillions of gallons of water in a state perpetually under severe drought. Literally, just by seizing the lands used to grow alfalfa for Saudi Arabia and almonds in California, the majority of the country could be fed cheap on low water, low maintanence, high yield food forests. We don’t need to subsidize murder farms where pigs are fed to their children as slurry when that same land could be used for vertical gardening.
The use of farmland for exclusively profit driven reasons is what drove the Great Depression. Farmers don’t deserve A profit if what they’re growing isn’t sustainable or catered towards the health of the people.
🙄
It runs the risk of affecting the farmers a lot especially in Europe where they will soon have to deal with very expensive electricity. So the government would have to know that it's really price gouging and not a necessity (I believe it's price gouging, but governments can't (or shouldn't) make rash decisions on beliefs.)
*affecting
And you're wrong. Farmers and grocery stores are already operating on thin margins. Sure we could double subsidies but then why not just make food free instead? How about we just make food free for people who can't afford it, maybe with some sort of special card
Farmers yes, grocery stores not anymore. Profits of companies is public info here and they started racking it in the moment the massive 'inflation' started. My parents live near a farm and they just buy veggies directly from them for like a fraction of the price, I unfortunately live in a city though. Prices are better at local markets but there arent many of those.
Prices are better from a farm because you're skipping two steps on the distribution chain, at least - a food warehouse and the grocery store. Could be three, some grocery stores buy from an intermediate warehouse distributor that services smaller stores.
So potatoes might be sold at .20 on a farm and .50 at the store, because they need to be sold twice to reach the store, transported twice, bagged, washed, stored twice, and finally placed in the retail front for sale.
Why did you ignore the part where I said that the profits for grocery stores soared? Producing food has not become more expensive, that's all public info here.