Why, indeed?
Someone who wants you to have to spend a lot more money on food every month than you do now sees fit to give us a quick economic lesson. Why is so much of our nation's spinach supply grown in one place and then shipped across (as much as "3,500 highway miles"!!!11!!1!) the country?:
Agribusiness — that's why. Supermarket chains, grocery wholesalers and fast-food producers all calculate that it is easier to maximize sales and profits by buying from big factory farms with reliable yields. Why fool with thousands of small farms or co-ops when you can get a standardized crop, packaged to precise specifications, priced at negotiated levels, trucked and delivered by known shippers? And when planes, ships and instant communications make it easy to import seasonal products from virtually anywhere on the globe?Why, indeed?
Oh, wait, that question was rhetorical? Well then, a bit of advice about writing: choose rhetorical questions that have an obvious answer in the direction you want your readers to go, not in the opposite direction.
Seriously, think about what this person is saying. Everyone should feel guilty about buying produce from a grocery store, at a significantly lower price and with a greater variety of arrangements ("packaged to precise specifications"), and should instead start buying from local growers. Sure, it'll cost you more money, but living right ain't always easy. Besides, if this move puts more people into poverty then I'm sure someone else will come along and write an article telling us that it's all the fault of "big business." Often the same people whose policies make people poorer are those who claim to know who is "really" to blame for their poverty. And their solution never is.
HT: Mark Horne
14 comments:
How do you interpet "packaged to precise specifications" as "greater variety of arrangements"?
I don't know about "feeling guilty", but a diversity in the agricultural supply more than makes up for standardization. The assumption, I guess, is that a piece of spinach is a piece of spinach, so when it comes at a cheaper price through agribusiness, the poor person saves money. However, this isn't the pound of feathers/pound of gold: there really are geographic differences in the caloric density and nutritional value in our crops, and the preservation techniques needed to truck food are not themselves wholly innocuous (whether to the consumer of the food or the external environment).
And, given the health care costs associated with malnutrition, is it really the case that people will be poorer by eating foods grown locally? Do you consider "cost" to be just what is paid by the consumer at the cash register, and also are there further consequences to our choices and actions that are not reflected in our bank accounts (for those who have banks and accounts)?
Poverty, if it is solely monetary income evaluated, isn't bad if one is healthy, connected to the local community, and living a sustained life. A person living off $35k is definitely poorer than one living off $75k, but those numbers alone do not dictate quality of life.
Sure, you know this, so just what is your criticism?
My criticism is that the total combination of costs involved, to whatever extent they are all measurable/perceivable, is best evaluated (in the vast majority of cases) by those who are paying them, and not by government bureaucrats, legislators, or do-gooder newspaper columnists. The poorish people in various American communities are choosing to go to Kroger and buy the 3 dollar bag of spinach rather than to the local co-op/organic seller and buy the 5 dollar bag. Is it possible that they are giving up some nutritional value in exchange for the two dollars they save? Sure, although exactly how much is difficult to determine and I don't buy the arguments of "natural" advocates in this regard and so I don't see the organic and local options as always having the advantage in this regard. But even if organic and local IS always more nutritional (and thus less likely to lead to greater health care costs down the road) than the less expensive stuff, who are we to tell a person trying to make ends meet today that he has a moral obligation to value future money (or health) more than current money (or health)? Again, why is it assumed that the struggling person can't make this decision for himself? Perhaps this corporate spinach will make me more likely to come down with some health problem much later, but it's less likely to break my pocketbook right now. Who's to say which preference is "right"? There are often moral issues tied up in economic decision-making, but I'm having trouble seeing this as one of them.
Part of what it means to be poor is that you really don't have the luxury of looking to "the future" in the same way that those with more disposable income do. You need to put food on the table right now, and pay enough bills that you don't get evicted or left in the dark/cold/dry and that might be all the money you have for this week. In such a situation, $3 spinach is better than $5 spinach.
So, because you are having trouble seeing this as a moral issue, therefore no one has the right to say it is one or make it be one?
Even then, where in that article is Peirce even framing his argument as moral? It seems he wants to argue on the basis of financial, ecological, and aesthetic claims about local versus continental. If, all taken together, they amount in your eyes to a moral imperative, at the very least your own argument that locally connected economies make poor people poorer is itself a moral argument. And who are you to say that it is more moral to do this or that economically on behalf of the poor? What, in your philosophical opinion, is the difference in saying that a poor person is healthier if that poor person buys within a local economy from saying that a poor person is less poor if that poor person buys within a continental economy? You're still saying that a certain economic position gives a benefit to the poor person, and this justifies the economic position on behalf of the poor person.
I mean, you're the one who wants to see your defense of continental agribusiness as advocacy for the poor. But does Peirce make his argument a sentimental, noblesse oblige criticism, or did you? Are you coming in to portray the better advocate of the poor only because "they did it first" or were you always seeing opinion columns from the viewpoint of your status as defender of the poor?
To also point out how your reading of this article is colored, I'll point out that neither Peirce nor myself were making claims about "natural" foods, or foods grown organically. Peirce focuses more on the benefits of a local economy, and he and I both stress that food delivered close to home doesn't have to undergo preservation techniques which are known to reduce nutritional quality. So where did the organic part come into it?
Maybe I misunderstand where you are lately, but I find it odd that you would consider yourself something like a paleoconservative but then find no sympathies for an economic argument favoring local economies over continental ones, favoring the social embeddedness of farms and the agricultural spirit within communities over suburban communal apathy, favoring cost-efficient distribution strategies over wasteful ones. I don't know, maybe you do favor such but just think this opinion column by Peirce was not rhetorically up to snuff. But then you go on...
Your argument is also silly in the sense that you want to say that poor people are in the best position to assess the financial, legal, ecological, spiritual, &tc costs of their own choices, but then turn around at the end and say that by definition poor people do not have "the luxury" of being able to take into consideration all of the consequences of their decisions. It's disingenuous of an argument: UGA women are all rational adults who have the choice to date or hook up with whatever people they want and so we should trust them, but they're all too often intoxicated to make the long term choices that might benefit them. In other words, you want to say that your position actually treats poor people as responsible adults and respects that their actions are decisions and choices they made, but then you also say that part of what it means to be poor is that you have a limited, gotta-get-mine's-now attitude to life. What the hell? Do you hang out with any poor people? Do you know any of them?
If we're just going to look at clichés here, what about the one of the poor family who saves up money from working hard to send the kid off to college?
And, honestly, I am baffled that you would take this 'advocacy of the poor' argument here, claiming that we need to respect their decisions and their all-too-real choices now, when elsewhere you admit that the limitations of the marketplace can corner poorer people into making unwise or unhealthy decisions, ending your explanation of why predatory lending came to be that "It is on us to provide alternatives, to provide better options, and then the 'market' ... will shift."
In other words, if people of some means were to make it easier for local produce and foods to be sold at local farmer's markets, perhaps people of less means will have greater access to the better options and alternatives that local produce provides.
There, now we have consistency.
Oh, why is your recent comments thing one behind?
And, for poops and giggles, how do you get "greater variety" out of "packaged to precise specifications?"
Hey, Charles, the quick answer to your queries is that I read several articles (4 or 5) over the last several days that created this overall "moral argument against far-traveling produce". It was Pierce's article in particular that set me off to post, but I had a number of different arguments swirling around in my head. This is no excuse for not being careful to keep Pierce's argument separate from the others, or for not making all of this clear on the front end. But the truth is that this was largely meant to be a "grumpy" sort of post. I don't have a "Grumpy" category any more, though, so it got lost in translation.
Since you indicated you're not sure "where I'm at" politically...really my fundamental position is the same now as it has been for at least the past six years (when I first became acutely aware of "paleoconservatism"). I consider myself to be something like a paleo-conservative (certainly NOT a "neo-conservative"!), but I side MORE with the libertarians on economic issues. I agree wholeheartedly with the paleoconservative emphasis on locality and place, etc., but I tend to disagree with their particular economic prescriptions to achieve their goals. Most of their actual economic suggestions, when they are not (like Pat Buchanan) just spending their time arguing AGAINST 'free trade' while offering nothing of much substance in its place, are pretty whacky (and, yes, I even include Chesterton's distributivism under that characterization).
Within that overall perspective, I took a brief (relatively) swing towards a more hard core libertarian view of economics, stretched my legs, got a feel for the angles and the holes in the fencing, and I've now returned back towards the "center" of a generally supportive free-market approach, but by no means an out-and-out libertarian. I do believe that the free market is more a means to an end, rather than an end in itself, and the end it serves is the upholding and strenghtening of various social interactions which are necessary for civilization. But when paleo-cons start saying that "we need to be local, therefore get really grumpy about national corporations shipping us corn," then I fall off the wagon a bit. Not becaus I don't affirm the premise (we need to be local), but because I have a broader conception of what it means to "be local." Things do change, despite my conservatism. Hores-buggy whip manufacturers go out of business, but overall it's good for the local community (or at least the vast majority of them). Maybe little family farms and community co-ops are becoming a thing of the past; this doesn't mean that we're no longer able to live locally.
As for why my recnet comments are one behind, it's a temporary fix for a freak-out bug the new blogger beta was having with my recent comments feature. It started listing only very very old comments (two years old or older) as the "most recent." The best fix I was able to find (until blogger fixed the bug) was to change the code so that the recent comments feature starts its index with the second most recent comment. Then everything works fine, except of course for that one most recent comment which is neglected.
Perhaps blogger has fixed the bug now. I could check, I suppose...
I have to agree with Charles, sort of. Poverty is more than what you have in your wallet. All of the industrial processes that we've come up with for making this or that cheaper are having negative effects on our health. This, of course, leads us to develop more industrial processes to make pills to treat all these things. I'm beginning to think industry itself is a problem. I don't tell anyone though, because it makes you sound like the unabomber.
Localization is good though because it means communities rely on themselves. People these days are just a lot of sheep, reliant on everyone else to provide for them. And when all the automated processes that sustain our little existences disappear, you have Katrina, where no one knows how to take care of themselves even if they wanted to. I'm no better, to be sure; if the supermarket disappeared tomorrow I would likely starve.
I'm sort of rambling here, and it's weird I prefaced this with agreement with Charles when he didn't really say any of these things.
My problem with Horne's criticism, and one which you seem to be adopting, Xon, is this notion that we aren't meant, really, to preserve the old, times change, and we need to change with them.
Of course, if the changes mean multiplied marriage, transgender/transsexual acceptance, or even Pelagianism, who are we to say which changes are good or bad?
You might say that we're just talking about economics and work here—if Walmart puts local stores out of business and keeps people indebted to the big box store, rather than be self-reliant and self-supportive (as Matt points out), then so be it. Change with the times, or die economically. But then you say that economies are what support and uphold social relationships and interactions that are necessary for civilization. So, it can't just be that we're talking about just jobs and workplaces here.
Like a good Marxist (or Aristotelian), you've made the economy foundational to the upkeep of a civilization. So, when you support industrialization and global incorporation, finding the cheapest world labor to save the richest people money, and profit at the expense of healthy, productive living, just what civilization, in the end, is the one you're choosing?
Charles, I just think you're over-reaching a bit in these criticisms. You did it in your latest, and in an earlier comment as well. Earlier you said this:
"And, honestly, I am baffled that you would take this 'advocacy of the poor' argument here, claiming that we need to respect their decisions and their all-too-real choices now, when elsewhere you admit that the limitations of the marketplace can corner poorer people into making unwise or unhealthy decisions, ending your explanation of why predatory lending came to be that "It is on us to provide alternatives, to provide better options, and then the 'market' ... will shift.""
So, you're "baffled" that I would, on the one hand, acknowledge that the market has "limitations", all the while on the other hand arguing in favor or "the market" when it comes to agribusiness produce. But this is like saying that pro-lifers are "inconsistent" when they advocate the death penalty. No, they're not.
Since I acknolwedge limitations to the market, since I make it a means to an end and not an end in itself, does this mean that I have to advocate every governmental intrusion that modern progressives would prefer? Does it mean that I have to chastise market arrangements in every area including where our produce comes from? I'm unclear as to what precisely "baffles" you. Some market arrangements are okey-dokey, and some aren't.
Then in your most recent you say that you have trouble accepting "this notion that we aren't meant, really, to preserve the old, times change, and we need to change with them."
Well, hey I have a problem with that, too. I can't call myself a "conservative" at all (whehter paleo, neo, or something else) if I'm not willing to argue on behalf of "preserving the old" in some significant way.
But you go on to play the "gotcha" card:
"Of course, if the changes mean multiplied marriage, transgender/transsexual acceptance, or even Pelagianism, who are we to say which changes are good or bad?"
And I again I'm just not tracking. My position is not "all change=good." That's not what I'm saying. I am saying, though, that within the parameters of a commitment to "old ways," there is room for all kinds of change and such change should not be resisted simply for being change.
Depending on how one intereprets "conservatism," I might not even be one. I hope that I'm too much of a biblicist for that. When cultures come to understand the Scriptures, things change. This is true whether they are discovering them for the first time, or whether they are dusting them off after long years of neglect. A commitment to God's Word is always an "anti-conservative" move in a very important sense, because there is no past time when everything was right, when God was honored rightly, when there was no room or need for further revelation and guidance by the Spirit.
So, I'm not and have never been against all change per se. Neither am I for all change. Again, sometimes it's okey-dokey, and sometimes it ain't.
The cultural-sexual issues you mentioned are violations of God's Word, and so of course I don't support a societal change in those directions. But I just don't see the particular issue(s) under discussion in this thread as being on the same level.
"Like a good Marxist (or Aristotelian), you've made the economy foundational to the upkeep of a civilization. So, when you support industrialization and global incorporation, finding the cheapest world labor to save the richest people money, and profit at the expense of healthy, productive living, just what civilization, in the end, is the one you're choosing?"
Well, first of all, I'm not supporting those things (industrialization and global incorporation) per se. It all depends on what we're talking about. In the case of being able to go to one centralized location to purchase all (or almost all) of our food for a low price, I disagree with my paleo-conservative brethren that such a convenience represents an attack upon western civilization. When Pat Buchanan says that protectionism is the proper economic policy in the face of globalization, I disagree with him and think that, in general, his economic recommendations would be disasterous. But I agree with him that the whole world becoming exaclty the same is bad (unless it's a unity in submission to the Lordship of Christ, that is). I believe in decentralization and localization, and such. But I also take what I would call a broader view of what that means in light of technological advances and such. I disagree with Matt that industrialization is the enemy. In some sense this puts me squarely at odds with Weaver and others who are generally characterized as paleo-conservatives. So be it. I'm doing the best I can, and I just can't walk that particular path with them.
I try to be plenty wary of "technopoly," because all things are bad when they become idols. There is only one Savior. But there are also many good things about our techonological advancement and even about "globalization", depending on what we mean by that. I already said that I think everyone being made over into the same image would be bad, MacDonaldization of the world and all that. But this isn't really what globalization actually does in many cases. In many cases it allows local communities to embody their own ideals better than they did in the past.
One of my best friends in the whole world and I can talk without being face-to-face, which is nice since schedules and locations don't allow for as much conversation as we might like otherwise. Matt can post from all the way down in Tallahassee, FL (!!), and I can read his comments. We can forge relationships with people who we would never meet otherwise. Local businesses can get things shipped to them from the other side of the globe. Wives can stay at home and run virtual cottage industries out of their own homes in a way that was not as possible before the Internet and mass communication. This makes it possible for many to return to a more rural, take-it-slow lifestyle that suits them. Etc. etc. Indoor plumbing is nice, too.
On the other side, I've promised for a long time to get around to a series of posts on what I find wrong with libertarianism, but I still don't know when that's actually going to happen. It is something I would very much like to do, though.
Or, interestingly enough, Doug Wilson pretty much reads my mind on this in his blog post TODAY.
http://dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=3703
Hores-buggy whip manufacturers go out of business, but overall it's good for the local community
You forgot the 'W' -- or maybe you meant to write "Horse."
/rimshot
During a philosophy lecture I did once accidentally refer my students to the "Trojan Whore". So, what can I say?
I don't think you can have mass-production without making everything the same to some degree. That's what mass-production is all about. Identify the cheapest way to make something and then make a crapton of them. When cheap is the ultimate vision, then things become unified and asymptote out to all look alike. To look different is to cost more, and therefore be undesirable.
And cheap isn't always better when it comes to food. Margarine costs less than, say, smart balance or something, but good luck with that crap.
Matt, but don't forget the other side of the equation: what about all the other stuff we can produce/enjoy with the money we've saved because of how cheaply x was mass produced?
If I spend 150 extra dollars a year on groceries, then that's 150 less dollars I have to spend on other things. Maybe I have to cut out a channel package from my cable bill! Is a longer life with better health worth it if I can't watch ESPN Classic? I'm not so sure.
Seriously, apply that to something a bit more serious, and I'm serious.
Again, there is a cost-benefit analysis that goes into the food we buy. Margarine is cheap, but not as healthy (so says somebody...putting on my skeptic hat). Okay...but how much healthier is smart balance? What am I actually expecting to "get" in terms of longevity or better health if I eat smart balance butter substitute? At best, this is a hazy calculation, and so I don't see how some folks can be so confident that we'd be "better off" going with smart balance (or locally-grown spinach).
Post a Comment