4 ms·

> The spectre of famine ended in the US around 1800 with free market agriculture I'm not sure how you define "famine", but many people have been malnourished s

> The spectre of famine ended in the US around 1800 with free market agriculture I'm not sure how you define "famine", but many people have been malnourished since; some are right now AFAIK. Think of the Great Depression, for example, for a much greater scale problem. I would bet some have starved. But most of all, any research you have would be appreciated; I feel like everyone, including me, is a bit naked out here.

WalterBright 10y ago
One objective way is to look at average height, which increased throughout the 19th century in the US, and increased in other countries when they adopted free market agriculture. Height is a good proxy for having sufficient nutritious food.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > One objective way is to look at average height, which increased throughout the 19th century in the US, and increased in other countries when they adopted free market agriculture. Height is a good proxy for having sufficient nutritious food. An insightful way to look at it; thanks. However, the question at hand isn't about the average, but the low end: Was there malnutrition or starvation? Yes, there was and is. EDIT: See this post for some numbers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13298775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13298775 I'm not debating whether free market food works very well for 90% in wealthy countries (just a guess at a number) and far better than whatever was done in the 18th century, but that doesn't mean we should call it sufficient or the 'best of all possible worlds'. If millions (tens of millions?) of people in wealthy countries and (hundreds of millions? billions?) in other countries are not getting sufficient food, that's failure - just less failure than we experienced before.
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    Compare free market food production with any other system. Starvation in the world is in countries without free market agriculture.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      I don't get the impression that you read my comment.

WalterBright 10y ago

One objective way is to look at average height, which increased throughout the 19th century in the US, and increased in other countries when they adopted free market agriculture. Height is a good proxy for having sufficient nutritious food.

hackuser 10y ago
> One objective way is to look at average height, which increased throughout the 19th century in the US, and increased in other countries when they adopted free market agriculture. Height is a good proxy for having sufficient nutritious food. An insightful way to look at it; thanks. However, the question at hand isn't about the average, but the low end: Was there malnutrition or starvation? Yes, there was and is. EDIT: See this post for some numbers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13298775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13298775 I'm not debating whether free market food works very well for 90% in wealthy countries (just a guess at a number) and far better than whatever was done in the 18th century, but that doesn't mean we should call it sufficient or the 'best of all possible worlds'. If millions (tens of millions?) of people in wealthy countries and (hundreds of millions? billions?) in other countries are not getting sufficient food, that's failure - just less failure than we experienced before.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  Compare free market food production with any other system. Starvation in the world is in countries without free market agriculture.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    I don't get the impression that you read my comment.