Increase the number of participants in an economy, increases both supply and demand for labor, long story short. “Immigrants taking our jobs” is the stupidest talking point in human history.

I only see one country bragging about influencing U.S. election outcomes, and it’s not Russia. You guys constructed Pepe Silvia-level theories about Russian influence and ignored the domestic corporatocracy and entire U.S. empire in favor of the media’s chosen explanation of “Russian influence”. As the saying more or less goes, nobody is immune to propaganda, including you. Modern propaganda narratives include accusations of propaganda leveled at the propaganda narrative’s scapegoats.

Right, so up until the point the USDA PLC programs get exhausted (afaict ~$25B/yr), they compensate for the difference between the price floor (not sure if we’re above or below that now) and market price. But that’s a subsidy to the farmers, not an effect on the market price - the expense comes to taxpayers. And sometimes, they scoop up surplus through CCC, then remarket it elsewhere, an indirect/artificial market mechanism, which can include exports.

If that’s what you were saying re: USAID cancellation eventually raising food prices, you have quite a few leaps of logic in there.

No, I’m still not really sure what you’re trying to say. Your original post was about the price to consumers.

And as for the relationship between farmers and distributors, that really depends on the specifics of the purchasing agreements they enter into.

It depends on the market. If producing less food with the same resources costs more, prices will rise–especially on large commercial farms, which dominate the U.S. agricultural sector.

The part you quoted from what I said was in reference to an agricultural buyer being lost. There are other reasons to anticipate the costs of inputs increasing, but I’m going through analyzing factor by factor (descending analysis) and all of a sudden we’re jumping back up to the top to talk about something else.

Re: grocery chains (not USAID) and futures contracts - not sure how this ties in either, we’re talking about USAID, which AFAIK does procurement through a bidding process for direct purchases, not via futures.

I’m not sure what your main point is here. I was responding to you grouping together a labor shortage and a demand shock as - from what it sounded like - a reason to expect high prices. But demand shocks lower prices on the consumer side of food production, as opposed to raising them, because the food at that point exists, and whoever has it needs to sell it, more desperately than they were before.

True, well, I mean, take the effects I described and apply them to the respective agricultural sectors. We will very likely see price increases in fresh produce and some price decrease in corn, soy, wheat, dairy, etc. (I say “some” because the actual global demand for food hasn’t decreased, rather, the purchasing power has been decreased because some subsidization has been lost due to USAID absence).

Reminder, losing a large purchasing segment decreases demand, which lowers prices until the market adjusts. I.e., it frees up agricultural output that they have to sell, which they’ll lower prices to make sell to other buyers (domestically or internationally).

Obligatory downvote for turncoat AOC. Two party narrative reinforcement in full effect.

List em.

The moral compromises we’re talking about are literally giving up on solving problems preemptively. You’re talking about making plans for the future, designing new things from scratch, you have every tool in the world at your disposal, a blank canvas, and you take a huge paintbrush and dip it into a whole house-sized can of black paint and just start smearing it everywhere.

I could not have been more clear - I completely reject the idea that we should be preemptively compromising our morals in a hypothetical new party designed to replace the morally compromised Democratic party. This is literally INSANE. Like, can we as a society even brush our teeth without compromising with the perpetrators of genocide and global empire? You’re already PLANNING a moral compromise for a political party that doesn’t even EXIST yet?

Great, so we’re already “lesser of two evils”-ing our hypothetical new party designed to replace the Democrats. Just great.

Here’s an idea. If we’re replacing the Democratic Party, let’s ONLY include people who aren’t traitors. Can we find five or ten people like that amongst the American population of 330 million people?

Oh yeah, could be, but they had jack shit to back it up.

Why don’t you ask individual people what they think, instead of dealing with huge generalities and stereotypes that don’t really apply to anyone in particular.

Yeah, besides when she’s endorsing their candidates and voting the exact same way as the rest of them.

Democratic Party: “The green party are con artists that are bought out by the Russians and only show up every 4 years, so anything except the Democrats is completely nonviable”

Democrat voters: “Oh my god! The green party are con artists that are bought out by the Russians and only show up every 4 years, so anything except the Democrats is completely nonviable”

They’re not even good enough. Both of them are turncoats. Bernie “the word genocide makes me quesy” Sanders is voting in Trump’s nominees. AOC endorsed Kamala and reinforced the “working tirelessly for a ceasefire” bullshit, every two minutes she’s folded on something new.

It objectively didn’t. Thanks for commenting, please don’t comment again.