5 ms·

> All those arguments also apply to food production. But that's a free market, and does rather well. I disagree; it does poorly: Poor people in the U.S., the

> All those arguments also apply to food production. But that's a free market, and does rather well. I disagree; it does poorly: Poor people in the U.S., the richest country in the history of the world, need subsidies (such as food stamps) to have enough to eat, and even then often can't afford healthy food. I read awhile ago that over 50% of children in U.S. public schools needed subsidized lunches (but my memory is hazy, so it might be that over 50% came from families that used food stamps or something similar; sorry I'm too lazy to look it up). Despite there being enough food and money in the world to feed everyone, people still starve and others are malnourished in many places. At least some researchers attribute the Arab Spring to increased food prices, as a proxy indicator of the impact (again, too busy to look up the data). > Yes, I know there are agricultural subsidies. It's not a perfect free market. Agreed, and there are other distortions besides agricultural subsidies, esp. when it comes to international trade. I don't know enough about that market to characterize it.

WalterBright 10y ago
Food could be free and there'd still be malnourishment. It's necessary to look at a bigger picture when looking at the overall performance.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > Food could be free and there'd still be malnourishment. It's necessary to look at a bigger picture when looking at the overall performance. Hmmm ... I'm talking about the whole economic system of production and distribution, the 'free market' (or whatever it is), so I agree with the second statement - I wouldn't throw the whole thing out, but it needs to be supplemented. It doesn't seem like much defense of the current system that radically changing one element of it, the price, won't achieve a perfect outcome (and I frankly doubt you mean it that way but I don't want to speak for you). You seem strongly attached to the free market concept - what if another system worked better? What's more important, the people or the economic system which feeds them? To be fair: I strongly support a 'free market' as a great tool for a great many use cases, but it's not a universal tool or panacea and it's not the goal; it's merely the means - my favorite one in the toolbox. ---- Happy New Year Walter!
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    > You seem strongly attached to the free market concept - what if another system worked better? None has yet, not even close. And it's not for lack of trying other systems. Me, I'm familiar enough with history to be disinterested in trying other schemes and risking mass starvation. Keep in mind that Kansas in the 80s was known as the "Breadbasket of the Soviet Union". See "Ronald Reagan" by Broussard.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      You didn't answer the question - not that you are on the witness stand, of course. Many, maybe not you, seem to be much more interested in the ideology and forget about the people. There is not much interest in the 'details' - serious questions about, and thought and attention to, how real people are really faring. Some even sacrifice real people to their ideology; they defend the ideology at all costs, not the people.

WalterBright 10y ago

Food could be free and there'd still be malnourishment. It's necessary to look at a bigger picture when looking at the overall performance.

hackuser 10y ago
> Food could be free and there'd still be malnourishment. It's necessary to look at a bigger picture when looking at the overall performance. Hmmm ... I'm talking about the whole economic system of production and distribution, the 'free market' (or whatever it is), so I agree with the second statement - I wouldn't throw the whole thing out, but it needs to be supplemented. It doesn't seem like much defense of the current system that radically changing one element of it, the price, won't achieve a perfect outcome (and I frankly doubt you mean it that way but I don't want to speak for you). You seem strongly attached to the free market concept - what if another system worked better? What's more important, the people or the economic system which feeds them? To be fair: I strongly support a 'free market' as a great tool for a great many use cases, but it's not a universal tool or panacea and it's not the goal; it's merely the means - my favorite one in the toolbox. ---- Happy New Year Walter!
- WalterBright 10y ago
  > You seem strongly attached to the free market concept - what if another system worked better? None has yet, not even close. And it's not for lack of trying other systems. Me, I'm familiar enough with history to be disinterested in trying other schemes and risking mass starvation. Keep in mind that Kansas in the 80s was known as the "Breadbasket of the Soviet Union". See "Ronald Reagan" by Broussard.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    You didn't answer the question - not that you are on the witness stand, of course. Many, maybe not you, seem to be much more interested in the ideology and forget about the people. There is not much interest in the 'details' - serious questions about, and thought and attention to, how real people are really faring. Some even sacrifice real people to their ideology; they defend the ideology at all costs, not the people.