Now, a dozen eggs will cost you around $4, thanks to Kamala Harris' inflationary policy.

現在，由於卡馬拉-哈里斯（Kamala Harris）的通貨膨脹政策，一打雞蛋的價格將在 4 美元左右。

That's a viral clip of J.D. Vance at a grocery store in Pennsylvania this week blaming Kamala Harris for the price of eggs rising to $4, while standing in front of price tags that clearly say the eggs are $2.99.

這是一段病毒視頻，J.D. Vance 本週在賓夕法尼亞州的一家雜貨店指責卡馬拉-哈里斯將雞蛋價格漲到 4 美元，而他站在標價牌前，上面清楚地寫著雞蛋 2.99 美元。

And I know this seems like a pretty minor lie in the scope of J.D. Vance lies, like the immigrants eating pets thing that he will not allow to die despite zero proof that it's happening.

我知道這在J.D.萬斯的謊言中似乎是個很小的謊言，就像移民吃寵物的事一樣，儘管沒有任何證據證明它的存在，他還是不允許它消亡。

However, I think it's important to talk about in the context of unconscionably huge price increases happening at the grocery store that is a huge talking point for most Americans at the moment.

不過，我認為有必要結合雜貨店不合情理的大幅漲價來談談這個問題，這也是目前大多數美國人的一個重要話題。

Vance is pouncing on that frustration by trying to blame Harris for these prices.

萬斯正利用這種挫折感，試圖將這些價格歸咎於哈里斯。

But who's to blame, really?

但這究竟該怪誰呢？

And which candidate, upon entering the White House, has promised policies that will actually make a difference at the grocery store checkout for everyday Americans?

又有哪位候選人在入主白宮後承諾的政策能真正改變普通美國人在雜貨店結賬時的狀況？

Because what J.D. Vance wants you to believe, and what the actual truth is, is, per usual, very different.

因為，J.D. Vance 想讓你相信的，和實際的真相，通常是大相徑庭的。

Let's get into it.

讓我們開始吧。

Did you guys see this headline?

你們看到這個標題了嗎？

Trump pledges to prosecute those he considers cheating in election if he wins.

特朗普承諾如果獲勝，將起訴他認為在選舉中作弊的人。

Yikes.

呀

This is a great example of how differently the media reports on headlines depending on their bias.

這是一個很好的例子，說明媒體在報道頭條新聞時是如何因其偏見而有所不同的。

You can see that the left is highlighting the threats and presenting Trump as extreme and dangerous, while the right focuses on election integrity.

你可以看到，左派在強調威脅，把特朗普說成是極端和危險的，而右派則關注選舉的公正性。

For example, the Daily Wire's headline says, as though threatening to prosecute lawyers and voters is just Trump demanding fair elections.

例如，《每日電訊報》的標題說，好像威脅起訴律師和選民只是特朗普要求公平選舉。

Meanwhile, Mother Jones' headline reads,

與此同時，《瓊斯母親》的標題寫道

Very different take.

截然不同的看法。

My partner on today's video, Ground News, is a great tool for understanding the news.

我今天的視頻搭檔 Ground News 是瞭解新聞的好工具。

To follow along, scan the QR code or go to ground.news.com.

要了解更多資訊，請掃描二維碼或訪問 ground.news.com。

Ground News provides helpful context for these starkly different headlines about the same story.

Ground News 為這些關於同一事件的截然不同的標題提供了有用的背景資料。

You can see the overall bias distribution of the news sources covering this story.

您可以看到報道這一事件的新聞來源的總體偏見分佈。

Lots of left and center sources are covering it, but only 11% of right-leaning sources, meaning this likely isn't on the radar of your racist uncle Rick, who only watches Fox News.

很多左翼和中間派的消息來源都在報道這件事，但只有 11% 的右翼消息來源報道了這件事，這意味著這件事很可能不在只看福克斯新聞的種族主義者裡克叔叔的雷達上。

On the right, you can see the overall factuality rating of the sources, and most have high factuality.

在右側，您可以看到資料來源的總體真實性評級，大多數資料來源的真實性都很高。

Seeing factuality ratings like this, along with who owns the source, can be really helpful to provide more context to your own echo chamber.

看到這樣的事實評級，以及消息來源的所有者，對於為自己的迴音室提供更多背景資訊非常有幫助。

You and your social media may have had one reaction to something Trump said, but it's important to understand the larger picture and what people outside your bubble are saying.

您和您的社交媒體可能會對特朗普的言論做出某種反應，但重要的是要了解大局以及您的 "保麗龍 "之外的人在說什麼。

And I'm able to get all this context and information thanks to Ground News.

我能瞭解到這些背景和資訊，都要感謝《地面新聞》。

And with the U.S. election fast approaching, my favorite Ground News feature at the moment is their 2024 U.S. election-focused Blind Spot feed.

隨著美國大選的臨近，我目前最喜歡的 "地面新聞 "功能是他們以 2024 年美國大選為重點的 "盲點 "新聞。

I can easily step out of my echo chamber and understand how partisan narratives shape reality and votes.

我很容易走出我的迴音室，理解黨派言論是如何左右現實和選票的。

I'm always really impressed with Ground News and genuinely think they're a great resource for identifying biases in the media.

Ground News 一直給我留下深刻印象，我真心認為他們是識別媒體偏見的絕佳資源。

So scan my QR code, click the link in the description, or go to ground.news.lija to get 40% off the same vantage plan I use to stay informed, which comes to about $5 a month.

掃描我的二維碼，點擊描述中的鏈接，或者訪問 ground.news.lija，就可以享受與我用來保持資訊暢通的 vantage 計劃相同的四折優惠，每月約 5 美元。

Subscribing to Ground News directly supports my channel, so I can continue to make videos for you.

訂閱 Ground News 直接支持我的頻道，這樣我就能繼續為您製作視頻。

Thanks, Ground News.

謝謝，地面新聞。

Price gouging is the term of the day when it comes to grocery store prices.

說到雜貨店的價格，"哄抬物價 "是一個時髦的詞。

There's not a precise definition, and it means different things to different people, but the basic concept is that food companies are able to take advantage of the monopolies they have over their industries and use scarcity, either real or fabricated scarcity, to artificially bump up the prices and pass the cost on to the consumer.

這並沒有一個準確的定義，對不同的人也有不同的含義，但基本概念是，食品公司能夠利用其對行業的壟斷優勢，利用稀缺性（無論是真實的稀缺性還是捏造的稀缺性）人為地抬高價格，並將成本轉嫁給消費者。

We'll discuss the mechanics of this and how and why it's happening, but it's important to also point out that it's not just major food companies that have caused inflation over the last few years.

我們將討論其中的機制，以及如何和為什麼會發生這種情況，但重要的是還要指出，在過去幾年裡，造成通貨膨脹的不僅僅是大型食品公司。

Supply chain issues caused by the pandemic, conflicts affecting the price and availability of oil like the war in Ukraine, and all of us sitting around at home not spending our money and collecting stimulus checks during the pandemic sent inflation soaring.

大流行病造成的供應鏈問題、影響石油價格和供應的衝突（如烏克蘭戰爭），以及我們所有人在大流行病期間坐在家裡不花錢和領取刺激經濟支票，都導致通貨膨脹飆升。

As I've said in past episodes, much of what happens in the economy is out of the control of the president.

正如我在過去的節目中所說，經濟中發生的很多事情都不是總統所能控制的。

Presidents tend to be given far more credit or blame than they deserve for the economy.

在經濟問題上，總統們得到的讚譽或指責往往遠遠超過他們應得的。

And Harris is, of course, the vice president, which, as I've said in previous episodes as well, does not come with a whole lot of power.

當然，哈里斯是副總統，我在之前的節目中也說過，副總統的權力並不大。

She's not the one writing laws or signing laws.

她不是制定法律或簽署法律的人。

She does have a tie-breaking vote in the very divided Senate, but what she does and does not get to vote on and the policies promoted by the Biden administration are very out of her control.

在分歧嚴重的參議院中，她確實擁有一票決定勝負的投票權，但她能不能投票，以及拜登政府推行的政策是她無法控制的。

But of course, Vance and Trump's entire argument is that Harris is simply a continuation of Biden.

當然，萬斯和特朗普的全部論據都是哈里斯只是拜登的延續。

And look at how much you've suffered under Biden.

看看你們在拜登手下吃了多少苦頭。

Harris will just continue your suffering.

哈里斯只會讓你繼續受苦。

And the economy is, of course, an easy scapegoat to point to, despite the fact that how it fares is generally outside the control of the president.

當然，經濟是一個很容易指向的替罪羊，儘管它的表現通常不在總統的控制範圍之內。

Trump points to Biden as the worst president ever for the economy and says that he was the best president ever for the economy, despite the fact that unemployment rose to highs not seen since the Great Depression under Trump's watch, that the unemployment rate spike was largely caused by the pandemic, which Trump bungled on the response but did not have much control over initially, is further proof that how well or poorly the economy does during a four-year term isn't usually directly influenced by the president.

特朗普指出拜登是有史以來經濟最糟糕的總統，並稱自己是有史以來經濟最好的總統，儘管在特朗普的上司下失業率上升到了大蕭條以來的新高，失業率飆升主要是由大流行病引起的，特朗普在應對上搞砸了，但最初並沒有太多控制權，這進一步證明了四年任期內經濟表現的好壞通常並不直接受總統的影響。

That being said, we have seen presidents put other people in place whose policies have ripple effects.

儘管如此，我們也看到總統讓其他人就職，其政策產生了連鎖反應。

Reagan did ruin everything, after all, and part of that was because of his theory of trickle-down economics.

畢竟，里根確實毀了一切，其中一部分原因就是他的涓滴經濟理論。

Reagan, of course, did not come up with that concept, but he was a handy, charismatic puppet of the free market economists who put the idea in his head.

當然，里根並沒有提出這個概念，但他是自由市場經濟學家的一個得心應手、魅力四射的傀儡，是自由市場經濟學家把這個想法灌輸給了他。

So while we shouldn't give too much credit to any one president for how the economy fared during their tenure, it is worth taking a look at who they're surrounding themselves with and the types of policies they're putting in place that may have far-reaching impacts that aren't immediately obvious.

是以，儘管我們不應該把總統任期內的經濟表現過多地歸功於任何一位總統，但值得注意的是，他們周圍有哪些人，他們正在實施哪些類型的政策，這些政策可能會產生並非立竿見影的深遠影響。

So yes, there has been inflation under Biden.

所以是的，拜登執政期間出現了通貨膨脹。

It peaked in around 2022 and has been falling, and we're almost down to pre-pandemic levels now.

它在 2022 年左右達到頂峰，之後一直在下降，現在幾乎降到了大流行前的水準。

But the prices at the grocery store remain high, and that's something we all feel every day, so it is the most obvious indicator of continued issues with inflation, which is why JD Vance went to a grocery store in Pennsylvania this week and tried to blame imaginary $4 eggs on Harris.

但雜貨店的價格依然居高不下，這是我們每個人每天都能感受到的，是以它是通脹問題持續存在的最明顯指標，這也是為什麼 JD Vance 本週前往賓夕法尼亞州的一家雜貨店，試圖將想象中的 4 美元雞蛋歸咎於哈里斯的原因。

Eggs are $4 in some places, but in that grocery store, they were not.

有些地方的雞蛋是 4 美元，但在那家雜貨店，雞蛋不是 4 美元。

He's tapping into the most tangible indicator of inflation that we interact with every week.

他正在利用我們每週都會接觸到的最具體的通脹指標。

And during the same time that inflation was soaring to 13% or more, major companies were reporting record profits and bragging about how much they are able to charge us.

在通貨膨脹率飆升至 13% 甚至更高的同時，各大公司卻在報告創紀錄的利潤，並吹噓他們能向我們收取多少費用。

Researchers at the Liberal Groundwork Collaborative in Washington produced a report in January calculating that corporate profit margins accounted for about half of American inflation in the second half of 2023.

華盛頓自由基礎工作協作組織的研究人員今年 1 月發佈了一份報告，計算出 2023 年下半年企業利潤率約佔美國通脹率的一半。

Yikes. And corporate apologists will say, well, that's just how economics works.

哎呀。為企業辯護的人會說，這就是經濟學的原理。

Demand went way up. That's economics 101.

需求大增。這是經濟學的 101 條。

Low supply plus high demand equals people will pay a premium.

供應量少，需求量大，人們就會支付高價。

And we're all supposed to say, ah, well, that explains it.

而我們都應該說，啊，好吧，這就解釋得通了。

It's just how economics works, and I'm a big dum-dum for being mad about that.

這就是經濟學的運作方式，我就是個為此而生氣的大傻瓜。

And then the conversation ends there for people who rest cozy in the arms of unfettered capitalism.

對於那些愜意地躺在不受約束的資本主義懷抱裡的人來說，對話到此為止。

The problem with the grocery price question specifically is that corporations were recording major profit margins because people were buying food because of the demand for food.

具體來說，雜貨價格問題的癥結在於，由於人們對食品的需求而購買食品，企業記錄了巨大的利潤空間。

People were like, please, sir, can I have some eggs?

人們會問，先生，我能吃點雞蛋嗎？

And corporations were like, ha ha, gotcha. Free market economics, baby.

而企業們就像，哈哈，抓到你了。自由市場經濟，寶貝。

Now, despite what some commenters on these episodes seem to think about me or wish for me to believe in,

現在，儘管這些節目的一些評論者似乎對我有什麼看法，或者希望我相信什麼、

I'm not interested in demolishing the entire system and participating in a full socialist revolution.

我對摧毀整個制度和參與全面的社會主義革命不感興趣。

I'd say I'm a democratic socialist.

我想說我是一個民主社會主義者。

Capitalism isn't great, but no other system humans have come up with and executed has been great either.

資本主義並不偉大，但人類創造並執行的其他制度也都不偉大。

And likely the most marginalized among us would be the ones to suffer the most in the great uprising that armchair philosophers on the internet who've read Marx one time seem to be lusting after.

在互聯網上那些只讀過一次馬克思著作的扶手椅上的哲學家們似乎都在憧憬著一場偉大的起義，而在這場起義中，我們當中最邊緣化的人很可能是受苦最深的人。

So I'm of the persuasion that capitalism, in order to not be completely exploitative and to ensure the well-being of everyone, must exist within some very strong guardrails.

是以，我認為，資本主義要想不完全是剝削性的，並確保每個人的福祉，就必須在一些非常強有力的防護欄內存在。

And ever since Reagan, those guardrails have been extremely absent.

而自里根以來，這些警戒線就極度缺失。

Specifically, I'm talking regulations, especially antitrust regulations, getting rid of monopolies and preventing new ones from forming.

具體來說，我指的是監管，尤其是反壟斷監管，消除壟斷，防止形成新的壟斷。

And our food supply system is absolutely f***ing riddled with monopolies, which means that it's not pure and simple supply and demand economics 101.

而我們的食品供應體系中絕對充斥著壟斷，這意味著這不是純粹而簡單的供求經濟學 101 條。

Because in those theories, which they are just theories on paper, by the way, the rest of us exist in the real world, and so we need to come up with real-world solutions.

因為在這些理論中，順便說一句，它們只是紙上談兵的理論，而我們其他人存在於現實世界中，所以我們需要提出現實世界的解決方案。

In those theories, there's also competition to keep supply and demand in check.

在這些理論中，還有競爭來控制供求關係。

When one company artificially lowers the supply to create scarcity with the hope that the high demand will mean they can charge more for their wares, another company can pop up and say, hey, we can produce these wares for cheaper and pass the savings on to the consumer.

當一家公司人為地降低供應量來製造稀缺性，希望高需求意味著他們可以對商品收取更高的價格時，另一家公司就會冒出來說，嘿，我們可以用更便宜的價格生產這些商品，並將節省下來的成本轉嫁給消費者。

But over the last 40 years, without the guardrails of antitrust legislation being effectively enforced, anytime that new company pops up with the promise of reasonable prices or higher quality products, the existing company can just buy them up.

但在過去的 40 年裡，由於沒有有效執行反壟斷法，只要有新公司冒出來，並承諾提供合理的價格或更高質量的產品，現有公司就可以將其收購。

So the competition that's supposed to keep everyone in check no longer exists, and they can do whatever they want to do.

是以，本應約束所有人的競爭不復存在，他們可以為所欲為。

And monopolies are bad everywhere, but they're especially egregious and sinister when the monopolies involve the things necessary for sustaining human life, like food and shelter.

壟斷在任何地方都是不好的，但當壟斷涉及到維持人類生活所必需的東西，比如食物和住所時，就顯得尤為惡劣和險惡。

Another common corporate apologist argument is that as inflation has gone up, so too have worker wages, and the cost of labor is just so high, you guys.

企業辯護者的另一個常見論點是，隨著通貨膨脹的加劇，工人工資也在上漲，勞動力成本實在太高了，夥計們。

They have to pass the expenses on to the consumers because our CEO needs $10 million so bad right now, you guys.

他們必須把費用轉嫁到消費者身上，因為我們的首席執行官現在急需 1 千萬美元，各位。

This despite raging income inequality, leaving CEOs with salaries 344 times higher than the typical worker as of 2022.

儘管收入不平等現象十分嚴重，到 2022 年，首席執行官的薪水將是普通工人的 344 倍。

For comparison, in 1965, CEOs made 21 times more than the typical worker.

相比之下，1965 年，首席執行官的收入是普通工人的 21 倍。

Since 1978, CEO compensation has gone up 1,209% compared with a 15.3% increase in the typical worker's compensation.

自 1978 年以來，首席執行官的薪酬增長了 1209%，而普通工人的薪酬只增長了 15.3%。

Since 1978.

自 1978 年起

According to the Economic Policy Institute, the overall economy would suffer no harm if CEOs were paid less or taxed more, and most workers would see gains.

根據經濟政策研究所的研究，如果首席執行官的薪酬降低或稅收增加，整體經濟將不會受到任何損害，大多數工人將獲得收益。

And I would venture a guess, most grocery store shoppers would also see price decreases at the checkout line.

我大膽猜測，大多數雜貨店購物者在結賬時也會看到價格下降。

And this is just one example of many I could throw at you, where we have it so incredibly twisted in America when it comes to businesses versus consumers, workers, and everyday people.

這只是我可以舉出的許多例子中的一個，在美國，當涉及到企業與消費者、工人和普通人的關係時，我們的情況是如此令人難以置信地扭曲。

The business is always seen as the victim.

企業總是被視為受害者。

These poor businesses, they can't handle the demands of increased wages.

這些可憐的企業，他們無法承受工資增長的要求。

Oh no, these poor businesses are victims of this global pandemic.

哦，不，這些可憐的企業是這場全球流行病的受害者。

Let's give them big handouts.

讓我們給他們大筆施捨吧。

And of course, I think small businesses do form and have formed the backbone of America.

當然，我認為小企業確實是美國的支柱。

The big businesses, though, always win in the end and always receive the greatest amount of governmental protection from being victims of paying their workers.

不過，大企業最終總是贏家，總是能得到最大程度的政府保護，免於成為支付工人工資的受害者。

Maybe this is radical and crazy of me to say, but if your business model doesn't include paying your workers a fair wage and it can't handle the financial stress of that expectation, maybe you have a sh** business model.

也許我這麼說有些偏激和瘋狂，但如果你的商業模式不包括支付給工人合理的工資，並且無法承受這種期望帶來的經濟壓力，那麼你的商業模式可能就很糟糕。

Or if the only way you can possibly pay your workers more is by buying out all your competition and breaking antitrust laws, yeah, that's a sh** business model, my dude.

或者說，如果你能給工人支付更多工資的唯一辦法就是收購所有競爭對手，違反反壟斷法，那麼這就是一種糟糕的商業模式，我的夥計。

You can't play by the rules. You're bad at the game.

你不能按規則玩遊戲。你不擅長遊戲

So instead, they just buy out our politicians to rewrite the rules or overlook the rules so they can pretend they're not really bad at the game that they're playing.

是以，他們只是收買我們的政客，讓他們改寫規則或忽略規則，這樣他們就可以假裝自己玩的遊戲並不差。

Your CEO doesn't need 20 million dollars.

你的首席執行官不需要 2000 萬美元。

That's a stupid business model.

這是一種愚蠢的商業模式。

It's driven by greed, not economic theory.

它的驅動力是貪婪，而不是經濟理論。

And when that greed affects everyday people's ability to get the basic things to sustain human life, that's when it becomes absolutely heinous.

而當這種貪婪影響到普通人獲取維持人類生活的基本物品時，它就變得絕對令人髮指了。

And that's where we're at with the food industry in America.

這就是美國食品工業的現狀。

It's so bad, you guys.

太糟糕了，夥計們

Our food system in this country is f***ed.

我們國家的食品系統已經完蛋了。

At every single level.

在每一個層面上。

Allow me to elaborate.

請允許我詳細說明一下。

A 2021 study by The Guardian showed the stark state of our food industry.

英國《衛報》在 2021 年進行的一項研究表明，我們的食品工業狀況令人觸目驚心。

They found that for 85% of the products that you see on your grocery store shelves, four corporations or fewer controlled more than 40% of the market share in each food category.

他們發現，你在雜貨店貨架上看到的 85% 的產品，都是由四家或四家以下的公司控制的，它們佔據了每個食品類別 40% 以上的市場份額。

For almost a third of shopping items, the top companies controlled at least 75% of the market share.

在近三分之一的購物商品中，排名靠前的公司控制了至少 75% 的市場份額。

So, for example, three companies own 73% of the market for breakfast cereals.

是以，舉例來說，三家公司擁有 73% 的早餐穀物食品市場。

That's General Mills, Kellogg, and Post.

這就是通用磨坊、凱洛格和郵政。

Three companies own 93% of the market for soda.

三家公司佔據了蘇打水市場 93% 的份額。

Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Keurig Dr. Pepper, which is all one company.

可口可樂、百事可樂和 Keurig Dr. Pepper 都是一家公司。

PepsiCo also owns 88% of the market share for dips, including Tostitos, Lay's, and Fritos.

百事公司還擁有 88% 的蘸醬市場份額，包括 Tostitos、Lay's 和 Fritos。

Those are all the same company.

這些都是同一家公司。

That's not competition.

這不是競爭。

For shoppers, it might seem like an overwhelming number of choices when you show up at the grocery store, but most of our favorite brands are actually owned by a handful of food giants, including the ones that I just listed, plus Kraft Heinz, General Mills, ConAgra, Unilever, and Del Monte.

對於購物者來說，當你出現在雜貨店時，可能會覺得選擇太多了，但實際上我們最喜歡的大多數品牌都屬於少數幾個食品巨頭，包括我剛才列出的這些品牌，以及卡夫亨氏、通用磨坊、康恩貝、聯合利華和德爾蒙特。

Because it's not just the major grocery stores that are forming monopolies and driving up prices, though they're doing that too, with the latest attempted merger between Albertsons and Kroger under heavy federal scrutiny and lawsuits.

因為形成壟斷和抬高價格的不僅僅是大型雜貨店，雖然它們也在這樣做，最近阿爾伯森（Albertsons）和克羅格（Kroger）之間的合併嘗試就受到了聯邦的嚴格審查和訴訟。

It's every step of the supply chain, from the people who grow our food, to the people who process it, to the stores that shelve it.

這是供應鏈的每一個環節，從種植食物的人到加工食物的人，再到將食物上架的商店。

Everything is getting monopolized by a few large corporations who are then vertically integrating, meaning they're buying out not only their competitors within, say, the grocery store industry, but also buying manufacturers, so they own the manufacturing processes as well, creating mega companies that have no competition at any level of the production or distribution process, and until recently, very little governmental oversight.

一切都被少數幾家大公司壟斷，而這些公司又在進行縱向整合，這意味著他們不僅要收購雜貨店等行業內的競爭對手，還要收購製造商，這樣他們就擁有了生產流程，從而創造出在生產或分銷流程的任何層面都沒有競爭的巨型公司，而直到最近，政府的監督還很少。

And so they can raise prices while lowering quality and health and worker pay and raking in millions or billions of dollars in revenue and increasing their margins, while the rest of us struggle under the weight of grocery bills that for some people doubled or more in the last few years.

是以，他們可以在提高價格的同時，降低品質、健康水準和工人工資，並獲得數百萬或數十億美元的收入，增加他們的利潤率，而我們其他人卻在食品雜費的重壓下掙扎，有些人的食品雜費在過去幾年裡增加了一倍或更多。

That also means that farmers, what few are left, are at the mercy of giant corporations that own all manufacturing and sales funnels and are able to dictate what farmers can grow and how much money they can make.

這也意味著，農民（所剩無幾）只能任由巨頭公司擺佈，這些公司擁有所有的生產和銷售管道，能夠決定農民能種什麼，能賺多少錢。

Only 15 cents of every dollar you spend at the grocery store goes to the people who grow the food.

您在雜貨店所花的每一美元中，只有 15 美分是給種植糧食的人的。

The rest goes to the people who process it and market it to us, which means not only are we paying higher prices at the grocery store checkout line that are artificially marked up by megacorporations that answer to no one, it also means that our tax dollars are going to the federal farm subsidies that keep our farmers afloat because these same megacorporations are able to dictate the prices of agricultural products.

這不僅意味著我們在雜貨店結賬時要支付更高的價格，而這些價格是由不對任何人負責的大公司人為抬高的，還意味著我們的稅款被用於聯邦農業補貼，而這些補貼使我們的農民得以維持生計，因為這些大公司能夠左右農產品的價格。

Farmers received $424.4 billion in subsidies between 1995 and 2020, of which 49% were for just three crops, corn, wheat, and soybeans.

1995 年至 2020 年間，農民獲得了 4244 億美元的補貼，其中 49% 的補貼僅用於玉米、小麥和大豆三種作物。

Corn subsidies are the largest by far, and yet very little corn grown in the U.S.

玉米補貼是迄今為止最大的補貼，但美國卻很少種植玉米。

is eaten in its original form by us these days.

我們現在吃的都是原汁原味的。

Instead, more than 99% goes into animal feed, additives like corn syrup, and ethanol, which produces toxic air pollutants when burned with gasoline.

相反，超過 99% 的乙醇被用於動物飼料、玉米糖漿等添加劑，以及與汽油一起燃燒時產生有毒空氣汙染物的乙醇。

And don't even get me started on the environmental degradation we all must live with on this planet because of the horrific effects monocropping, fertilizer, and livestock has on our land, water, and air, all egged on by the megacorporations that control our food system from farm to grocery store.