Milk Subsidy? Pro and Cons

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by mac mini

Cheap and readily available food is a good thing. The argument is if you remove subsidy you loose farmland and prices go up. High food prices are disproportionally unfair to the poor.

Any basic basket of food would and should contain milk. A subsidy is in order.

[barbara]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

Any basic basket of food would and should contain milk. A subsidy is in order.

The only kind of milk one will find in a food basket for the poor is powdered milk.

[piece-itpete]

Powdered milk makes very good hot chocolate. In everything else, not so good

I thought the main stater for food subsidies was to keep farmers from going broke. Thier great depression started long before everyone elses'.

Pete

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by Boreas

We're the only mammalian species that subsidizes the life of one animal at the expense of another, more healthy animal. In other words, it's not natural, and probably not good for us, to do it.

John

Fixed that one for ya.

[Boreas]

"We're the only mammalian species that subsidizes the life of one animal at the expense of another, more healthy animal. In other words, it's not natural, and probably not good for us, to do it."

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

Fixed that one for ya.

know I shouldn't do this but I will anyway. What animals are you referring to here that are the beneficiaries of and are the victims of the subsidy and what is the nature of the subsidy?

John

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

Fixed that one for ya.

It's because we're not animals. We're supposed to have the ability to rise above our primal urges. You want to live like a baboon, move to the jungle.

Dave

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

It's because we're not animals. We're supposed to have the ability to rise above our primal urges. You want to live like a baboon, move to the jungle.

Dave

or Wasilla.

John

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by Boreas

know I shouldn't do this but I will anyway. What animals are you referring to here that are the beneficiaries of and are the victims of the subsidy and what is the nature of the subsidy?

John

You're right, you shouldn't have done it.

The animals I'm referring to (beneficiaries and victims) are humans, although I may have missed something in biology class, cuz Dave says we're not animals.

The nature of the subsidy is milk, the subject of this thread.

I was just expanding a bit on your logic that if we are the only mammalians to practice a certain behavior, it is not natural and we shouldn't do it. To further expand that theory, we should not be doing any high level thinking either, or developing complex tools, or using up resources on "art".

[Boreas]

Except you can't apply the same standards or logic to nutrition as you do to culture.

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Except you can't apply the same standards or logic to nutrition as you do to culture.

So with nutrition, gotta go with the consensus of all the other mammals, but with culture it's fine to freestyle?
I really don't see how you come up with that. Nutrition impacts our physical health while culture impacts social health. How do you arrive at the conclusion that our physical health is better off following nature's examples, but our social health can ignore it?