Source Used: A
Three Most Interesting Points:
1. I’m a big believer in letting democratic states be governed democratically, so it’s pretty worrying that they could abolish it anyway after the majority of voters wanted to keep the Wheat Board. While I can see where the government is coming from in its assertions that they wish to end the “monopoly” (really a monopsony, if I understand correctly) , it all seems really shady and disrespectful.
The other interpretation of the events is cuter, but still worrying.
2. While I was at Table Matters, I had the fortune of sitting at the same table as a farmer who was just starting out in the business. What he said stuck with me, and seems relevant to this article. I was sitting at the table discussing a possible direct farm-to-cafeterias program, and he shared that many farmers would really love to have a guaranteed buyer: no farmer wants to grow tons of produce and then sell only a miniscule fraction of it because it was raining and no one wanted to come out to buy a head of lettuce.
"You think they'd believe us if we said these were grapes?"
I don’t know if it directly applies to this situation, but it seems that the farmers voted on having a safety net, a guaranteed buyer (and, by extension, livelihood). The general sense I get from the article is that of a complete lack of communication between the producers and regulators, and it is truly very unfortunate.
3. This article mentions, and I have often heard, that we produce enough food to feed the entire earth, and yet people still go hungry. It’s beyond me why this isn’t something to which we’re paying more attention. Any RTS gamer can tell you that resource management is key: before building massive armies, erecting monuments, or conquering other territories, you need to make sure you have enough to keep your people alive and healthy. If Planet Earth was a game, we’d be terrible players.
Question(s): Why don’t politicians listen? Why isn’t world hunger a higher priority?
No comments:
Post a Comment