Food

Farming for victory

My slogan: You can't show me pizza at a job. And not ask for more pizza.  WHERE IS THE PIZZA?

This next topic shouldn't be a debate; it should be about how patriotic farmers are. However, the army, China, and many other nations feed their working class, especially the army feeding its workers. It seems that farmers can't feed their working class. Small farmers just can't. With my idea, we could solve this problem, maybe even help workers receive more pay and feed their workers.

I want to initiate a new conversation in America, and I have an idea. Believing that corruption exists within the government, I propose the following (though I am not necessarily advocating for it directly): provide small to medium-sized farmers with universal basic income (UBI), contingent upon them lowering their production costs to the bare minimum, as determined by trusted farming experts. It shouldn't be about how much farmers want from America. What is the least amount of money a farmer needs from America? This plan addresses the situation where a president may lie and would be set in a context that contrasts the interests of the American people and small farmers.

My primary goal is not necessarily to implement UBI for small farmers directly, but rather to build something that reveals the truth. While some small farmers may receive support from Republicans, this is a moment where partisan politics must be set aside. The question is: what do small to medium farmers need to lower their costs to the absolute minimum, based on expert advice? This would allow the government to establish a low benchmark, effectively resetting the market. This is a fundamental truth: Americans desire lower costs, and this approach could deliver that. The critical question we must ask ourselves is: how can we set this benchmark as low as possible and sustain it for the long term?

Lastly, simply resetting the market is insufficient for a truly free market. Corporations will reduce their costs to outcompete one another. I believe that when corporate businesses address the needs of their workers and the hardworking class, they can achieve this balance. For example, if farming companies offer better wages, feed the working class, and support their employees by feeding them, they could ultimately lower their costs and enhance their competitiveness. But that is too tall of a task for corporate farming. However, that is what Americans are good at: being good at something. Nevertheless, I don't think this idea will be realized, as the president is unlikely to reset the free market.

The president will not lower costs to fixed costs with his corporate partners. He will always lie.

I met an expert who sold corps to a farmer say, "there is no way you can't succeed as a farmer". 

Food and Voting. 

The cost of groceries is getting out of hand, and it's crucial to remember this stark reality: According to the USDA, the lowest-income 20% of households in the U.S. spend roughly one-third (around 33% based on 2023 data) of their entire budget on food, while the highest-income 20%(greater than 135,000) spend only around 12%. The highest-income whom only make greater than 135,000 are normal people going to the same stores; this significant proportional difference highlights a deeper inequity in the time and energy required to secure affordable food. Lower-income individuals, often juggling multiple or inflexible full-time jobs, have far less time to hunt for deals – a necessity often bypassed by those with more flexible schedules and greater financial security. This is why the 33% compared to 12% matters so profoundly: time is a precious and unequally distributed resource. You matter to me.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food." Therefore, food is a right.  

Walking through Hy-Vee and seeing "Lower price" signs made me think about the politics of such messaging. These claims often feel as misleading as political rhetoric from both sides of the spectrum.

I recently took my nephew to Kids Empire in Olathe. The cost for the whole day would have been $43. However, since we were only spending a short time together, we opted for a different activity, like Main Event. Interestingly, we still ended up spending around $43, which suggests a tendency for consumers to spend within a certain comfortable range of their budget.

Reflecting on the Hy-Vee situation, if my overall spending tends to remain relatively consistent, including expenses like gas, then the free market might feel somewhat fixed in terms of how much consumers are willing or able to spend on a particular category like groceries, regardless of price fluctuations of individual items.

This led me to consider our fundamental rights as people. If the cost of food represents a relatively fixed and essential expenditure, then the right to vote can feel less impactful when basic survival needs like food security are not met. We need food to be able to (vote) participate meaningfully in civic life, including voting. Our hierarchy of human rights should perhaps be re-evaluated to reflect our fundamental needs as human beings, irrespective of the number of businesses operating in the market.

Here is a thought experiment to highlight the imbalance of powers:

Business CEOs should lose their right to vote if they increase the price of their goods.

My idea of voting also relates to my PLI, also known as my public lobbying initiative.

Refresh the page to see your response.