Food Deserts are where grocery stores dont locate in urban areas cause its not profitable enough. So local people dont get access to basic nutrition. But why make every possible governmemt intervention as by definition wrong? Why frame every decision that affects the livelihood of citizens through purely economic lenses?
Do it.
Because Linate, it's anti-capitalism and the home of the "communist" devil that haunts Shoresy.
Nonetheless, as long as such stores are profitable and NYC benefits, then if it solves a social problem then it's a good idea.
SergeantLynch wrote:
Because Linate, it's anti-capitalism and the home of the "communist" devil that haunts Shoresy.
Nonetheless, as long as such stores are profitable and NYC benefits, then if it solves a social problem then it's a good idea.
Nah, Communism is the best. Do it.
Nonetheless, as long as such stores are profitable and NYC benefits, then if it solves a social problem then it's a good idea.
Hmm, if a government-owned store is profitable, who profits? Oh yeah. So much for "no Kings"
My first thought is that as a business owner you have to compete with the government which is crazy. You have to make a profit or you will close your store down.
This drives competition which in the end is for the benefit of the consumer.
Second, who pays for the store? YOU!
linate wrote:
Food Deserts are where grocery stores dont locate in urban areas cause its not profitable enough. So local people dont get access to basic nutrition. But why make every possible governmemt intervention as by definition wrong? Why frame every decision that affects the livelihood of citizens through purely economic lenses?
What is exactly is the problem here? I’m ngl this sounds bizarre. If you don’t have a store nearby you just go to where the nearest store is.
This sounds like a myth to me. How can an area not have access to a supermarket unless it’s literally a town that was settled 10 years ago?
It seems physically impossible for such things to exist. If supermarkets are unable to stay profitable because people aren’t buying their food, how are these people not starving to death?
Maybe it’s because they buy food elsewhere? Like, say, Pizza Hut? It doesn’t sound like the supermarkets’ fault…
It seems physically impossible for such things to exist. If supermarkets are unable to stay profitable because people aren’t buying their food, how are these people not starving to death?
Many of these privately owned stores are closing down because the government wants them to close down by not providing crime prevention, and forcing private businesses to pay ridiculous taxes and fines for ridiculous regulations.
It's part of the plan to artificially create a supply problem that only the government will be able to solve because it was the government who created all the problems in the first place.
Next will be the grand plan to create landlord deserts with price controls and code fines so that the only options for tenants will be government-owned housing. Again, solving a problem that they created in order to profit like kings.
You are aware of the concept of food Deserts right? And people being too poor to get commodities like produce or healthy food. I know the free market takes care of this to the best of its ability, which often means letting people fall through the cracks, but I wouldn't automatically rule out governmemt involvement. Maybe the governmemt could make some deliveries or I dunno
linate wrote:
You are aware of the concept of food Deserts right? And people being too poor to get commodities like produce or healthy food. I know the free market takes care of this to the best of its ability, which often means letting people fall through the cracks, but I wouldn't automatically rule out governmemt involvement. Maybe the governmemt could make some deliveries or I dunno
No, it’s the first I’m hearing of it. How can someone lack access to food without automatically starving?
In the usa people dont starve to death but theres plenty of malnutrition that can lead to premature death. Sure people can do whatever is necessary to eat healthy but thats ignoring their situation... rent or housing and healthcare can be exorbitant so people choose maltrition to get the bills paid. Sure most malnutrition is voluntary and not coerced but not all of it.
..........
Food deserts are geographic areas where residents have limited access to affordable, nutritious food, typically defined as low-income census tracts where a significant number of residents live more than 1 mile (urban) or 10 miles (rural) from a supermarket. Millions of Americans are impacted, leading to significant health and socioeconomic challenges. [1, 2, 3]
How the USDA Defines Food Deserts
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) identifies these areas using the Food Access Research Atlas through a combination of two main metrics:
Urban vs. Rural Dynamics
Impact on Health and Disparities
How to Explore Local Data
If you want to find specific food desert locations near you or in a particular region, you can:
Would you like to explore data for a specific state or city, or learn about how communities are fighting food deserts (such as through mobile markets, urban farming, or policy initiatives)? Let me know how to focus the information.
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2011/december/data-feature-mapping-food-deserts-in-the-u-s
[3] https://onlinedegrees.kent.edu/college-of-public-health/community/causes-of-food-deserts
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_deserts_in_the_United_States
[5] https://feedingnefl.org/what-is-a-food-desert/
[6] https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas
[7] https://www.bayer.com/en/us/news-stories/understanding-americas-rural-and-urban-food-deserts
[8] https://thehumaneleague.org/article/food-desert
[9] https://www.seasidesustainability.org/post/food-deserts-in-america
Quite frankly from what I'm reading here, NY sounds like a bit of a shit hole, so don't think that will be visiting any time soon.
Quite frankly from what I'm reading here, NY sounds like a bit of a shit hole, so don't think that will be visiting any time soon.
Right, the groundwork to implement Communist grocery stores required decades of subverting private businesses since America's constitutional republic prevents quick measures to quickly vote in Communism.
It's not like the USA doesn't have other states and cities. People are still free to leave without coercion.
If history has proved anything, it is that governments are almost always incompetent.
Unless you place Kim Jong Un as government, I don't see what will you do, because your entire argument rests on premise that US governments are competent, which couldn't be further from truth.
It doesn't matter what idea you come up with. If that idea is going to be implemented by incompetent persons, it is guaranteed to fail.
The reason why North Korea keeps progressing while rest of the world sinks into shit is because in North Korea, incompetence is severely punished. Even supreme leader is expected to be highly competent and show visible results.
North Korean mentality is that of results, not pretty words. US mentality is that of pretty words and no results.
North Korea is true meritocracy. It's why scientists who develop long range missiles are one of top classes in society, even above most politicians.
You simply don't succeed in North Korea by pretty words, because leaders are elected by their competence. Even supreme leader Kim Jong Un was elected by Kim Jong Im who saw how competent his son was. He had other choices, other family members and children to place as supreme leader. When supreme leader is elected by someone who already was supreme leader, the competence increases.
It's why North Korea has ICBMs and nukes while South Korea doesn't. Only one Korea is military superpower, and it's not South Korea.
Hmmmm.
I would suggest that leaving sounds easy but comes with all manner of socio-economic obstacles.
I'm just comparing the ease of leaving New York compared to leaving, say...Cuba. Or North Korea.
For sure, the obstacles are somewhat more physically challenging for your average Cuban or North Korean.
(Urban) food deserts exist because they reflect the antisocial values of the communities affected.
I don't suppose there's anything morally wrong about trying to rectify this by means that don't constitute a handout of taxpayer money (e.g. the state opening a grocery store with the expectation that it'll recoup its money), but it most likely will fail for the same reason nobody in the private sector tries to open a grocery store there in the first place: rampant theft will quickly turn it unprofitable. There's no way to make this work except insofar as "grocery store" is a euphemism for food stamp pickup center.
I'd be more worried if the government actually turned a profit and returned the surplus back to the taxpayers. That would mean the macroeconomics were such that the best way to turn a profit is to get elected. The economic incentives would push innovative people out of the private sector, and political power would become the most lucrative path to wealth and resources. The greatest asset-acquiring skill would be winning elections by any innovative means. In some states, that may already be the case, and when the competition is completely gone, profitability and innovation in actual consumer goods like food become practically meaningless.
Magoroth wrote:
It seems physically impossible for such things to exist. If supermarkets are unable to stay profitable because people aren’t buying their food, how are these people not starving to death?
Maybe it’s because they buy food elsewhere? Like, say, Pizza Hut? It doesn’t sound like the supermarkets’ fault…
Food deserts exist because people steal or behave so antisocially that the supermarkets close up and leave. The only places that remain are small corner stores that sell heavily processed junk food and are manned by old Indian or Korean/Chinese curmudgeons who watch the place like a hawk to make sure the clientele don't steal and turn the place into a steel-girded fortress at night. It's a symptom of a broken society and inadequate policing. In NYC iirc there were whole shoplifting rings at one point where people would fill up trasbags with goods and just walk out of the store. As an example, let's say they stole a pack of pampers and sold at retail they would go for $0.50 each. Sold on the black market, the thief gets $0.30 per diaper. The thief can even sell the goods they steal at below wholesale price, as it's just free money to them. This hurts the store twice - they suffer inventory shrinkage and they lose sales for every stolen item sold to others by the thief - i.e. the demand curve becomes extremely depressed. This makes it entirely unprofitable to operate in the neighborhood. If you started shooting shoplifters on sight food deserts would disappear overnight.
These government-run grocery stores aren't a bad idea on paper, but the fact that this is a libtard project means that they will probably be heavily burglarized and operate at a perpetual loss, basically functioning as welfare in all but name. And the worst thing is that the depressed demand curve from the secondary market means that other private grocery stores may also suffer and close, leading to a death spiral effect. If you want this to work, you need a commissar standing outside each one with gun who's authorized to shoot shoplifters in the back.
These government-run grocery stores aren't a bad idea on paper, but the fact that this is a libtard project means that they will probably be heavily burglarized and operate at a perpetual loss
the advantage of government owned business is in fact that it can operate long term with small loss but ultimately benefiting the community. Its only when these businesses become wide spread that actual unmanageable loss occurs. But few thousand dollars loss is nothing for US government. they already lose trillions on dumb shit.
SatanLucy wrote:
These government-run grocery stores aren't a bad idea on paper, but the fact that this is a libtard project means that they will probably be heavily burglarized and operate at a perpetual loss
the advantage of government owned business is in fact that it can operate long term with small loss but ultimately benefiting the community. Its only when these businesses become wide spread that actual unmanageable loss occurs. But few thousand dollars loss is nothing for US government. they already lose trillions on dumb shit.
But if they're being burglarized and the stolen goods are being sold on the secondary market they aren't helping the community. If the government ran an egg farm next to yours and let people steal all the eggs and then sell them to their friends for less than it actually costs to produce the eggs (since they stole it, they paid zero for it), then you will have trouble selling your eggs because theirs will be cheaper than yours and people only need a certain amount of eggs each weel. You are basically paying taxes to subsidize killing all the other local businesses. You see this happen in third world countries, where America ships free food to towns or free mosquito nets and then the people in the towns who had a business making mosquito nets or growing food can't sell their goods because people are getting it for free - they eventually go out of business. They go bankrupt and then the village becomes more dependent and more dysfunctional.
"Organizations in Haiti had previously questioned the wisdom of shipping U.S.-grown food there. They said the country had limited capacity to store imported grain, and feared the imports would actually discourage local food production. They'd proposed using locally grown food instead, but this isn't allowed under the rules that govern U.S. food aid for "non-emergency" situations, such as in Haiti.
In addition, Iannotti says, the U.S. often sends commodities that American farmers want to sell, not foods that Haitians need most. Cornmeal and sorghum, for instance, hardly constitute a healthy diet. The infested bags of grain sent a message, she says: "We don't really care if people are food secure in Haiti.""
Global food aid from the U.S. is sparking a heated debate : Goats and Soda : NPR
If the government ran an egg farm next to yours and let people steal all the eggs and then sell them to their friends
thats irrelevant if people rob stores and egg farms anyway. Not one would survive other than government run.
Hard to compete with the government when they make the policy as well.
