[timthelion]

The price of food has dropped, but the price of fresh food has risen.

If you live in LA, unless you have the time to go out to one of the farmers markets, its not even possible to buy fresh food. The "fresh" food in the stores isn't fresh. It is usually weeks or even months old. Sometimes it has been on a ship across the ocean stored in a special atmosphere, maybe it "looks fresh" but it isn't. I grew up in Seattle, things are a bit better there, but you still have to drive out of your way to find fresh food. The concept of fresh and the concept of supermarket are just incompatible.

[leereeves]

But as you said, fresh food is available in farmer's markets. And if the price of fresh food has risen, it should be possible to make a living growing and selling it.

Except that the majority of people don't seek out fresh food.

[timthelion]

It might be possible to make a living growing and selling it, but it is actually quite unrealistic that a sizable portion of the population could choose to start doing so. %100 of the land in the US is owned now. Its not like the fronteir days when anyone who wanted to start a farm could just go out west. If 1 million americans wanted to start a fresh foods farm within driving distance of a city, that wouldn't be possible. The price of land would skyrocket. And that would only be one third of one percent of all Americans. Not even a significant shift. What if 20 or 30 million Americans wanted to make that transition. Is that economically possible in todays world? What if the government were to give anyone who wanted to start a familly farm a million dollars to buy land. Would it be possible then? I don't think so. I think that it isn't about choice. I think that it is litterally impossible for our society to change without the fundamental ideas regarding property rights or urbanization changing.

[leereeves]

You just said you know families who owned land who couldn't make a living growing and selling it anymore.

So it's not lack of land that stopped them.

[timthelion]

"So it's not lack of land that stopped them." You're missing a sense of timescale here. For a long time the number of familly farms has been decreasing all across the country. Recently, it has become possible to make a living selling fresh food if you live within driving distance of a city where you can sell the food for a premium. The high cost of a fresh head of letuce in LA in 2016-17 doesn't help a small time farmer in rural Colorado in the 90s.

[leereeves]

Still leaves the question of why people in the 90s weren't buying fresh food from the small farmers.

[timthelion]

That's true. It is a good question. And its the question we should be asking. We should be trying to debug this problem, rather than pretending that it is a non-problem.

I personally don't see my own anti-capitalistic views as being a matter of politics or political direction. I see the problems posed as being similar to aging or the need to find better forms of transportation. No one argues that aging is good. Everyone agrees that the outcome of aging is bad, people get slower, less inteligent, suffer and die. That is bad... I see the current outcome of American globalist capitalism to be similar. Obviously, the outcome sucks. Most people are unhealthy, unhappy, there are advertizements everywhere, we are destroying the earth, and living in smelly toxic concrete filled cities. I'm not a communist, or a socialist, or a progressive, I'm an engineer who is baffled by a huge problem that I don't know how to solve. I am totally baffled by the huge number of people who seem to question whether these problems are real. Its like if this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13419352 was full of people writing that "well you can point to some problems with aging, but really, we're all better off getting old and dying". My response would be similar, it would be like WTF? I don't have a solution to American corporate globalism and the problems it causes, I don't have a solution to aging either, but I want a solution to both.