4 ms·
This is true as is the nature of "food deserts" in the poorer neighbors, at least where I live – there are higher concentrations of convenience stores, drive-th
by basilgohar 4y ago
This is true as is the nature of "food deserts" in the poorer neighbors, at least where I live – there are higher concentrations of convenience stores, drive-thrus, and gas stations that feature items like tobacco products, alcohol, and lottery tickets that similarly exploit the local populations impulse purchases and eat up what little income they earn from two or more low-paying jobs.
It's viciously cyclical and those sin-taxed items all promote bad habits, harm physical, mental, and spiritual health, and perpetuate check-to-check living and discourage savings. It makes sense to me because many folks in these communities rely on public transit and/or walk to where they need to go, so they buy from what's available.
This is the dark side of liberty where we see that people do not always choose the best options from those available to them when impulse buys are offered , or sometimes, there is far less to choose from for certain populations to begin with.
I recognize I'm oversimplifying and probably have committed more than a few gross stereotypical statements, but I am distressed to see the conditions in a lot of these neighbors, not for me, but because of what I imagine it must be like for a lot of folks who don't have the same opportunities to rise up simply due to the circumstances of their birth.
There is absolutely no good in the lottery and it should be abolished. Any alleged good for education or other programs is more than countered by the harm it does to the lower income populations. Education should be paid for from taxes, and just raise taxes if necessary. My guess is that the money that comes from lotteries don't usually end-up benefiting that much.
- pm90 4y agoHonestly its so much wasted human capacity. Its not even the case that we don’t have enough: there’s enough food to adequately feed everyone. Its a logistical problem and when markets are left to their own they will obviously lead to situations where only the cheapest products win out (not the most nutritious).
- landemva 4y ago> lead to situations where only the cheapest products win out (not the most nutritious). Vending machine owners stock what sells. People vote with their dollars and their attention. We are free to choose what we eat, and free to throw out the TV. Most enjoy watching the 'breaking news' propaganda rather than putting in some effort to cook a simple meal at home. Your body, your choice.
- cercatrova 4y agoSometimes, but not always, top down approaches are more efficient and lead to better outcomes than bottom up approaches.
- landemva 4y agoTop down means government control - socialism, at best.
- cercatrova 4y agoSocialism is when workers control the means of production. That's not really the case in this example. Top down also doesn't mean government control. Corporations are driven top down, from a CEO down to the subordinates at each layer. Given a defining goal, they can be very efficient. If each subordinate was supposed to figure out what to do, it's not very efficient or effective.
- easrng 4y agoNo no no, socialism is when the government does things! This is basic knowledge here...
- landemva 4y agoDoes this fit better with present discussion: Top down government control of individual's food choices.
- cercatrova 4y agoSounds good to me, as long as it creates positive effects. There is nothing wrong with banning sugar laden foods if we know they will cause obesity, for example.
- tcptomato 4y agoYou say it like it's something bad. Or are you for the abolishment of the FDA?
- WalterBright 4y ago> This is the dark side of liberty where we see that people do not always choose the best options Most evil in the world is done by people who know what is best for everyone else, and forces it on them.
- mrguyorama 4y agoWhat strong evidence do you have for this thought terminating cliche?
- WalterBright 4y ago1. The sales pitch they use to sell people on supporting them. 2. Every person who wants to code their morality into law. How about all those people who thought it ok to exterminate anyone who wouldn't convert to their religion? It just goes on and on.
- bitshiftfaced 4y ago> that similarly exploit the local populations impulse purchases and eat up what little income they earn from two or more low-paying jobs. I don't understand this. What's special about this population? Should you not be able to make impulse purchases based off of your income level?
- bobkazamakis 4y agois your argument that impulse purchases at dollar general that hemmorage money out of the local economy are good because they are poor?
- bitshiftfaced 4y agoI'm trying to understand why we would have a view other than neutral when it comes to whether people have the ability to spend their own money on impulse items or otherwise.