• 🇰 🔵 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      When I worked at Walmart, bananas were the number one selling item at $.68/pound. Then, for a week, someone set the price to $.68/banana. So a whole bunch went from like a dollar and some change to like $7 on average. Instantly killed the sales until they went back to per pound. When I was asked to change the price sign, I asked if it was a mistake and they told me no.

      • bob_lemon@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        Fun fact: At least here in Germany, supermarkets almost lose money on bananas. They can’t raise the prices because the price of bananas is so ingrained into people’s minds that an increase would implicitly signal “expensive store” even if all the other prices stayed the same.

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Benefiting doesn’t require you or your country’s past participation.

      • UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yeah just like I didn’t personally terrorise indigenous people into moving away, I am in fact benefiting from terror against indigenous people by living on Turtle Island as the offspring of settlers.

        • Odo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Of course it is. How do these foreign companies own such large amounts of land in these countries? (Hint: US-sponsored coups). Why are these countries producing large amounts of a single crop via monoculture practices instead of solving for the nutritional needs of their own population?

          • squirmy_wormy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            Because the autonomous countries are unable to make those choices for themselves? What about places that produce bananas that didn’t have banana republics?

            • Match!!@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              Can you name some examples of banana-growing exporters that weren’t undermined by the US to the point of banana republic

            • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              If you live anywhere where a banana cannot grow and get them cheaply, you’re benefitting from imperialism regardless of where the banana you actually eat is grown because it’s the cheap bananas from those banana republics that determined the market value.

              • squirmy_wormy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 months ago

                And again, ONE country set up banana republics, which were then overthrown. Anyone who isn’t them and can also buy cheap bananas separately. There are also places that were not ever banana republics who export bananas.

                This post takes a very complicated issue and distills it down to a neat little thing by misusing words and then everyone else can be like “oh I feel smart too cause that seems clever”. It’s bullshit and makes everything worse.

                • GBU_28@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Sure, ONE country did it, while about 100 cheered., And queued up for deliveries.

                  Everyone loves to shit on America, without acknowledging their home country’s very happy entanglement with them

  • hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Pretending this is the case, I would prefer not subjugating entire peoples for cheap shit.

  • Rooskie91@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    Unless, of course, you’re a member of the banana Republic that produced the banana. Then $2 is the largest fortune you’ve ever seen and your hands get chopped off if you get caught eating a banana when you were supposed to be picking it for the sheltered, ignorant shit head that wrote this tweet.

    • just_change_it@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      isn’t cheap food and goods imported from around the world a benefit for those that live in the US and other rich countries?

      It’s horrible for 90%+ of the world, but for those 10% they get a huge benefit and the few thousand owners get even more money for their dynasties.

      • tygerprints@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        The imperialists would disagree as they see a whole lot of value in it. Sure millions suffer, but hey, a few people get rich and that’s really what god wants, isnt it?

    • tygerprints@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I prefer “Itchy Gorilla” brand bananas. Sure they smell funny but you can get a bunch for under a dollar on the street.

      • squirmy_wormy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        No it isn’t. That is corporatocracy. Imperialism is a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Let me get this right.

          You don’t think the British East Indian Company’s conquest of India was imperialism either?

          Because it wasn’t technically the state doing it.

            • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              You know what, I deserve this conversation. I’ve trolled people with “It can’t be imperialism because we’re a republic” before, this is just karma.

              On the off chance that you’re not just trolling, no, it isn’t, because your definition sucks and is deliberately limited so you can be a pedantic yet incorrect twat about some of history’s greatest crimes.

              • squirmy_wormy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                No I’m not being a troll. And it’s not my definition, it’s the actual meaning of the word. Words - especially when used in emotionally charged contexts - have meaning and when they are misused to make a nice little sound bite, it dilutes the power they have. I don’t like when people do that.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      It absolutely can be… Did you think he was offering a concise definition of imperialism as “when cheap year round produce?”

  • alvvayson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    The United Fruit Company has been defunct for almost a century by now.

    I still recommend buying fair trade Bananas if you can afford it, but eating a banana helps poor people in third world countries more than eating an apple, which doesn’t send a single cent to the third world.

    And second, why does the OP consider eating bananas exploiting banana farmers, but eating apples is not exploiting apple farmers??

    Edit: thanks for the downvotes you dumb fascists.

    I actually grew up in a banana producing country. All the leftists shitting on our produce are enemies of the people. People in poor third world countries desperately need money and selling their produce is how they earn money.

    Yes, buy fair trade, that actually gives a better price to those farmers. But even without fair trade, buying tropical products helps tropical farmers.

    • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

      Buying bananas to help people in developing countries is like shopping at Walmart to help the employees. The vast majority of that money isn’t going to them.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      The point is in no way is a cheap banana in new York, in the winter, a proper reflection of the “fair cost it should be” for the farmer who worked to make it

    • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      Because bananas are grown in third world countries where many mega corps are controlling many aspects of the food growing and trading.

      While apple farmers, you can litterally go pick them yourself by the price set by the farmer.

      This is more nuanced than that, but that’s the gist.