Both the invisible, and visible force that controls who we are, what we have, and oftentimes what we can be. Do we think enough about how money can fuel the food industry? I’m going to start with how I think we perceive money. Next, I’ll submit my opinion regarding how we really ought to perceive money if we plan on making any changes to the way we eat, and as a direct result, the food system.
We see money as an intrinsically valuable good. Reason being that when we have a $20 bill, it seems that we value it for the literal thing that it is—twenty dollars. We often don’t value that bill for what it represents in the future (mainly because studies show that humans are poor at imagining future outcomes of themselves)—a potential bag of groceries, or a gym membership. We see Queen Elizabeth in green, and take that as something we hold dear to our hearts.
This intrinsic value of money is problematic, namely because of what money was originally set out to do. (This is the part where I reference a boring philosopher) In John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government ” Locke explains the origins of money, and situates them within the social contract; he mentions the relation money has to social contractual ‘Lockean Provisos’. What happened was over time, communities grew, and more goods were required to sustain them. The existing bartering system was no longer suitable for large-scale production to support bigger communities.
A woman with a lemon tree who once traded her small crop of lemons for a month’s flour, eggs, and sugar evolved into a lady who needed to provide a lot more lemons to support her community. She became a lemon farmer with pounds and pounds of lemons to sell. Since her large crop spoiled quickly, exchanging them quickly was essential to maximize her profit. But, if she was to merely barter her lemons, she wouldn’t have assets to barter in the future, and all her goods received in the barter would spoil sooner than she could use them. This is the part where bartering becomes inefficient. When we can’t exchange goods in the future because we have too much of them, we no longer have the potential to own future goods. What was needed was a placeholder to represent and individual’s goods, but could persist through time. Money.
A whole lotta lemon love.
With money, a person can sell all their lemons, and still buy goods in the future, whether or not they have lemons in the future. The worry of spoilage disappears, and freedom ensues! With money, a person could rely on lemons to survive through the winter because they have a new asset to depend on.
The precise genius of money is that it’s a present representation of labour, with future potential. Money allows us to subsist through time when we are not working, nor producing goods.
Money itself isn’t the thing of value. It’s only a representation of a thing of value--your work. So the next time you take out a twenty from the ATM, cherish that it represents that 12 hour shift on your feet, and that it is not just a green bill worthy in itself.
What you did in the past has worth that translates over time, and that is what you are buying your groceries with tonight.
We ought to perceive money as a placeholder for products we make. This will give us more perspective on how we treat the money we have. If that twenty is a translation of me working on Saturday, it becomes an extension of the past self. If we understand money as an extension of the past self being our hard work, maybe we can see how the money we spend is more ourselves than some inanimate object. And, it is ourselves impacting various systems, not immaterial mysteries.
For example, when you spend $20 on KFC, it’s not that yu are just getting an Easter Feaster in exchange for $20. When you spend $20 on KFC, your hard work is directly supporting KFC. And it is you supporting KFC and everything they do, not some mysterious, magical monetary force of the gods. Your hard work yesterday at the office is contributes to KFC’s degradation of the food system when you purchase something there.
I think that the most important thing about money and it’s relationship within the food industry is understanding where your money is going, and who you are supporting. Money has definite power in controlling the food industry despite what cynics might say (“we as individuals have no control over where the food industry goes and what they do”).
Clearly, we have sufficient power in the food industry. When we purchase something, it means we support the product and the company that makes it. This is especially suported with the fact that as consumers, we have a choice between several options in the marketplace. Inevitably, we support one option over another. We don’t have to buy KFC, instead we can buy Chipotle, or make lunch and bring it with us. But when you purchase your $10 lunch, you are supporting someone or something.
The cynics claim that we have no bearing on our food system. But they fail to realize something very simple: where we spend our money is to whom that money will belong. If we do not spend our money at KFC, then that money does not go to KFC. If that money does not go to KFC, then they have less money that they could otherwise have. If you choose Chipotle for lunch, then Chipotle has $10 more than KFC could have. Part in parcel of being a consumer is having an ounce of power in where money ends up.
We as consumers have a great deal of marketplace power. We decide who gets paid. I don’t think we should ever underestimate for one second our power in the food system.
So, how ought we view a monetary transaction? Given the staggering number of choices we are presented in the marketplace, we must remember that our money powers industries annually. Companies need money to survive--our money. Our money could be given to any one company at the end of the day. So, considering the circumstances, any company would be lucky to recieve a consumer’s money--especially given the exceedingly high rates of competition.
The fact that I chose to eat lunch at Chipotle rather than KFC means that Chipotle won my wage. Indeed, Chipolte was luckier than KFC that day, and they got my support. If we start thinking of this relationship to the food industry in a context of luckiness, we will percieve ourselves as more powerful agents in the marketplace.
We must understand that we are rewarding a corporation when we pay them for anything. I choose to reward Chipotle at the Yorkdale food court because they use Beretta meat products, when no other vendor does. As a consequence, they have the privilege of my support, which allows their company to function--a luxury that KFC will never have.
As a consumer, I have the power to decide what company makes money, one lunch at a time. When we change how we view ourselves, and what our money can truly do, we have great power in the food industry. I urge you to choose wisely.
Next time you go to purchase something, think about these things. Have a moment of introspection at the supermarket. Does your hard work and yourself translate to earthly exploitation? Do you feel like rewarding KFC for absolutely no humanitarian, or environmental work they have done in this limited world? Do you see yourself as an agent in the world who can contribute to the health of the food system and its impacts on the world?—I can.
jbbartram-illu
izzy806
ellievsbear
stormborns
dailybridgerton
2087
janainaart
tangentwithtanner