In the USSR they ran Grapes of Wrath, which focuses on the plight of the poor in America, in theaters as an attempt at anti US propaganda. It backfired spectacularly because the mostly poor audience mainly came out of it saying "in America even poor people have cars!"

The Soviet bureaucrats who came up with the plan were of course all from the upper class, and they cared so little for the poor in their anti-capitalist command economy that they didn't even realize how much poorer they were than the poor people in the movie.

In capitalism we make food so cheap that even poor people can get fat. If we put anti-capitalists like you in charge they will starve.

> In capitalism we make food so cheap that even poor people can get fat

My dude, this is not a good thing.

For almost all of human history almost all humans spent almost all of their income/labor on feeding themselves. Not only is cheap food a good thing, it's one of the best.

But now that we have it, what are we trying to optimize?

Do you have any idea what poverty is like today? Now people spend all of their time and money on not being homeless, and then fighting the diseases that their food is giving them.

Where is your data for these claims?

Here is something you mind find enlightening: https://nintil.com/the-soviet-union-food/

> In capitalism we make food so cheap that even poor people can get fat.

That's entirely my point. You can get fat, then get prices out of the insulin you need to treat the diabetes you got from getting fat on a high-energy low-nutrition diet.

It turns out that being in poverty is always harmful, so why don't we just eliminate poverty? Because the USSR "tried" and failed 60 years ago? That's not a good enough reason. Like you said, it wasn't even an honest try to begin with.

Sure but I don't think current subsidy structure is all that great.

It makes food cheap to everything. Not every person, everything. Including corporations making "bad" foods

It also subsidizes per area of crop, or volume of that crop which means any "sustainable" practices get by percentage less of them per kg.

I think it would be far better if the subsidies were just directly to the people - drop food tax completely (maybe aside "truly unhealthy food") and subsidize the poorest so still everyone can eat, instead of subsidizing essentially John Deeres and fertilizer manufacturers

> If we put anti-capitalists like you in charge they will starve.

They already do. There are some cheats (cough welfare, cough inflation rate targeting) that reduce the amount of unnecessary starvation but proper "capitalism" would involve a lot of starvation.

why do people immediately jump to the USSR whenever somebody criticizes capitalism? it's an ignorant reaction, and assumes intention that was neither implied or explicit in the comment.

nonethelss, this isn't an argument for communism, i'm just pointing out the flaw in your assumptions: state sponsored agriculture (aka subsidies aka something resembling socialism) is one of the big reasons why food is so cheap. not to mention that our food system is centralized by a very small amount of companies, who centrally plan our food system.