[PASSED] Reducing Food Waste

[Kenmoria]

This Empire votes Against.

This proposal is so, so sad.

(OOC: Could you explain why?)

[Dirty Americans]

"Oh, it's a fine proposal alright, ambassador. If you look closely enough, you can find some glaring issues that need to be tackled appropriately, especially since we are establishing the precedent here."

"I've looked at your note. I think it is reasonable to suggest that we will agree to disagree. The economics of non durable goods bakes into the equation a factor known as 'spoilage.' In theory in a true free market, oversupply would be handled profitably, but with the addition of non free market food safety laws - which I don't think should be abolished - that ability is significantly decreased. Did you know that the Middle Ages, the nobility dined on plates made with bread and those plates with all the drippings from the meats and sauces would be collected and distributed to the poor? Try to do that in our modern society."

"Yes, there are some minor mistakes here. To quote that old saying the perfect is the enemy of the good and I see no reason to reject the good because it is not perfect. I see far too many resolutions passed here that are outright harmful. Seeing one slightly flawed doesn't concern me in the slightest."

[Imperium Anglorum]

@Youssath

1. Spoilage is a thing; production functions without any recourse to reality are bad economics.

2. Externalities: leftovers can probably be put to better use than disposed, which is probably profit maximising for firms. Non-negligible transaction costs also exist for all low-value opaque products, which are assumed out in "basic" economic models.

Before pulling basic economics on someone, learn some. It's just in the later chapters of the book.

[Araraukar]

Non-negligible transaction costs also exist for all low-value opaque products

OOC: Yes and Son of Sevenless and KRAS may actually be related because of the auto-inhibited conformation dependent on multiple domain-to-domain interactions that cooperate to block access of the SOS1 catalytic core to its targets, but I wouldn't use any of those terms on here just to show that I've read a big thick book full of specialist information...

[Shaktirajya]

We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, believe the Earth is a manifestation of the Goddess Herself and as such, We vote FOR this resolution. There is no sacrifice too great to preserve this, Our only planet. Anything else is folly.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matatantrasya Shaktirajyasya

[Youssath]

@Youssath

1. Spoilage is a thing; production functions without any recourse to reality are bad economics.

2. Externalities: leftovers can probably be put to better use than disposed, which is probably profit maximising for firms. Non-negligible transaction costs also exist for all low-value opaque products, which are assumed out in "basic" economic models.

Before pulling basic economics on someone, learn some. It's just in the later chapters of the book.

1. The resolution assumes that food production is in excess here since it far exceeds the consumption levels. I'm not too sure what you are trying to get at here.

2. Erm, no. An externality is a cost or benefit that is suffered by the third party due to the economic transaction. Cigarettes have a negative externality because of the benefits of consuming tobacco products is greater for the consumer than for society (when I smoke, the people around me incur secondhand smoking even though they have not consumed the economic good, that's a negative externality). Throwing the concepts of "externalities" is inappropriate at this instance here, although I do get that the consumption of food waste products can be a positive externality for the third party (but really, you are just mentioning how industries benefit from this, not the third party aka society). Plus, wasted goods are an allocative inefficiency within the system, and what you are simply saying is to increase the overall demand for food products (be it fresh or wasted), and like what I said, externalities cannot apply on another type of product when they are literally the same thing (fresh and wasted food is still food, just that wasted food is an allocative inefficiency in the market). Those are two different concepts you are playing here, so try not to mix them up.

And yeah, I won't suggest throwing in economic terms every now and then to make your statement look smart. You have to draft it such that it fits the context at hand here.

And oh, for your information, I don't smoke.

"I've looked at your note. I think it is reasonable to suggest that we will agree to disagree. The economics of non durable goods bakes into the equation a factor known as 'spoilage.' In theory in a true free market, oversupply would be handled profitably, but with the addition of non free market food safety laws - which I don't think should be abolished - that ability is significantly decreased. Did you know that the Middle Ages, the nobility dined on plates made with bread and those plates with all the drippings from the meats and sauces would be collected and distributed to the poor? Try to do that in our modern society."

"Yes, there are some minor mistakes here. To quote that old saying the perfect is the enemy of the good and I see no reason to reject the good because it is not perfect. I see far too many resolutions passed here that are outright harmful. Seeing one slightly flawed doesn't concern me in the slightest."

"Except that like I have stated here, we are establishing the precedent here. If this was the sixth resolution towards food waste, I wouldn't be bothered too much. The fact that this is the first time we are addressing this issue is of extreme importance, which I am appalled that you fail to understand the gravity of the situation here."

"And ambassador, as much as I like to understand the analogy you are trying to explain here, I don't think we are living in the Middle Ages."

We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, believe the Earth is a manifestation of the Goddess Herself and as such, We vote FOR this resolution. There is no sacrifice too great to preserve this, Our only planet. Anything else is folly.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matatantrasya Shaktirajyasya

"Nothing in fine print is ever good news to make a sacrifice, ambassador. Hopefully, you will think otherwise."

[Imperium Anglorum]

1. The resolution assumes that food production is in excess here since it far exceeds the consumption levels. I'm not too sure what you are trying to get at here.

And we consume 30 per cent more than the food we purchase. Are you arguing that the spoilage that is associated with the food waste is in fact optimal because overproduction is the most efficient mechanism by which to combat the spoilage? If so, make that argument. Then you'll have to bite the harms associated with increased agricultural production on the environment relative to waste avoidance mechanisms, but that's a separate question.

2. Erm, no. An externality is a cost or benefit that is suffered by the third party due to the economic transaction. Cigarettes have a negative externality because of the benefits of consuming tobacco products is greater for the consumer than for society (when I smoke, the people around me incur secondhand smoking even though they have not consumed the economic good, that's a negative externality). Throwing the concepts of "externalities" is inappropriate at this instance here, although I do get that the consumption of food waste products can be a positive externality for the third party (but really, you are just mentioning how industries benefit from this, not the third party aka society). Plus, wasted goods are an allocative inefficiency within the system, and what you are simply saying is to increase the overall demand for food products (be it fresh or wasted), and like what I said, externalities cannot apply on another type of product when they are literally the same thing (fresh and wasted food is still food, just that wasted food is an allocative inefficiency in the market). Those are two different concepts you are playing here, so try not to mix them up.

Externalities include any time that social benefits exceed private benefits. Vaccinations are the classical example. It must be strange that literature has in fact got published on this exact topic, with these kinds of terms. Also, to be clear, I'm talking about the disposal mechanism for food waste, which doesn't align incentives on the benefits side.

The theory unravels the interrelation between social food insecurity and external environmental costs, which is not generally considered by households when they waste food. (Abstract from Bhagyashree Katare, Dmytro Serebrennikov, H. Holly Wang, Michael Wetzstein, "Social-Optimal Household Food Waste: Taxes and Government Incentives", 99 American J Agricultural Economics 499 (2017).)

The costs which are imposed do not have to be localised to a specific actor. They can be society writ large, they can be specific people who suffer from second-hand smoke, they can be the people who have higher food prices due to the inefficient allocation of nutritional resources. You concede this when saying "I do get that the consumption of food waste products can be a positive externality for the third party", which you then use in an attempt to argue there isn't a positive externality ... in the same sentence. Get it straight.

But even if the specific term isn't "externality", you also straight up just concede that current food distribution mechanisms are allocatively inefficient. That knifes your argument that there isn't any significance . There's no inherency in Kenmoria's argumentation, food waste exists in the status quo. Do you think it's the solvency that is the problem? The disadvantages of the plan?

Non-negligible transaction costs also exist for all low-value opaque products

OOC: Yes and Son of Sevenless and KRAS may actually be related because of the auto-inhibited conformation dependent on multiple domain-to-domain interactions that cooperate to block access of the SOS1 catalytic core to its targets, but I wouldn't use any of those terms on here just to show that I've read a big thick book full of specialist information...

https://core-econ.org/the-economy/?lang=en ; more specifically, https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.13.1.205

[Youssath]

And we consume 30 per cent more than the food we purchase. Are you arguing that the spoilage that is associated with the food waste is in fact optimal because overproduction is the most efficient mechanism by which to combat the spoilage? If so, make that argument. Then you'll have to bite the harms associated with increased agricultural production on the environment relative to waste avoidance mechanisms, but that's a separate question.

And where exactly did you pull that figure out from? Just a heads up, we don't recognize any factual figures here thrown from real-life examples here.

And no, I didn't say that spoilage is optimal because overproduction by the market can help "combat" the spoilage. You have completely misinterpreted what I have just said. You've said that spoilage is a thing and that without it, it is bad economics to begin with. I simply told you that this resolution makes the assumption that food production is in excess of consumption levels, which is true since this is the only way we can produce food wastage from (if not, then how?). I am utterly lost at what you are trying to prove here, and it gets even more confusing given how you are making these blatant assumptions and statements when clearly, I have said none of it.

Externalities include any time that social benefits exceed private benefits. Vaccinations are the classical example. It must be strange that literature has in fact got published on this exact topic, with these kinds of terms. Also, to be clear, I'm talking about the disposal mechanism for food waste, which doesn't align incentives on the benefits side.

The theory unravels the interrelation between social food insecurity and external environmental costs, which is not generally considered by households when they waste food. (Abstract from Bhagyashree Katare, Dmytro Serebrennikov, H. Holly Wang, Michael Wetzstein, "Social-Optimal Household Food Waste: Taxes and Government Incentives", 99 American J Agricultural Economics 499 (2017).)

The costs which are imposed do not have to be localised to a specific actor. They can be society writ large, they can be specific people who suffer from second-hand smoke, they can be the people who have higher food prices due to the inefficient allocation of nutritional resources. You concede this when saying "I do get that the consumption of food waste products can be a positive externality for the third party", which you then use in an attempt to argue there isn't a positive externality ... in the same sentence. Get it straight.

But even if the specific term isn't "externality", you also straight up just concede that current food distribution mechanisms are allocatively inefficient. That knifes your argument that there isn't any significance . There's no inherency in Kenmoria's argumentation, food waste exists in the status quo. Do you think it's the solvency that is the problem? The disadvantages of the plan?

Your first two paragraphs literally just repeated what I have just said about externalities in general. "The costs which are imposed do not have to be localised to a specific actor"? It's literally as I said that "an externality is a cost or benefit that is suffered by the third party due to the economic transaction", which is in complete agreement with what you are trying to say (and yet again, making me even more confused with what you are trying to say here). However, one thing I absolutely do not agree with you is your use of "externalities" for "probably profit maximising for firms". That is not how you apply economic externalities right here. Externalities are only about the third party and are mostly assumed to be societal factors, and bringing up "profit maximising firms" is absolutely wrong on this case since they are not the third party here (or that they represent society in general), and that they represent the second party in economic transactions - the suppliers. The sellers and the firms are part of society, but society itself is NOT part of these sellers and firms. Correct this statement instead of calling that a "positive externality".

The reason why I written the statement that "I do get that the consumption of food waste products can be a positive externality for the third party" was because I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you knew what you were trying to say, and that perhaps you might mean society in general and not profit-maximizing firms, since consuming food waste does help somewhat on environmental factors and such. That, however, does not contradict my points that I am driving here, that rotten food and fresh food all come from the same supplier and supply-demand markets, and hence it is absolutely incorrect to label rotten food as a different market of its own when clearly, it belongs to a major market that was created as a result of overproduction of food supplies.

I would have bothered to reply back to your last paragraph, but I am absolutely failing to see the point you are trying to drive into. What you have been doing is simply attacking the "what-ifs" arguments that I brought up theoretically for you and that you have yet to fully refute the points that I have said above. And no, I did not say that the current food distribution mechanisms are allocative inefficient. I said that "wasted goods are an allocative inefficiency within the system". Do you see what I am trying to drive into? You are not even refuting my arguments here, you are just making your own assumptions and stories out of them!

I will throw back the book at you and repeat what you have said to me previously:

Before pulling basic economics on someone, learn some. It's just in the later chapters of the book.

[Imperium Anglorum]

What? How is bringing up a profit maximising firm mean that an externality doesn't exist? If you really want to deal with definitions, the people being harmed aren't the firms, the benefits not being had are not ones of the firms, this is clearly a third party.

You talked about smoking. The people who suffer are the people who have the second hand smoke. Vaccines: the people who do not benefit are the people who don't get herd immunity. Here, the people who do not benefit are the people who are not fed.

There's a point about defining a market. There's a market for second-hand food products. That's different from the first hand market and the wholesale distribution market in the level of information. As I told Ara, this is like a market for lemons. Separating the markets is definitely decent economic analysis.

Your entire argument, to borrow your term, about free markets not having surpluses, is that the policy is unnecessary because of inherency. But conceding allocative inefficiency directly refutes inherency. Your advocacy isn't internally consistent.

I TA'ed intro micro and macro, I think I'm fine.

[Mockia]

It has passed

Well, time to follow it for a few days and then forget about it and randomly violate it while the WA guys are in their bathroom break.

[New Franklin]

how exactly will this proposal be enforced? I'm new to Nation States so I honestly don't know how this works. (I voted against)

[Kenmoria]

how exactly will this proposal be enforced? I'm new to Nation States so I honestly don't know how this works. (I voted against)

(OOC: The Administrative Compliance Act deals with enforcement of GA law, via fines and sanctions. Every nation in the WA receives a telegram detailing the passage of the resolution, and then is expected to follow it. This doesn’t mean much issues-wise, and is more to do with roleplay.)

[Kenmoria]

Reducing Food Waste was passed 11,161 votes to 1,902.

(OOC: Thanks to everyone, coauthors and thread contributors, who helped with this.)

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:Congrats kenmoria!

[Youssath]

"As promised, our government has enacted the Reducing Food Waste Act in response to your successful GA resolution in the General Assembly. We congratulate you on this success, even though we are drafting a repeal as we speak."

OOC: Congratulations on your resolution, Kenmoria!

[Australian rePublic]

Yeay!