Egregoros

SNAP survives because it moves money. Benefits get spent fast and almost entirely at grocery stores, which means predictable pass-through revenue to retailers and supply chains. In low-income or rural areas, that steady demand lowers risk and makes stores viable. I’m not denying households benefit. I’m saying programs endure when they align with economic throughput and make the numbers work.

@chris

I think it should only work on domestically produced base ingredients like beans, flour, rice, vegetables, meat, etc.

Nothing imported, nothing processed or manufactured.

You're getting materials for free, you can furnish labor for preparation.

@guy
I don't know where you're coming from because this isn't at all about production It's only about stimulating local stores.

It's probably one of the reasons why so much American food is total slop.

Also he's right because if it's getting spent on coca cola at a Patel owned 7-11, almost none of that money is actually going to stay in the local economy.

Half is going to Atlanta and the other half is going to New Delhi.

@cjd @guy
Humans aren’t true scavengers like vultures or coyotes, but we’re highly adaptable omnivores. Our bodies can survive on very basic, repetitive, even marginal diets as long as calories are sufficient. That’s why people in poor communities can remain functional. But survival isn’t thriving. Long-term nutrient gaps and ultra-processed foods raise risks for chronic disease. We tolerate a lot—but we pay for it over time.

I just read that humans have a super high acid digestion similar to vultures and other carrion eaters.

If evolution is real, I wonder if our ancestors, before they could throw stuff, would just follow primordial herds around and eat the dead ones….