/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.4692057]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/05/world-first-synthetic-hamburger-mouth-feel

The future is here, /ck/

[Anonymous No.4692098]

>>4692057
>first-synthetic-hamburger
The Hell it is!

All jokes aside, if they can do this cheaply and safely in the future we can kick world hunger in the balls.

[Anonymous No.4692105]

>>4692098
we can already kick world hunger in the balls we throw away and burn more than enough food. The issue has never been not enough food on earth. Its been the fact that the food isn't where the starving people are.

[Anonymous No.4692108]

>>4692105
Not to mention the fact that those countries are run by brutal warlords who are trying to be junior Pol Pots.

[Anonymous No.4692178]

>>4692105
>it's been the fact that people have a deeply ingrained hatred of anything that could be construed as freeloading

fixed that for ya, champ

[Anonymous No.4692185]

>>4692178

Must be why we subsidize all our feed crops then.

There's nothing capitalistic about American agriculture, it's blatant corporate welfare. But somehow the idiot right wingers never make it to going after that.

[Anonymous No.4692192]

>>4692105
maybe the starving people should buy food

[Anonymous No.4692196]

Sounds kinda awesome, and i'd love to try one.
Unlike a majority of people, i've abandoned my ancestral cave full of fear and superstitions, and embrace new technology with open arms.

Sadly, this will only remain a good thing until they start pumping it full of chemicals and preservatives like the rest of American food.

[Anonymous No.4692229]

>>4692185
Then we have to make up bullshit applications in order to excuse why so much of it is being produced.

>muh ethanol

[Anonymous No.4692235]

>>4692057
If this means we don't have to spend a majority of crops and antibiotics in this country feeding livestock I'm okay with it.

[:^O No.4692245]

>>4692178
>Why can't we just give all the food away?

[Anonymous No.4692247]

>>4692229

Or we could let farmers and agricorps compete on product and price. But nah, those self-reliant midewestern types don't wanna hear no liberal ideas like that!

[Anonymous No.4692269]

>>4692247
>Or we could let farmers and agricorps compete on product and price.
This nigga gets it. When companies start an agricultural arms race to see has better, cheaper, products, the public benefits from the increased quality and decreased price.

[Anonymous No.4692352]

>>4692269
No, the public suffers because of their inability to distinguish between pink slime and premium ground beef when packaged and placed on a shelf.

[Anonymous No.4692354]

>>4692235
they still need antibiotics in the petri dishes to prevent bacterial contamination.

[Anonymous No.4692656]

>>4692352
>>4692269
god damn so much retard in /ck/ right now, even if a company produced shitty ground beef, the fact that a giant corporation can streamline costs will not do ANYTHING to advocate diversity, monopolies only get stronger till you break them.

[Anonymous No.4692677]

>>4692196
>Unlike a majority of people, i've abandoned my ancestral cave full of fear and superstitions, and embrace new technology with open arms.
>Sadly, this will only remain a good thing until they start pumping it full of chemicals and preservatives like the rest of American food.

Dumbest post on /ck/ all week.

[Anonymous No.4692678]

>>4692656
>monopolies only get stronger till you break them.

Actually, there is no such thing as a naturally occurring monopoly. In the history of business there has never been one....except when the government gives special privileges to one company over others.

You don't need to "break" monopolies if you didn't create them by government meddling with business in the first place. In fact, they wouldn't exist at all if people didn't feel the need to have the government interfere with business at all.

Sage because this has nothing to do with food or cooking.

[Anonymous No.4692679]

I'd still rather eat the meat from a nice slaughtered real cow

[Anonymous No.4692683]

>>4692679
Why? Once they get it right it'll be pretty much identical.

[Anonymous No.4692699]

>>4692683
He's either an over-compensating manchild or afraid of change.

[Anonymous No.4692707]

>>4692678
uh, actually its easy to create a monopoly:
provide better service at cheaper prices
force any competitors out of business
raise prices back higher than they even were to begin with now that you are seen as the default/only option, buy out competitors by borrowing money from rich friends or however you gotta do it, etc. etc.

the government can create monopolies through IP, etc, but its not like businesses pursue it themselves on purpose. its part of what drives them to spend money on R&D. its easier to monopolize on a new invention/technique

the idea that its all the governments fault and a free market would be wonderful for everyone is total shit

[Anonymous No.4692711]

>>4692678
>Miners mine a plot of land
>One miner discovers a trove of copper
>Copper does not appear at other mines
>That miner now has a monopoly on copper extraction
is it that hard to follow?
Sage because I'm replying to some stupidity that leaked from /pol/.

[Anonymous No.4692723]

>>4692678

Nice factoid there - except for the fact it's not true at all. Might want to check your libertarian bibles for "trusts", and the existence of "natural monopolies" in networks.

[Anonymous No.4692749]

>>4692707

Except that's never happened in real life. There's always someone else who can compete with you as you branch out.

I'll repeat myself again: There is no such thing as a naturally occurring monopoly. It's never happened any time or any place in recorded history--unless the government steps in and grants special protection. In the past this used to be explicit and the term "Monopoly" was from the special legal status granted by the government. For example, the British empire granted Monopoly rights to the British East India Company. Nowadays, as you stated, it tends to happen because of IP rights, but that's not exclusive. Monsanto, for example, was the benefit of various patent law decisions which makes it basically a monopoly on GMOs. Sony and Samsung neither have a monopoly on the cell phone market, but they're both trying real hard to do so if you've followed any of their patent litigation recently. But really, most monopolies are straight-up government owned. For example, lotteries in most states: the gov't has a monopoly on gambling. Alcohol production in Finland, Sweden, Iceland, and Norway: all distilleries are government-owned, etc.

Even the good 'ol US postal service is a Monopoly. Lysander Spooner tried to start a private postal company back in the 1840's. It was called "American Letter Mail Company". His service was much cheaper than the normal post office so it became very popular...until the Gov't passed an act of congress to make his business illegal.

Sage because this still has nothing to do with food or cooking.

[Anonymous No.4692760]

>>4692269

Actually right now we have artificially low prices, with artifically high profits. What's happening basically is you're forced to buy a bunch of corn and wheat through your taxes, and then the excess is used to keep the cost low.

So corn (and HFCS) gets super cheap, obesity skyrockets at the same time (surely just a coincidence), and agbusiness and fast food cleanup. Meanwhile your fresh veggies cost an arm and a leg, but pink slime is cheap!

[Anonymous No.4692763]

>>4692749
This, pretty much. The only reason monopolies exist in areas (think cable providers) are because the gov't grants them special status.

[Anonymous No.4692768]

>>4692749

The Sugar Trust
Standard Oil
AT&T

Do monopolies LATER use their influence to attempt to give themselves legal protection? Of course! They'll do so as long as the cost doesn't get larger than the market cost of the monopoly price above market norm times volume.

But it's not just the government, the math works for ANY means to distort the market. Hiring goons to bust up a competitor? If it costs less than the monopoly premium, it'll happen. Buying out competitors? Standard Oil did this constantly, they kept their monopoly price (rebate money helped as well). Great for the guy selling, shitty for the consumer.

Monopolies are a problem of market breakdown, and pretending market breakdown cannot happen without the government is a free-marketer fairy tale.

tl;dr; "There is no such thing as a naturally occurring monopoly" is stupid and wrong

[Anonymous No.4692770]

>>4692763

No, it's because the large costs of setup preclude competitors. The "competition" you have in cable companies now is because they're forced to sell pipe space.

[Anonymous No.4692794]

>>4692105

Money -_-

[Anonymous No.4692817]

>>4692057

At what point do we heat up a piece of wire to see if it's the Thing?

[Anonymous No.4692858]

>>4692763
>>4692749

Stop listening to Austrians - your econ is going to be wrong when you don't believe in math.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly has an easy breakdown.

[Anonymous No.4692892]

>>4692817
this nigga

[Anonymous No.4694022]

I'm excited.
I want one.

[Anonymous No.4694081]

>>4694022
That's be €250,000 sans tip