this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2025
174 points (98.3% liked)

Political Memes

9584 readers
1733 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 0 points 13 minutes ago (1 children)

Has the author ever spoken to an actual farmer? Almost universally they’ll tell you that if they were solely in it for profit they wouldn’t be farmers. We support farmers with large subsidies and market barriers because they’re so unprofitable otherwise.

This meme is so wrong it’s downright laughable!

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 2 points 10 minutes ago* (last edited 10 minutes ago) (1 children)

This isn't about the farmers bucko.

It's about the layer above them that the farmers give the produce to for a pittance.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 1 points 1 minute ago

Farmers’ produce goes for a pittance because of supply and demand clashing with growing seasons. For example, when peaches are in season the market gets flooded with peaches because all the peach farmers are harvesting and shipping peaches at the same time. Thus peaches are dirt cheap during peach season. Farmers would get a lot more for their peaches if they could spread them evenly throughout the year but nature doesn’t work that way.

As for the “layer above” farmers (distribution and retail), that all depends on what country you’re in and how agriculture is managed. So you’ll need to give a specific example if you want to discuss further.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 0 points 36 minutes ago* (last edited 28 minutes ago) (2 children)

That really just sounds like the market forces of supply and demand.

I mean, profit is still a primary factor of being in the agriculture business, sure. But if a company isn't profitable, they stop being a company.

If there's a surplus of food, and a finite amount of time for it to be consumed, it's going to be sold at a loss or it's going to rot.

While Bobby's thought makes perfect sense, it's more of a cycle and not (just) necessarily an intrinsic flaw of capitalism.

The intrinsic flaw of capitalism is when the supply-side realizes that the value of goods is "whatever they'll pay", and end up mini-maxing profit...reducing costs by limiting yield, then jacking up the price because of reduced supply. Maximum profit for minimum work.

Applying that to industries that are pretty much essential for life (implying a pretty static level of demand)...agriculture, healthcare, etc...when not all people have the same amount of money, is truly evil.

Brace yourselves, because that could easily be a result of the impending agriculture consolidation that'll come after Trump finishes destroying all the remaining smaller farms. Easier to collude when there's a small number of giant conglomerate farms.

Edit: okay I realized I wrote all of that to essentially describe artificial scarcity. But the last paragraph (before this) is pretty important.

[–] BanMe@lemmy.world 4 points 20 minutes ago

You're making a good argument that we should partially socialize the systems needed to support life, like agriculture, and healthcare, but I would go further and include housing and a few other things.

At that point, we are talking about a strong welfare state.

So the modern solution to all this was invented like, 90 years ago by FDR.

We need another FDR.

[–] Hackworth@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 minutes ago

But if a company isn’t profitable, they stop being a company.

Is this still true? /points to tech companies