Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
view the rest of the comments
It's interesting that you think prices are voluntary.
If meat is too expensive for poor people to eat, then it's the same as banning poor people from eating meat.
I don't think I said that? But using price incentives allows people to make the choice between spending their money on the same amount of a now more expensive good, or to change their behavior somehow. Hence, a poor person who previously ate beef every day has a number of options such as eating beef only on certain days of the week, eating a smaller portion of beef each day, or eating a less expensive kind of meat.
If we recognize that meat production has negative externalities, then to reduce these externalities we need to reduce meat production, which will necessarily reduce meat consumption. Above you seemed to be implying that the ideal solution would be cessation of meat production entirely - which I have to point out, would also result in poor people being unable to eat meat. So, are you defending the right of the poor to eat meat, or do you want to take the meat off their plates?
Really I assume that what you are getting at is economic fairness, which is not something I bothered mentioning because it didn't seem relevant to the point I was making. But anyway - pigouvian tax schemes are often paired with social benefits. The government uses the taxes raised to either facilitate the social change it wants to create (eg, using a carbon tax to fund transit improvements) or returns the funds to citizens directly as a dividend which offsets the cost of the increased price of goods (in this case, there would be a break even point somewhere around lower middle class where the dividend recieved would be greater than the increased price of meat).
Again, price "incentives" are just a ban for poor people. A poor person who can't afford beef is banned from eating it. It's basically illegal with extra steps, because they can't afford to buy it and the only alternatives are illegal.
If we're going to ban meat we should apply the ban equally and fairly, instead of just banning poor people.
"Just because they're poor doesn't mean they shouldn't get the option to contribute to the suffering caused by the meat industry" is the weirdest take I have ever seen on this subject. I'm not sure I disagree, just, I think your priorities may need some examination.
The exact opposite - just because they're rich doesn't mean they should get the privilege of eating meat.
If we're going to ban meat for poor people then we have to ban it for rich people too.
No I know what you meant - but this just seems like a "have cake / eat cake" issue. For example: you may have noticed that there are far more poor people than there are rich people. If the goal is to minimize animal suffering and reduce the impact on the climate, banning poor people from eating meat would be a great way to do it.
I just don't think there's a feasible way to rapidly reduce meat consumption without creating an incidental luxury market, and being concerned about that is (to my mind) almost a parody of equality. Yes, the rich suck. But being forced to tailor a good solution to the incredibly pressing problem just to make sure the rich don't get to exercise the incredibly vast, nearly all-encompassing privilege they already luxuriate in is an unreasonably large burden to attach to an already almost insurmountable task.
There are far more poor people than there are rich people, which is why food prices are common precursors to riots and coups. The idea isn't feasible because the poor will notice when they are forced to eat beans and rice, while their masters get to have steak. Unfairness breeds resentment. If you want to destabilize society a good way to do it is to make food access even more unequal.
This is ignoring what they actually said, which is a great deal more nuanced than the perhaps overly reductive way you're presenting it here. They very explicitly address setting these rates to reduce meat consumption in low income brackets, not prevent it entirely, presumably with the intention of adjusting those rates to see a steady reduction of meat's share of the average diet without causing undue hardship as people transition to a plant based diet.
Again I do understand what you're saying, I just think it's a bit of an absurd thing to earnestly argue. Every solution does not need to address every issue in society - inequality can be addressed independently and the more pressing concern is reducing the harm done to both animals and the climate. Theirs is a good solution - it is not perhaps ideal, but it is more feasible than any other proposal I've yet seen.
(aside from all that, the argument that their plan might be the inciting incident that sparks a broad proletarian upheaval of society is a really poor argument if you're trying to convince me we shouldn't do this...)
When meat becomes unaffordable, it's banned for the poor. A partial ban is still a ban, if they're forced to only have meat once or twice a week that will still create resentment - but it wouldn't be a proletarian revolution. It'd be a reactionary counterrevolution, with Nazis (backed by ranchers and meat industry money) screaming "LOOK AT WHAT THEY TOOK FROM YOU!!!1" as they march vegans like me into gas chambers.
Okay, I think this has gone beyond the point of where it needs to be treated with any degree of seriousness. I've never encountered a vegan that was more concerned with the social inequality of the poor not being allowed to eat meat than they were with people eating meat at all before, so congrats this has been a unique experience.
I'm slightly exaggerating, but it would absolutely empower reactionary conspiracy theories and give them ammunition to draw disaffected poor whites into their echo chambers. There's already a persistent conspiracy theory that the (((global elites))) are conspiring to stop white people from eating meat (to make them weaker and less masculine) and this would just empower them.
Food prices are the #1 way governments collapse. You can't just price poor people out of eating meat and expect it to work. They'll hate you for it. They'll want revenge. It would be a coup lead by the military, or a counterrevolution lead by businesses/ranchers.
I fail to see how your counterproposal to outright ban meat would not lead to this same scenario (probably faster).
Also, you're ignoring the option to provide a divedend (monthly, if you like) to citizens from the tax revenue to offset increased meat prices. With the dividend, the poor would be largely unaffected, and mostly the result would be the middle class reducing their meat consumption from excessive to moderate.
Also also, you keep talking about how this scheme bans poor people from eating meat. But I have to say, this reminds me of the criticism that gas taxes hurt poor people since now they have to pay more for gas - ignoring the fact that many poor people simply don't drive cars, because they are too poor to afford them. And so a gas tax spent on improving transit ends up helping the poorest, because what people need is transportation, not cheap gas.
Also also also, if this sort of scheme were ever implemented, I highly doubt it would result in widespread food riots like you see in a developing nation when they are literally starving in the streets. Worst case, it would result in the people who implemented it being voted out of office and having the policy rolled back. And with a dividend program and a gradual pricing rollout, this would be even less likely.
Meatless Mondays happened. It's definitely possible to ration meat.
Now, see my other reply to you for why I think rebates are workable, but complicated.
Confused. I remember this being a volutary phenomenon with individual participation. Maybe a few university cafeterias participated. Not a government mandate for no meat sales on Mondays.
It was more voluntary during WW1.
In WW2 there was an explicit food rationing program, and though there were voluntary elements the Red Stamp program allotted a certain number of points for meats/fat/butter. Each person was allowed a certain amount of points weekly in the form of war ration stamps, and the points expired if they weren't used. This was done not only to help feed the war effort, but also to prevent the riots that would have happened if meat became too expensive for poor people to eat.
WWII rationing wasn't meatless mondays, I don't... buddy.
Whelp, I made a mistake, now nothing I say matters and you automatically win the conversation.
Come on. my point still stands even if I misremembered the exact name of the program. Rationing works, when it's fair.
Why not just own the mistake, instead of presenting a totally separate concept as though you were correct in the first place? That would be fine, we all screw up. Getting hostile when someone gets exasperated because you're trying to cover for a mistake in a clunky way is the opposite of productive.
(edit: You've edited your comment since I wrote this to include the second line. No, the two are extremely different programs that are not at all comparable and your meaning changes completely when moving between the two.)
Why not just point out that I made a mistake, instead of making-
-snide comments like that? It was clearly meant to humiliate me for making a mistake.
You mocked me, so I got hostile.
No that was meant to criticize your behavior. If you want to be treated with respect, reciprocate in kind. Seriously, that was an insulting thing for you to have done in the first place. People were engaging with you more or less from an assumption that you were serious, even though what you're saying is pretty absurd - but you're not going to give them credit for being sincere with you, and now you're trying to present like I did a bad thing?
Buddy.
So we can't do vegan social policies because the... white supremacists might use that as evidence of a secret jewish conspiracy to stop them eating meat in order to make them less manly.
And that's your real concern.
We can't make it illegal for poor people specifically to eat meat because they'll be recruited by fascists to overthrow the government. A ban has to be all or nothing, or it will create resentment.
okay, nobody has proposed that as a solution. Also that's... insane.
Making meat too expensive for the poor does, in fact, ban poor people specifically from eating meat.
... Is this a prank? Am I taking the bait? What is happening.
If meat is too expensive for someone to buy, then they can't buy it.
If someone tries to eat meat they didn't pay for, they get arrested.
Therefore, making meat too expensive for the poor is a ban with extra steps.
What part of this do you disagree with?
Once again that's overly reductive to the point that it's completely departed from anything resembling the topic as presented by everyone else. And I'm still confused about how the hypothetical jewish conspiracy fits into this.
The topic, as presented, was to make meat more expensive so people ate less. I say that's effectively a ban on poor people eating meat. I don't really know what part you disagree with, why you disagree with it, or how you think poor people would be able to eat meat they can't afford. You're going to need to clarify even a tiny little bit or else I don't know how I can even talk to you.
There's an active conspiracy that global elites want to take away real meat and make everyone eat lab grown meat. Ranchers and business owners in the meat industry are especially fond of spreading these conspiracies to lobby for bans on ban lab grown meat.
What's the argument for having equality of outcome? I don't think I've ever encountered anyone in support of this before.
I covered this in my other replies, but there's two elements at play.
The first is that unequal access to food will create resentment, as poor people are forced to cut back or seek alternatives while rich people are unaffected. Resentment leads to resistance, and before you know it you have food riots. People will fight back, and maybe violently, which leads to the second element: high food prices are one of the major causes for government collapse.
Messing with access to food is the best way to get people to revolt, but in the absence of a revolutionary movement they're just going to listen to whichever charismatic leader blames the (((NWO globalist agenda))) for taking away meat and uses the nostalgia of "LOOK AT WHAT THEY TOOK FROM YOU" to whip people into a violent frenzy. If you take away their meat, they'll eat you.
It has to be fair or it won't be sustainable.
A dividend that presumably pays out during tax returns at the end of the year (anything else would end up overly complicated) is a pipe dream for people living paycheck-to-paycheck, it's still effectively a ban for people too poor to afford the price hikes. They can't afford to pay a higher price now and then get a rebate later, they're just going to be priced out of eating meat entirely.
It doesnt seem that complicated. The government gave people free money during covid just fine. Could be a monthly dividend
Do remember "paycheck-to-paycheck" is a reality for millions and millions of workers. It would need to be a weekly dividend, either directly added to everyone's paychecks or direct deposit or just mailed directly. That didn't happen during COVID, it'd be novel.
Then it has other problems: that pool of money is vulnerable to things like government shutdowns, every landlord would raise their rent by the exact amount that the meat rebate pays out, and every grocery store would raise the prices of meat alternatives since the demand would increase. You'd need price controls, rent controls, and fund the meat rebate in a way that couldn't just be taken away.
I don't hate it, but it's more complicated than you're giving credit. If the payout was weekly (and the other concerns were dealt with) it'd effectively be a way to pay people to not eat meat, rather than a way to ban poor people from eating meat. If you didn't deal with those other problems, especially rent and prices, then it would still effectively be a ban on poor people eating meat because the only way they could afford their higher rents and higher prices is if they saved their meat rebate checks. Like I said, complicated.
I've only ever been paid monthly or bimonthly, ut whatever. This is a nuts and bolts issue, and doesnt impact the actual concept.
Don't do that. No other country does that.
Fun fact - land value taxes are even better for prompting markets to build additional housing! I also have a whole spiel on urban land use reform, but that's for another time.
Under reasonable market conditions, yes, there might be a brief price increase when the policy went into effect - especially if rollout were not handled appropriately. But the nice thing about markets is that high prices prompt more competition - if veggie burgers cost $0.15 to make and sell for $15 because there is a shortage, it won't be long before competitors enter the market and flood it with cheaper alternatives.
Under reasonable market conditions. I'm aware that there is some reasonable suspicion of price collusion happeing between national grocery suppliers, and that should be dealt with. But it should be dealt with regardless of the policy I'm proposing.
Absolutely not. This would be taking a sound economic policy and then blowing up the economy with objectively bad economic policy. Markets only work when prices can change in response to market conditions. If you have a shortage of something like housing or veggie burgers which is distorting the market, you want to incentivize the creation of more of it (while identifying and elimiating - within reason - barriers to production). Price controls do the opposite, worsening shortages. You want high prices to bring more sellers to the market
I mean, this is true of everything, is it not?
Price controls and rent controls can also be accompanied by state intervention in the supply side, to prevent shortages. High prices are effectively a ban on the poor having access, and besides, markets are so 20th century. We have the computing power now to entirely replace them with central planning. Let's use those data centers for something important, instead of generating slop.