<p>Just saw the story about Malala Yousufazi and now feel very guilty for complaining. </p>
<p>However, today was just lame. Yesterday- come home early, sleep till 7:00, stay up till 3:30 AM because you’re scared of robbers/have excess homework and English Lit test today. Not to sound pretentious or whatever, but I HATE MC on English Literature exams. Everything is open to interpretation and to top it off…the source text was early Middle Ages. #DNW</p>
<p>@logic…I read that American`s waste about 40% of food produced. If we wasted only 15% less food each month, we could feed 25 million. </p>
<p>Just some food for thought. (Pun intended :D)</p>
<p>If we didn’t buy and then waste that much, demand for food would fall and food vendors would just reduce production — they have no incentive to offer it to the poor. This would lead to an economic downturn that might again, reduce demand for food as per the income effect, amplifying the effect.</p>
<p>You’re oversimplifying it ^^</p>
<p>If the food is donated by consumers none of that would hold true. Of course, you’d also have costs for collecting, transporting, and distributing the food to those that need it.</p>
<p>
This would happen in the long run IF we donated before consumption.</p>
<p>
This is pretty ridiculous. Consumers would have more disposable income and likely consume other goods (not food). Since you got this part wrong, the rest of your argument is invalid (income effect).</p>
<p>Even I’m oversimplifying it, but my rationale sure makes more sense than “we shouldn’t cut consumer waste since that will lower production (and hurt the economy)”</p>