the_dunk_tank

Fixation on food security

The man is OBSESSED with food security.

All he thinks about is FEEDING PEOPLE.

What kind of SICK FUCK just goes around all day wondering how to GENERATE ENOUGH FOODSTUFF FOR 1.4B PEOPLE

Jesus FUCKING Christ, what a psycho.

Chinese farmers are just yearning for the opportunity to grow bananas for the United Fruit Company.

I think it is actually authoritarian that we're not allowed to hunt economists for sport

Yes. The single individual. Forcing this country of over a billion people against their will to have their own sustainable food supply. On his own. Like a dictator.

I like how they took a photo that is clearly very mundane and used a filter to make it look like literal hell. Very subtle.

The wealth of farmers is not more important than the food security of a nation. We do not need modern day kulaks, which is probably what the economist wants in China.

Communism too much food?

Nooo you can't just make food to feed people without a profit motive!

Xi jinping failed to consider that food isn't a universal right under capitalism. How are we supposed to condemn China as capitalist and fascist if they do socialism?!?

the maoist uprising against the landlords was the largest and most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, and led to almost totally-equal redistribution of land among the peasantry

fixation on food security

caring more about feeding people than feeding profits makes you a monster to The Economist

good for feeding people

not valuable

choose one, piggy

This is like my dad said about how Xi is sending youth into the countryside to farm like in Mao's Cultural Revolution (he was talking about how there are incentive for the government to send educated people to do town development)

Better die in a field than suffer in a cubicle

Is there a moral case against prohibiting any The Economist staff member from having access to writing materials of any kind? BEcuase I think, for the good of humanity...

This reminds me of a quote from Catch-22, it has the same naked obsession with the 'rightness' of profit that reads like it isn't supposed to be satire but which I can't help be seeing as comedy:

Major Major's father was a sober God-fearing man whose idea of a good joke was to lie about his age. He was a long-limbed farmer, a God-fearing, freedom-loving, law-abiding rugged individualist who held that federal aid to anyone but farmers was creeping socialism. He advocated thrift and hard work and disapproved of loose women who turned him down. His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce. Major Major's father worked without rest at not growing alfalfa. On long winter evenings he remained indoors and did not mend harness, and he sprang out of bed at the crack of noon every day just to make certain that the chores would not be done. He invested in land wisely and soon was not growing more alfalfa than any other man in the county. Neighbors sought him out for advice on all subjects, for he had made much money and was therefore wise. “As ye sow, so shall ye reap,” he counseled one and all, and everyone said, “Amen." — Catch-22, Joseph Heller

President Biden, please start bombing. My country yearns for hunger.

Good for feeding people but not valuable

That perilous yellow haze in the photo proves it to be the work of that dastardly paragon of scientific cunning - the Fiendish Dr Food Munchu.

The fact that The Economist has a clear set of ideological commitments means that it will pull the wool over its readers’ eyes in the service of those commitments, which saps it of intellectual worth. It will lie to you about the contents of a book by waving them away with a “that being so.” Or it will reassure you that capitalism has nothing to do with opiate deaths, by asserting without evidence that when “looked at more closely,” drug addiction is “less” about despair. It will fudge, fumble, and fool you in any way it can, if it means keeping markets respectable. And it will play on your insecurity as a resident of a former British colony to convince you that all intelligent people believe that the human misery created in “economically free” societies is necessary and just. It will give intellectual cover to barbarous crimes, and its authors won’t even have the guts to sign their names to their work. Instead, they will pretend to be the disembodied voice of God, whispering in your ear that you’ll never impress England until you fully deregulate capitalism.

So, then: Death to slavery. Death to injustice. Death to The Economist.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/05/how-the-economist-thinks