Third World children starve, suffer stunted growth, First World children suffer obesi

[AvanteRedGarde]

Third World children starve, suffer stunted growth, First World children suffer obesity


(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)


According to a new UNICEF report, 200 million children under 5 in poor countries have stunted growth due to insufficient nutrition. Of the 200 million, almost 90 percent live in Asia and Africa. Almost a third of deaths in that age group are linked to undernutrition.


In Asia as a whole, the stunted growth rate is 30 percent. The situation in South Asia is especially bleak with Afghanistan, Nepal, India, Bangladesh and Pakistan accounting for 83 million hungry children under five. In Africa, the rate is 43 percent.


The vast majority of those who suffer insufficient nutrition reside in the Third World. By contrast, children in the First World suffer problems of consuming too much food. For example, according to the Surgeon General, 12.5 million children, 17 percent , in the US suffer from obesity. These children also suffer health issues, but they are health issues related to overconsumption. In addition, First World children also have become less physically active. Physical activity has declined in the US. According to one study, 20 percent of youth from 9 to 13 years old engaged in no physical activity outside of school. Similar results have been reported in other First World countries.


Children who suffer stunted growth suffer related ailments their whole lives. Under capitalism-imperialism, 200 million children in the Third World have their futures stolen from them. A billion go hungry every day, mostly in Third World. By contrast, children in the First World grow overweight and inactive.


Capitalism produces for the market, not for human needs. Capitalism divides countries into the First and Third Worlds, with little in between. A few countries grow wealthy at the expense of the majority. Socialism will turn the tables. According to studies, enough food is produced so that hunger and undernutrition could easily be wiped out with proper food distribution. Under socialism, access to adequate nutrition will be a basic human right.


Sources:


1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091111/ap_on_he_me (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091111/ap_on_he_me/eu_med_nutrition_report;_ylt=AjUkpaoBeiVgjl3j5np6j T3VJRIF;_ylu=X3oDMTJvaTlpZGRkBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxM TExL2V1X21lZF9udXRyaXRpb25fcmVwb3J0BGNwb3MDMwRwb3M DOARzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawN1bnNheXNodW5nZXI-)
/eu_med_nutrition_report;_ylt=AjUkpaoBeiVgjl3j5np6j T3VJRIF;_ylu=X3oDMTJvaTlpZGRkBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxM TExL2V1X21lZF9udXRyaXRpb25fcmVwb3J0BGNwb3MDMwRwb3M DOARzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawN1bnNheXNodW5nZXI- (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091111/ap_on_he_me/eu_med_nutrition_report;_ylt=AjUkpaoBeiVgjl3j5np6j T3VJRIF;_ylu=X3oDMTJvaTlpZGRkBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxM TExL2V1X21lZF9udXRyaXRpb25fcmVwb3J0BGNwb3MDMwRwb3M DOARzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawN1bnNheXNodW5nZXI-)


2. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/obesityprevention/index.html


3. http://www.fitness.gov/enewsletter/fall2008/featurearticle.html


4. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/8/419


5. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/amerikans-first-worlders-waste-food-third-worlders-starve/

[danyboy27]

and your point is?

[Jimmie Higgins]

A few countries grow wealthy at the expense of the majority.
Yes, this is true, but the working class of the so-called first world is not growing wealthy and fat at the expense of the so-called third world... if this is what you were implying.

Obesity in the US (and health problems connected to it) is primarily a problem for working class people and the especially the working poor and people in urban ghettos and rural areas. There is over-consumption, but this is also due to the poor quality of cheap food; soda and sugar-water drinks are much cheaper than juice or milk for example. So if you are eating cheap food with little nutritional value as well as sugary food, you end up being hungry more often because your body is still craving nutrients.

A telling sign of the connection between poverty and fatty food is that during this economic crisis, McDonald's sales and stocks have increased.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/17/mcdonalds-recession-stock-intelligent-investing_0217_mcdonalds.html

As you said above - capitalism is not interested in human needs - this is equally true for lack of food in some regions while poor quality food is pushed on workers in other regions. Food consumed by most workers in the US is designed not for taste or nutrition but in the interests of higher profits through shipping (mass-produced food with a long shelf life) and cheap production.

Quality food in the US is marketed as a luxury item. The middle class (as in well paid professionals) and the rich eat much better quality food and jump onto fads like the "slow food movement" or "local food movement" and so on. Most workers have neither the time, money, or access to these things.

[ls]

First-world children should be purged, all of them duh, that's what he's implying.

[Jimmie Higgins]

First-world children should be purged, all of them duh, that's what he's implying. Thank god that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger cut the school food program for low-income children. Fat little oppressors!



...or should I say fat little Khalifornian girlie-children.

[Bud Struggle]

Obesity in the US (and health problems connected to it) is primarily a problem for working class people and the especially the working poor and people in urban ghettos and rural areas. There is over-consumption, but this is also due to the poor quality of cheap food; soda and sugar-water drinks are much cheaper than juice or milk for example. So if you are eating cheap food with little nutritional value as well as sugary food, you end up being hungry more often because your body is still craving nutrients.


I don't think that this is all the fault of the Evil Capitalists. There are plenty of low cost healthy foods available to everyone in America. One has to take the time thought to find them and prepair them. Cooking well thought out well balanced meals is a art that has moved from the lower callses to the upper classes with the availability of fast foods.

The rich cook as a hobby, and teach their children that hobby. The problem is that cooking is an activity taught for the most part exclusively by the parents and is somewhat time consuming. Unfortunately in lower class homes the lack of generational teaching coupled with the lack of time for parents to cook (especially in single family households) makes cooking good healthy foods difficult for a lot of parents.

[Robert]

I'm not buying this "class" explanation (do you guys see everything through the prism of class struggle??? -- jeez!), not one bit. There are plenty of fat middle class kids who spend too much time on the X-Box. It's their relative wealth that keeps their pantries and fridges filled with pizza, soda, and Hostess cupcakes, not their poverty. And don't say anything bad about those cupcakes. They are mahvelous. At 181 calories (they always come 2 to a pack), they'd better be.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:nPkBB3GcOPHVkM:http://www.lifestarringellieandeve.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/hostess-cupcakes1.jpg

[Demogorgon]

Obesity is rarely a sign of affluence.

[Bitter Ashes]

Same reason why working class teenagers are more likely to get pregnant, or drunk on a street corner. They're bored and unlike the bourgeois-spawn, they dont have the cash in thier pocket to go out bowling, or the cinema, or laser quest, or whatever it is that rich kids do to pass the time. Getting a bit of pleasure from some cheap and nasty nasty nasty McDonald's is about as far as the budget will stretch.

There also used to be a lot of sports clubs around this area that kids used to go play 5-a-side or hockey and stuff and it was publicly funded, but it all got closed down years ago. Strange co-incidence that when kids had nowhere to go, they started appearing on street corners with bottles of cider and the Daily Mail threw a fit. Not suprisingly, the loss of sports clubs also meant a decrease in health.

You cant kick a ball around anywhere anymore. Every inch of turf in most inner cities is either strictly not for ball games, or is a construction site. Heaven help the kids who try use a carpark or something to excersise in. Thanks to the Daily Mail's campaign of hate against the young, the police are called whenever they show up there. Plus, of course the cars of the rich twats who can afford to run one are guarded well.

Leave some land for the kids and get the sports clubs running again (on public money!) and you'll see youth obesity vanish almost overnight. It may even put them off the gangs for a few more years too, until they realise that there's no hope in hell of making a living legaly, but that's another story. All of this is totaly 100% incompatible with neo-liberatarianism, which goes totaly for the doctorine of stop funding everything on public money, sell public land to capitalists, take a service to the community and warping it into a buisness. Charity may be able to pick up some of the pieces, but it wont be enough. Capitalism's gotta go.

As for the starvation in the 3rd world. That's down to capitalism again. The world produces 3 times more food than it could ever eat. It's all wasted though in the name of profitability. More profitable to have it rotting on a shelf in TESCO than given away to those in need. Also more profitable to destroy crops in South America than to ship it to Europe or North America, or even to sell it localy (It raises prices in Europe/North America). Practices like these are utter evil and done callously in the name of profits and we have a system in place that means that even if some bourgeois rebelled and did the right thing, they'd become unprofitable and out of buisness quickly before they'd done too much "damage" to capitalist markets.

[IcarusAngel]

The people in the first world absolutely are contributing to the devastation of the third world. Many third world countries, like Haiti, a staring island, shipes as much food to the US as they consume.

Free-market 'reforms' have devastated the third world while they have propped up first world countries. They would have been better off if they had been allowed to develop the social democracies that they wanted, so that they could use the resources for their own gain.

The mass hunger in the third world is another failure of neo-liberalism.

[IcarusAngel]

Check out the book 'Bowling Alone.'

It's not only that our publicly funded parks are going down hill, it's also that Americans are propagandized into a sort of 'individualism' where you remove yourself from all cooperative aspects and submit yourselves to corporate rule (like working two or three or even four jobs just so you can have more flat screen TVs, DVD players, etc.). It's called consumerism and it's another victory for 'market capitalism.'

Of course kids aren't playing baseball etc. when their parents and schools aren't teaching them.

People in America still join 'groups,' but they're more likely to be religion on sunday, because people do not know how to alleviate all of their private fears, political frustration, etc. in the absence of a vibrant democracy.

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22605

[Ele'ill]

It would be a curious situation getting pregnant on a street corner. :lol:


When you have generation upon generation of working poor stretched thin of time you likely have a breakdown in guidance for the future generations (and it goes way beyond competent parenting)

When looking for guidance and inspiration while surrounded and bombarded by symbols of addiction being passed off as normal you end up fucked. Everything from alcohol in every corner store to fast food. Then you have to deal with drugs and crime. Influential figures (and marketing teams) telling people what's important without any way for these target demographics to explore and figure out what they actually enjoy doing. (or should be doing)

With no where to go they have to buy it. Literally.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Someone mentioned that poor people do not have the time to cook healthy food, as it often takes time to learn, etc, and fast food is cheap. While this is surely a sign of the commodification of diet, I don't see how this forms a basis of antagonism for First World so-called workers against imperialism.

Moreover, I would argue that obesity, like lawns and the prevalence industries in which tipping is customary are indicative of the bourgeoisification of the FW worker. Ech of these attributes (obesity, a lawn, and utilizing a service in which a tip is offered) were literally reserved for the bourgeosie into the early 1900's. Now it is normal for Amerikans. And while the Californian governor is cutting the buget for school lunches to overweight children, starvation is still the norm in the thrid world.

[Drace]

I don't think that this is all the fault of the Evil Capitalists. There are plenty of low cost healthy foods available to everyone in America. One has to take the time thought to find them and prepair them. Cooking well thought out well balanced meals is a art that has moved from the lower callses to the upper classes with the availability of fast foods.

The rich cook as a hobby, and teach their children that hobby. The problem is that cooking is an activity taught for the most part exclusively by the parents and is somewhat time consuming. Unfortunately in lower class homes the lack of generational teaching coupled with the lack of time for parents to cook (especially in single family households) makes cooking good healthy foods difficult for a lot of parents.

The obesidty problem in America is capitalism's fault for profit driven businesses. It has always been Mcdonalds motivation for example to get more people to eat its shit.

Losing weight and eating healthy ironically became popular only as the result of the obesity capitalism itself created. Once it got everyone to be fat, companies saw how it could profit off advertising healthy foods, training videos, pills, and whatever else aimed at obese people that want to lose weight.

The real problem though is the poverty capitalism created in third world countries, which you ignored...

[Mo212]

I don't think that this is all the fault of the Evil Capitalists. There are plenty of low cost healthy foods available to everyone in America. One has to take the time thought to find them and prepair them. Cooking well thought out well balanced meals is a art that has moved from the lower callses to the upper classes with the availability of fast foods.

I do think it is the fault of evil capitalists since they hire chemists to specifically engineer food to be addictive to increase profits, this is especially so with processed food. If we could reverse time and ban unhealthy foods from becoming available, many of our problems wouldn't be as prevalent. Unhealthy, engineered and processed food has to be advertised and available on shelves otherwise people will eventually be forced to take what is available (the healthy food).

It's not so much capitalism as the desire to engineer food increase profits that is evil here, since not all capitalists are the same (i.e. I'm sure there are many as parents who are appalled by all the junk that is advertised).

When you begin to study neurology and related systems like hunger and digestion you gain a new appreciation for how you can engineer addictive behaviour.

In the real world "free will" is subject to the laws of chemistry and neurology.

[#FF0000]

Moreover, I would argue that obesity, like lawns and the prevalence industries in which tipping is customary are indicative of the bourgeoisification of the FW worker. Ech of these attributes (obesity, a lawn, and utilizing a service in which a tip is offered) were literally reserved for the bourgeosie into the early 1900's. Now it is normal for Amerikans. And while the Californian governor is cutting the buget for school lunches to overweight children, starvation is still the norm in the thrid world.

And having decent clothes used to be a priviliege reserved for the nobility in the middle ages, so we must all be kings.

[Robert]

Once it got everyone to be fat, companies saw how it could profit off advertising healthy foods, training videos, pills, and whatever else aimed at obese people that want to lose weight.

Well, one out of two ain't bad.:)

[Bud Struggle]

Well, one out of two ain't bad.:)

Whew, we Capitalist are freakin' smart aren't we! :D

Look, no one is forced to eat anything they don't want to. This is a matter of parental responsibility for children and self control for adults. It's not all that difficult, but people have to take responsibility for their own lives to an extent. It's pretty well out there that a diet of Big Macs is unhealthy and that veggies are good for you. If people aren't interested in doing what's best for them--should the STATE Big Brother them into doing what's best? The choices are out there--people have to decide for themselves on how to live.

This all becomes confusing--are the Proletarians that are going to govern themselves in Soviets or Anarchy after the Revolution the same Proletarians that can't say no to a Big Mac today?

[RGacky3]

Look, no one is forced to eat anything they don't want to. This is a matter of parental responsibility for children and self control for adults. It's not all that difficult, but people have to take responsibility for their own lives to an extent. It's pretty well out there that a diet of Big Macs is unhealthy and that veggies are good for you. If people aren't interested in doing what's best for them--should the STATE Big Brother them into doing what's best? The choices are out there--people have to decide for themselves on how to live.

This all becomes confusing--are the Proletarians that are going to govern themselves in Soviets or Anarchy after the Revolution the same Proletarians that can't say no to a Big Mac today?

I understand that, its easy to talk about responsibility, however a lot lot less discipline is required of the wealthy, and a lot lot more is required of the poor, of coarse things are possible, but you have to look at things from a societal stand point, when someone is working 2 jobs, sometimes its very hard to have the time and extra money to buy health foods, and prepare 4 heathy meals a day.

What Capitlaists alwasy inply is that the ruling class is somehow the more "responsible" calss or somehow the "smarter" class, and that poor people are just not "responsible' or whatever or dont try enough. Which is rediculous, when everything is supporitng the capitalist calss while nothing is supporting the lower classes.

The fact is also, in poor places, unhealthy food is more profitable because its easier to mass produce, whereas in rich places, you can afford healthier foods because people have the money and time for it. Its the market :).


There are plenty of fat middle class kids who spend too much time on the X-Box. It's their relative wealth that keeps their pantries and fridges filled with pizza, soda, and Hostess cupcakes, not their poverty. And don't say anything bad about those cupcakes. They are mahvelous. At 181 calories (they always come 2 to a pack), they'd better be.


Thats also true, obesity is not THAT class oriented.

[#FF0000]

This all becomes confusing--are the Proletarians that are going to govern themselves in Soviets or Anarchy after the Revolution the same Proletarians that can't say no to a Big Mac today?

No, they're the ones that can't afford healthy food or simply just don't have the time between work and their other responsibilities to cook or learn to cook.

[Ele'ill]

No, they're the ones that can't afford healthy food or simply just don't have the time between work and their other responsibilities to cook or learn to cook.


So post revolution they're going to avoid all the bad things that they could scarcely afford but which had a subtle (and false) pleasantness to them (like drugs, alcohol, bad food, shopping and drive bys) and take up an interest in culinary arts?




I think the main issue ISN'T self control, it IS to an extent responsible parenting (and education in school), but mainly a lack of resources. The healthy stuff is more expensive, further away from the lower income neighborhoods and few and far between. How many liquor and wings places are on a street here in philly vs actual grocery stores? How does peer pressure affect what you do after school and how does this affect where you shop, how you live and how you turn into an adult with responsible habits?

Who could benefit from a lack of parenting, lack of time, apathy towards health and being an easily influenced demographic?

Should these people and groups (businesses) be allowed to exacerbate an already rampant problem?

Maybe their business practices are shitty only because there isn't anything else (education and community centers) to balance it out but I tend to think of these businesses as predatory.

I do think there is enough evidence to allow government intervention although I can't imagine how or what that would entail but I can imagine it making things worse. I don't think we need another government program to try and die It really has to start at the ground level and work up.

[#FF0000]

So post revolution they're going to avoid all the bad things that they could scarcely afford but which had a subtle (and false) pleasantness to them (like drugs, alcohol, bad food, shopping and drive bys) and take up an interest in culinary arts?

My point ------> ***



Your head -----> \o/

[Ele'ill]

My point ------> ***



Your head -----> \o/

No, I think your point was more significant than three asterisks....






















Maybe four.

[Bud Struggle]

My point ------> ***



Your head -----> \o/


No Love, she bod-a-binged you. IN ANY society people ultimately have to take responsibility for themselves. You can blame things that are out of your control on others, e.g. poverty in the 3rd world, but you can't make bad choices--no matter how difficult, on others.

There has to be a point where a parent--if they are a good parent--says "enough McDonalds, let's cook dinner tonight." If you don't want an Orwellian post Revolutionary society people have to take charge of their own lives.

Trust me on this--there will be as many people post Revolution as pre Revolution that have an interest in running you life the way THEY want it run.

Be careful.

[#FF0000]

No Love, she bad-a-binged you. IN ANY society people ultimately have to take responsibility for themselves. You can blame things that are out of your control on others, e.g. poverty in the 3rd world, but you can't make bad choices--no matter how difficult, on others.

No she didn't. She responded to a point that I never made.

A socialist revolution isn't going to immediately alleviate all the problems associated with capitalism and being on the bottom rung of the class system. People who have lived with poverty are likely going to hang on to old habits for awhile like the pack-rat mentality, escapism, learned helplessness...etc.

I don't disagree with that. Habits you get in life, while not permanent, can be tough to get rid of and people aren't going to make great choices all of the time.

Of course I never said anything related to that in my post. I said that being poor makes it hard to eat healthy, and since a lot of people have multiple jobs and other responsibilities, it can be hard to find time to cook, too.

To be honest this whole perspective is sort of alien to me-- people thinking that money and food are totally unrelated and that living with the uncertainty and pressure of poverty for a long time. has nothing to do with people opting for instant gratification and making poor decisions for their long-term situaton.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I don't see why this problem has to be ONLY about capitalism or class or personal choice, surely it's all of those things?

For example, a working class single-parent gets home from a day at work and it's easier to get the children a McDonald's than to cook a meal. Not her fault, just the situation she's in.

In another family the parents don't really cook and so no one has taught the children and it hasn't become a habit like in other families. They're used to unhealthy, fattening foods and are stuck in a cycle.

A boy only wants to eat burgers every day because he likes the taste more than any other food. The parents have enough money to get other foods, but the child refuses to eat fruit & vegetables. Parents let their child do what he wants to do.

Junk food and fast food chains specifically target people on a lower income. Foods are made with chemicals that are designed to make the foods more addictive so people keep eating them.

Obviously everyone in a society has to take some degree of responsibility for their actions, but there are so many different factors and situations.

Also, if capitalism's main interest wasn't profit, it wouldn't be overproducing food. There needs to be a massive redistribution of wealth and resources to even out the gap between third and first world countries. Any society that has one country where someone can't get out of bed due to obesity and another that has children dying from starvation, isn't a society that's functioning properly.

[Bud Struggle]

To be honest this whole perspective is sort of alien to me-- people thinking that money and food are totally unrelated and that living with the uncertainty and pressure of poverty for a long time. has nothing to do with people opting for instant gratification and making poor decisions for their long-term situaton.

OK sorry, I shouldn't have made it personal about your point or hers--it was a jumping off point about me saying that there has GOT to be personal responsibility in life no matter what social and economic climate is in control. You just can't EVER trust people to do what's best for you or your family. Communist, Capitalist or Feudal.

You have to make those decisions for yourself.

[Ele'ill]

OK sorry, I shouldn't have made it personal about your point or hers--it was a jumping off point about me saying that there has GOT to be personal responsibility in life no matter what social and economic climate is in control. You just can't EVER trust people to do what's best for you or your family. Communist, Capitalist or Feudal.

You have to make those decisions for yourself.


I agree with you- and a lot of community organizing support goes towards educating people about hidden dangerous but even more importantly it gives them the courage to challenge everything in their community. They have the right to make decisions and a lot of people are so down trodden and beaten up they forget this.

We should not tolerate business competition that begins to affect entire groups of people adversely. This meshes into the issues of advertising and what is and isn't appropriate. Should they be allowed to target our children with socially unacceptable million dollar ad campaigns backed by 6 figure teams of market researches, psychologists and lawyers? When is it too much?

When does the support for hooking people in (to an addiction) out match the support for getting people out or making their lives livable (in America as well as the global south) When do corporate rights become more important than life?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I just read that 49.1 million people in the US could not get enough food to eat (leaving aside the quality of food). That's almost 15% of the population and that's the government's numbers and doesn't include people who've fallen through the gaps, so the reality is probably much higher.

You really need to either be completely ignorant of what life is like for most workers here, buy into the myths that the ruling class tells us about happy US workers, or are doing some incredible ideological gymnastics in order for reality to fit your impressionistic 3rd worldview theories if you believe that US workers benefit or are somehow bought-off by the "good life" here.


Someone mentioned that poor people do not have the time to cook healthy food, as it often takes time to learn, etc, and fast food is cheap. While this is surely a sign of the commodification of diet, I don't see how this forms a basis of antagonism for First World so-called workers against imperialism.

You are making a straw-man. The right-wingers here said that workers in the US eat poorly because they don't know how to cook. My argument is that we get shit-food that is full of sugar and mass produced to make cheep profits rather than give people the tastes and nutrition they need. It's not a plot, it's about being cost-effective and how the priorities of capitalism have no interest in health or other human needs. Additionally, work hours have increased over the last generation and many families with 2 parents went from a 1 income household to 2 income households in order keep up with rising prices and stagnating wages - this means that families with 2 working parents have no time to make a full meal from scratch if their kids want to eat before 9 pm.

On top of all that most urban areas inhabited by the working-poor only have liquor stores, not grocery stores. As neighborhood markets have been replaced by large corporate stores, grocery stores have moved further away from where the working poor live.


I would argue that obesity, like lawns and the prevalence industries in which tipping is customary are indicative of the bourgeoisification of the FW worker.And your argumet would be wrong to a crazy degree. If you had been frozed in a cave since 1972, I could understand how you might hold some of these ideas, but to argue that a country which has experienced a Victorian level of inequality since the 1990s is seeing a "bourgeoiseification" of a working class that has unions under attack and stagnating living standards is INSANE!

How great it is to have a lawn outside your home... which was JUST FORECLOSED!:rolleyes:

In the US working class, the trend since the 70s has been the prolitarization of even PROFESSIONAL workers. Doctors in the US get paid less and see more patients than in places liek the UK or they did in the past in the US. Teachers are having their unions busted AS WE SPEAK in the US. And for non-professionals, the working class, this process has been going on for much longer.


And while the Californian governor is cutting the buget for school lunches to overweight children, starvation is still the norm in the thrid world.Also the Gov. of California is cutting lunch programs for ALL children not obese children.

Now, good food, fresh food, exercise, leisure time to work-out or go for walks or jogs are concerns of Yuppies and the rich in the US. Fatness and inactivity may have been a sign of wealth in the Victorian age, but these days, if you go to Beverly Hills or rich neighborhoods in San Francisco, you will see dozens of people jogging or doing yoga in the middle of the afternoon and talking about their special diets and exotic ingredients.

Healthy food is the most popular fad of the rich in the US right now... they even have a name: "foodies".

The working class in the US has the same interests in seeing the end of a harful system just like people in other countries weather or not other workers have higher or lower living standards at any given moment. US workers have a class interest in seeing the end to imperialism if just for the fact that billions being spent on the US imperial power means that there is no money for schools, a national healthcare system, infrastructure and so on.

Your third worldist politics are a relic - there is no such thing as "guns and butter" for US workers, no social safty net or job security to supposedly be "bought-off" with. I suggest you read up on some basic Marx: the class struggle doesn't depend on workers starving or not having big TVs, the class struggle is based on the irreconciable differences in class interests between workers and the bosses.

[RHIZOMES]

I'm not buying this "class" explanation (do you guys see everything through the prism of class struggle??? -- jeez!), not one bit. There are plenty of fat middle class kids who spend too much time on the X-Box. It's their relative wealth that keeps their pantries and fridges filled with pizza, soda, and Hostess cupcakes, not their poverty. And don't say anything bad about those cupcakes. They are mahvelous. At 181 calories (they always come 2 to a pack), they'd better be.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:nPkBB3GcOPHVkM:http://www.lifestarringellieandeve.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/hostess-cupcakes1.jpg

Fuck off, I see more fat people in the poor parts of Auckland than the rich parts. In the rich parts everyone can afford to look like a supermodel and invest in 12-step diet plans. In the poor parts (including where I live) a lot of people save the little money they have by eating out at fast food restaurants.

[ls]

Fuck off, I see more fat people in the poor parts of Auckland than the rich parts. In the rich parts everyone can afford to look like a supermodel and invest in 12-step diet plans. In the poor parts (including where I live) a lot of people save the little money they have by eating out at fast food restaurants.

Zactly. Remember that Robert is a troll though, there is that age-old saying and all. :cool:

[Bud Struggle]

Fuck off, I see more fat people in the poor parts of Auckland than the rich parts. In the rich parts everyone can afford to look like a supermodel and invest in 12-step diet plans. In the poor parts (including where I live) a lot of people save the little money they have by eating out at fast food restaurants.

Or people could just eat less.

They really need to rethink how they spend their money and their time--it's not about what corporations do--it's about what people do with their money.

[punisa]

Interesting discussion on this issue. But majority of missed to say out loud what is the real cause of poor people getting bloated like whales in McDonalds.

It's very simple really - advertising.
Our "revolutionary" class is drooling for a Hamburger cause they can't resist the fat juicy (ugh) burgers on the display.
I call this "brain fucking" and it extends way beyond food. It extends all the way to the sacred "way of life" US is currently defending all over the world.

And "brain fucking" occurs when certain elements are met - unhappiness, low self-esteem and an overall lack of hope for the future.
And this is 90% of the working class we are talking about - cruel self destruction is the only "way out" - getting fat, doing extreme sports, having unprotected sex, suicide, Self-injury, pill maniacs etc etc etc...... a wide array of actions one takes in order to avoid complete despair and nihilism.

I say we give the masses something to hope, fight and die for and the capitalist will soon be on its way to hell (in the lack of a better word).

[punisa]

Or people could just eat less.

They really need to rethink how they spend their money and their time--it's not about what corporations do--it's about what people do with their money.

What in the world are you talking about? What people, what money?
Do you really think that a person who worries he might become homeless next month if he gets fired is thinking about nutrition?
Food quality, calorie input and all that becomes completely trivial in such situations.
Just as many other things that should be important also become trivial under capitalism.
It's just money out there on the throne and nothing can replace it.

[#FF0000]

Or people could just eat less.

They really need to rethink how they spend their money and their time--it's not about what corporations do--it's about what people do with their money.

Around here the poor don't eat too much since they can only afford pasta which is pretty filling, for awhile.

It's not just a matter of eating less. When you don't have a lot of money to spend on food, it's very difficult to eat healthy. It's just a simple fact that they healthiest food is more expensive, and sometimes there really is no way to have a satisfactory diet. Even buying fewer, but healthier items of food doesn't mean that one will be able to meet their dietary needs. Suddenly instead of getting tons of empty calories, someone might have to worry about everyone meeting the daily caloric intake

I mean, food aside, getting to the food store costs money. In my area, driving is the only (legal) option, and for most people it means driving at least half an hour to the local plazas, which costs gas.

Then again, I've seen people walk. Half of them risk a huge fine for walking down a highway to get there, too. The other half are walking through pretty dense traffic on out-of-shape roads. And if they have more than one job, who knows how often they have the time to make the trek?


OK sorry, I shouldn't have made it personal about your point or hers--it was a jumping off point about me saying that there has GOT to be personal responsibility in life no matter what social and economic climate is in control. You just can't EVER trust people to do what's best for you or your family. Communist, Capitalist or Feudal.

You have to make those decisions for yourself.


Oh oh oh oh. Yeah, I don't disagree with that. What I'm saying is that the ability to decide isn't available in these situations. Food stamp eligibility is pretty ridiculous and even if you DO get food stamps, the allotment is absurdly low-- averaging $3 dollars a day.

It's always possible to over-eat, no matter how much you make, but in a lot of cases when you're dealing with the working class, it's can be incredibly difficult to afford healthy decisions.

[Revy]

Some things are just down to bad choices. When I was poorer....my mom would cook split pea soup...which is a "budget" meal, really healthy. But I'd just add butter to it which really just put on tons of calories so that kept me fat.

What will people do to a potato (one of the healthiest things, if you don't believe low-carb fanatics) to make it taste "good"? Butter, salt, sour cream, cheese, bacon bits, stuff like that. When they could just put salsa on it and it would taste good.

[RGacky3]

Around here the poor don't eat too much since they can only afford pasta which is pretty filling, for awhile.


You can't live off pasta, one problme a lot of people have (health wise) is protien deficiency, thats a big reason for stunted growth and other problems in poverty striken areas, and guess what, protien sources are expensive, especially good ones, the same with essencial dietary fats. Its not just a matter of not eating junk food, or eating enough food.

Also, when your not getting enough dietary fats and protien sources your body starts to store more fat as a protection.

Also when you only have time for 2 or 3 meals a day, your metabolism drops.


Or people could just eat less.

They really need to rethink how they spend their money and their time--it's not about what corporations do--it's about what people do with their money.

Its not just about eating less, the market forces encourages obesity, your essencailyl asking people to fight against the market, why should they have to? Why should we have a system where you have to fight against the market to be healthy?


I just read that 49.1 million people in the US could not get enough food to eat (leaving aside the quality of food). That's almost 15% of the population and that's the government's numbers and doesn't include people who've fallen through the gaps, so the reality is probably much higher.

You really need to either be completely ignorant of what life is like for most workers here, buy into the myths that the ruling class tells us about happy US workers, or are doing some incredible ideological gymnastics in order for reality to fit your impressionistic 3rd worldview theories if you believe that US workers benefit or are somehow bought-off by the "good life" here.


I complately agree, this rediculous concept people like Bud Struggle have that people are just happy and fine in america with the effects of Capitalism just doe'snt hold up to the fire at all.


No Love, she bod-a-binged you. IN ANY society people ultimately have to take responsibility for themselves. You can blame things that are out of your control on others, e.g. poverty in the 3rd world, but you can't make bad choices--no matter how difficult, on others.

There has to be a point where a parent--if they are a good parent--says "enough McDonalds, let's cook dinner tonight." If you don't want an Orwellian post Revolutionary society people have to take charge of their own lives.

Yeah, but again, why should everyone have to fight against the rediculously powerfull market to be healthy?

[Kingpin]

With all of the "remembering the victims of communism" and anti-communist youtube videos, I'm surprised the commies here haven't countered the propaganda with "remembering the victims of capitalism" youtube videos.


You are losing the propaganda war in the states.

[Bitter Ashes]

You can't live off pasta, one problme a lot of people have (health wise) is protien deficiency, thats a big reason for stunted growth and other problems in poverty striken areas, and guess what, protien sources are expensive, especially good ones, the same with essencial dietary fats. Its not just a matter of not eating junk food, or eating enough food.

Also, when your not getting enough dietary fats and protien sources your body starts to store more fat as a protection.

Also when you only have time for 2 or 3 meals a day, your metabolism drops.

You are correct to say that you cant live just off pasta, but perhaps for the wrong reasons. You'll be walking around and have enough energy, but you will be sick too. Lack of vitamins and minerals tends to be killer in the short term on that kind of a diet. Your health will deteroriate with a lack of protein, but it will not be as significant as a lack of iron, vitamin C or potassium in your diet which can lead to anemia and an immune system that is worse off than somebody who is just on a lack of protein. Meat in your diet is probably the best way to solve protein, vitamin and mineral deficencies, although I'm sure that veggies have some kind of way of working around this too that may be cheaper and I'd love them to share that trick. :)

When I was really really in dire trouble with money I was eating pasta with gravy and when I could afford to, buying a bag of frozen sausages, thawing them and then salting the meat inside to keep them preserved (I couldnt afford to run the freezer). I'd add that to my pasta every now and again to try keep my health going.

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah, but again, why should everyone have to fight against the rediculously powerfull market to be healthy?

So here's what I did last night:

For the first time in years I took me, the missus, and my two teenagers out to Burger King.

14 min. to get there
7 min. to order
4 min. to get food
14 min to get home.

Total about 40 mins excluding eating time.
Cost $26.39

The night before we ate at home.

1 1/4 lb Salmon @4.99.lb= 6.25
garnish (red onions and capers) $.75
Baked potatos $3.
String beans $1.
Salad $2.
milk. $1.

Total $14.

Now time:

Fish grilled 7 min.
Garnish made at same time
Potatoes backed at same time
Stringbeans cooked at same time
Salad made at same time
(I cooked the fish on the grill outside, my wife did everything else. The kids set the table and cleaned up.)

Lets say we double the 7 mins to count prep time--14 mins then add 10 mins to put the dishes in the dish washer so total 24 mins without eating time.

So eating a good meal at home was a little less than half the cost and a little less half the price than eating at Burger King.

I don't see why anyone should eat at Fast Food places other than as an occasional treat. Home cooking is better and faster.

[Robert]

Yeah, but again, why should everyone have to fight against the rediculously powerfull market to be healthy?

Gacky, what are you talking about? It's no greater struggle to drive to the supermarket once a week and stock up on tortillas, cheese, eggs, dried beans, carrots, tofu, new potatoes, catfish and apples than it is to drive to Burger King every day. All those things are cheap. As Bud devastatingly illustrates, it's cheaper by more than half than schlepping into a burger King. Substitute chicken for his salmon and it's even less.

There are 10 billion recipes on line so you don't have to buy a cookbook.

If you are working three jobs and have no time to cook, well I'm sorry. But who here can honestly say he has no time to cook? (Hint: you might steal some of your internet time and read the Fannie Farmer cookbook. Just a suggestion.)

[Jazzratt]

Bud, on the time angle you were a bit dishonest. if you're going to include the time it takes to go to a fast food place you should probably include the price of going to a shop (and from Loveschach's description of shopping in America you should add the price of petrol too), average time spent on the weekly (or fortnightly or whateverly) shop. If you're working hard these things add up.

It can be cheaper to shop for food (much cheaper quite often) but the energy required can be a lot too. It may well cost 28 quid a week to eat nothing but kebabs (a diet my old man once had, apparently) but if you've a demanding job and don't have the energy to do much at all then it becomes an attractive prospect. Not to mention people who might not have a functioning kitchen (or a kitchen at all).

[Tungsten]

Capitalism produces for the market, not for human needs.
The market does provide for "human needs", otherwise we'd all be starving too. People purchase what they think they need. Your desire to override their judgement is revealing.

Capitalism divides countries into the First and Third Worlds, with little in between. A few countries grow wealthy at the expense of the majority.
Yes. The reason the first world grows fat is because it stole all the third world's food. I expected as much. Your ideology is self-parodying and completely divorced from reality.

The third world has always suffered from malnutrition while everywhere else has advanced. This has got nothing to do with capitalism.

Socialism will turn the tables. According to studies, enough food is produced so that hunger and undernutrition could easily be wiped out with proper food distribution.
Read: The first world food producers will be made slaves to the third world. For "proper food distribution" read: forced food distribution. How this is going to be enforced in unknown. I certainly don't want any stinking government in charge of food production/distribution.

Under socialism, access to adequate nutrition will be a basic human right.
Of course it will. The trouble is, you tend to run out of other people's food.

--------

Same reason why working class teenagers are more likely to get pregnant, or drunk on a street corner. They're bored and unlike the bourgeois-spawn, they dont have the cash in thier pocket to go out bowling, or the cinema, or laser quest, or whatever it is that rich kids do to pass the time.
Yeah, when I think of "cheap activities" getting pissed on increasingly expensive alchol is the first thing that comes to mind. Condoms don't cost much either; anyone who goes down the teenage pregnancy route does so by accident or because they're thick. I notice that "drugs" are surprisingly absent from your list - another cheap recreational activity, no doubt.

Not suprisingly, the loss of sports clubs also meant a decrease in health.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

As for the starvation in the 3rd world. That's down to capitalism again.
What a surprise!

The world produces 3 times more food than it could ever eat.
You mean the first world produces more than it could ever eat? The question we should be asking is "how can we get the third world to produce more than they could ever eat too?" not "how can we use the first world as a milch cow for the benefit of the third?"

It's all wasted though in the name of profitability. More profitable to have it rotting on a shelf in TESCO than given away to those in need.
Because leaving food to rot on a shelf is really profitable. People just love to eat rotting food, don't they? It must be an acquired taste.

Also more profitable to destroy crops in South America than to ship it to Europe or North America, or even to sell it localy (It raises prices in Europe/North America).
Making everyone pay more for food is going to disproportionately harm the working class you claim to care about.

Pardon my cynicism. I don't know about food, but there's certainly one thing here there's never in short supply: excuses for the feckless. Most of them make a rod for their own back, and socialism wants to make their problems, "our" problems. We working class folks have enough of our own, thanks. We can do without others dragging us down with them.

-------------


Our "revolutionary" class is drooling for a Hamburger cause they can't resist the fat juicy (ugh) burgers on the display.
I call this "brain fucking" and it extends way beyond food.
If someone isn't able to resist advertising, I'd say their brain is already "fucked." Even most kids can see through it.

[Bitter Ashes]

So here's what I did last night:

For the first time in years I took me, the missus, and my two teenagers out to Burger King.

14 min. to get there
7 min. to order
4 min. to get food
14 min to get home.

Total about 40 mins excluding eating time.
Cost $26.39

The night before we ate at home.

1 1/4 lb Salmon @4.99.lb= 6.25
garnish (red onions and capers) $.75
Baked potatos $3.
String beans $1.
Salad $2.
milk. $1.

Total $14.

Now time:

Fish grilled 7 min.
Garnish made at same time
Potatoes backed at same time
Stringbeans cooked at same time
Salad made at same time
(I cooked the fish on the grill outside, my wife did everything else. The kids set the table and cleaned up.)

Lets say we double the 7 mins to count prep time--14 mins then add 10 mins to put the dishes in the dish washer so total 24 mins without eating time.

So eating a good meal at home was a little less than half the cost and a little less half the price than eating at Burger King.

I don't see why anyone should eat at Fast Food places other than as an occasional treat. Home cooking is better and faster.
Here we only tend to have McDonalds and Burger Kings in town centres and inner cities. Most of our fast food is from fish and chips shops, which are usualy horrendously unhealthy too (everything deep fried). It's very cheap too. You can still get a large sausage and chips here for under £2. It's only moderatly more expensive than a "proper" homecooked meal and about the same as a school dinner nowadays I think. It is tasty and it's unregulated (It was found that the average donner kebab had over 1000 calories to them, without sauces or condiments!). I'm sure there must be some kind of equivilant to this in the USA?

[Bud Struggle]

Bud, on the time angle you were a bit dishonest. if you're going to include the time it takes to go to a fast food place you should probably include the price of going to a shop (and from Loveschach's description of shopping in America you should add the price of petrol too), average time spent on the weekly (or fortnightly or whateverly) shop. If you're working hard these things add up.

It can be cheaper to shop for food (much cheaper quite often) but the energy required can be a lot too. It may well cost 28 quid a week to eat nothing but kebabs (a diet my old man once had, apparently) but if you've a demanding job and don't have the energy to do much at all then it becomes an attractive prospect. Not to mention people who might not have a functioning kitchen (or a kitchen at all).

I'm not disagreeing with you it wasn't exact--it certain wasn't a scientific study--but it was pretty much on target that for the most part a family almost always eats much cheeper at home. The thing is it's a TRAINING issue. You have to be trained by you parents to cook. And you have to have the discipline--so you can't be lazy.

And of course there are always extenuating circumstance but for the most part if people were MORE frugal with their money they'd eat at home. Me and my family don't eat at McDonalds often because my wife (who is wonderful and lovely and all of that) is as frugal as you can get and she doesn't see it as a worthwhile deal. We eat at fancy restaurants--but that something we enjoy and for the money it's a good entertainment. It's worth it. We can cook good food at home--but for the cost, and the quality of the food, and the entirely plastic and inhospitable enviorment--there is no reason at all for a family to eat in places like McDonalds.

We're (actually my wife) is to cheep to eat there.

[RHIZOMES]

The third world has always suffered from malnutrition while everywhere else has advanced. This has got nothing to do with capitalism.

:lol: Yeah they became inextricably poor all by themselves, right?

[RGacky3]

Here we only tend to have McDonalds and Burger Kings in town centres and inner cities. Most of our fast food is from fish and chips shops, which are usualy horrendously unhealthy too (everything deep fried). It's very cheap too. You can still get a large sausage and chips here for under £2. It's only moderatly more expensive than a "proper" homecooked meal and about the same as a school dinner nowadays I think. It is tasty and it's unregulated (It was found that the average donner kebab had over 1000 calories to them, without sauces or condiments!). I'm sure there must be some kind of equivilant to this in the USA?

THere are supermarkets in poor areas too :P.


So here's what I did last night:

For the first time in years I took me, the missus, and my two teenagers out to Burger King.

14 min. to get there
7 min. to order
4 min. to get food
14 min to get home.

Total about 40 mins excluding eating time.
Cost $26.39

The night before we ate at home.

1 1/4 lb Salmon @4.99.lb= 6.25
garnish (red onions and capers) $.75
Baked potatos $3.
String beans $1.
Salad $2.
milk. $1.

Total $14.

Now time:

Fish grilled 7 min.
Garnish made at same time
Potatoes backed at same time
Stringbeans cooked at same time
Salad made at same time
(I cooked the fish on the grill outside, my wife did everything else. The kids set the table and cleaned up.)

Lets say we double the 7 mins to count prep time--14 mins then add 10 mins to put the dishes in the dish washer so total 24 mins without eating time.

So eating a good meal at home was a little less than half the cost and a little less half the price than eating at Burger King.

I don't see why anyone should eat at Fast Food places other than as an occasional treat. Home cooking is better and faster.

Thats one specific example, keep in mind the variables, the whole family was ready to sit down for a family meal (something you have the luxury to do) someone in the family had the time and energy to cook all those ingredients, you got those ingredients pretty cheaply, you have all the kitchen utensils to cook, and so on. Many people don't have the time, don't have the energy.

Now look, I am not saying its impossible for people to be healthy, even relatively poor poeple (although a large poriton of poor people it is actualyl phisically impossible, and yes I'm talking about in the United States), but it is much easier when you have mom at home not working, (i.e. both parents don't have to work), when you have an easy enough job to where you have the energy and time to do regular shopping and cooking, you have access to enough cheap ingredients to cook regularly and so on.

But like robert said, obesity, is not really as class related as some people would have it. Although it does play a role.

[Bud Struggle]

THere are supermarkets in poor areas too :P.



Thats one specific example, keep in mind the variables, the whole family was ready to sit down for a family meal (something you have the luxury to do) someone in the family had the time and energy to cook all those ingredients, you got those ingredients pretty cheaply, you have all the kitchen utensils to cook, and so on. Many people don't have the time, don't have the energy.

Now look, I am not saying its impossible for people to be healthy, even relatively poor poeple (although a large poriton of poor people it is actualyl phisically impossible, and yes I'm talking about in the United States), but it is much easier when you have mom at home not working, (i.e. both parents don't have to work), when you have an easy enough job to where you have the energy and time to do regular shopping and cooking, you have access to enough cheap ingredients to cook regularly and so on.


As I said--it was no scientific study--but it just points out that there is a frugal way to live and it's often the best way to live also. And that brings me to a larger point--if poor people can't (often) live frugally with food--how many OTHER things in their lives do they waste money on? How much better could people's (for the most part, of course,) be better if they REALLY took control of what what money they spend?

I have a feeling that if that lesson isn't learned there will be just as many poor people in our society no matter what economic system is in control.

[RGacky3]

And that brings me to a larger point--if poor people can't (often) live frugally with food--how many OTHER things in their lives do they waste money on? How much better could people's (for the most part, of course,) be better if they REALLY took control of what what money they spend?


YOur being rediculous, the capitalist class is the most wasteful ever and very rarely takes a hit for it, workers may sometimes waste money or make bad financial desicions. The fact is obesity is not that much of a class issue, however starvation is, and malnutrition is, and I guarantee you that is not because people are not "responsible".

[Bud Struggle]

YOur being rediculous, the capitalist class is the most wasteful ever and very rarely takes a hit for it, workers may sometimes waste money or make bad financial desicions. The fact is obesity is not that much of a class issue, however starvation is, and malnutrition is, and I guarantee you that is not because people are not "responsible".

Capitalists are wasteful, true. But so are Proletarians--who tend to emulate the Bourgeoise in everything but the ability to make money.

I agree that the Bourgeoise are wasteful are bad, what my problem is--the Proletarians aren't making a case for themselves that they are (or would be) any better than what we have now. It's Bernie Madoff vs. Jerry Springer.

[Tungsten]

:lol: Yeah they became inextricably poor all by themselves, right?
*Facepalm*

A few hundred years ago, the whole world had poorer living standards and lower life expectancy that most African nations do today.

Most countries "extricated" themselves out of that, didn't they?

[Jimmie Higgins]

THere are supermarkets in poor areas too :P.
Sorry, this is false. In West Oakland there are no convenient supermarkets for people without cars. After the LA riots, one of the demands was for good stores.

Let me waste some time and end this part of the debate:

Found on the first page of a google search:
http://departments.oxy.edu/uepi/publications/promises.htm


Rebuild L.A.'s campaign to build supermarkets in the inner city made sound economic sense. The stores would be a major source of new employment, creating between 1,000 to 2,000 jobs, with some paying above the minimum wage. During the previous 30 years, supermarkets had significantly abandoned the inner city for suburban locations. A UCLA study done in 1993 quantified the exodus: The number of inner- city chain markets had declined by nearly half.


Inner-city residents' lack of access to fresh and affordable food was another concern. A 1995 survey done by RLA, Rebuild L.A.'s new coinage, asked 1,100 residents living in a 52-square-mile area affected by the civil unrest what goods and services their community lacked. Quality grocery stores and supermarkets were their overwhelming response. Economically, this represented enormous unmet demand. In the riot-affected areas, a supermarket typically served 16,571 people, compared with 7,795 people in greater Los Angeles.


While poor Oakland residents must take 30 minutes to a half hour riding buses to get to anything resembling quality food (and then the same amount of time hauling it back) there are now two Berkeley Bowls (speciality organic food) and a Trader Joes, and a Farmer Joes, three Safeways and two Andronicos (upscale food) in upscale yuppie Berkeley California all within walking distance of eachother.

Food quality has about as much to do with "personal choice" for the working poor as unemployment due to downsizing and recessions.

[Jimmie Higgins]

*Facepalm*

A few hundred years ago, the whole world had poorer living standards and lower life expectancy that most African nations do today.

Most countries "extricated" themselves out of that, didn't they?

Yes, by extricating labor from Africa (and peasants from common lands in Europe) at the point of a gun and creating a surplus of wealth.

[Bud Struggle]

Sorry, this is false. In West Oakland there are no convenient supermarkets for people without cars. After the LA riots, one of the demands was for good stores.

Let me waste some time and end this part of the debate:

Found on the first page of a google search:
http://departments.oxy.edu/uepi/publications/promises.htm



While poor Oakland residents must take 30 minutes to a half hour riding buses to get to anything resembling quality food (and then the same amount of time hauling it back) there are now two Berkeley Bowls (speciality organic food) and a Trader Joes, and a Farmer Joes, three Safeways and two Andronicos (upscale food) in upscale yuppie Berkeley California all within walking distance of eachother.

Food quality has about as much to do with "personal choice" for the working poor as unemployment due to downsizing and recessions.

Nicely, an islolated case. There are PLENTY of supermarkets--everywhere. In rich areas and poor--and one thing I've noticed, groceries are less espensive in poorer areas.

Market are available for 99% of poor people--yet 75% of them have overweight kids.

The problem is with the consumer not with the system. After the Revolution--most of you folks will be such easy pickin's.

Gacky is another matter. :(

[Robert]

After the LA riots, one of the demands was for good stores.

Who would be stupid enough to destroy a good store?

[Bud Struggle]

Who would be stupid enough to destroy a good store?

The Proletariat?

Anyway after the Revolution, Robert you'll be First Secretary of the left half of the world and I'll be First Sectretary of the Right.

I' ve got a Martin D-28, You have a Martin, also. Wanna play? Your dacha or mine?

[RGacky3]

Sorry, this is false. In West Oakland there are no convenient supermarkets for people without cars.

Good point, I stand corrected.


Who would be stupid enough to destroy a good store?

The Proletariat?

Anyway after the Revolution, Robert you'll be First Secretary of the left half of the world and I'll be First Sectretary of the Right.

I' ve got a Martin D-28, You have a Martin, also. Wanna play? Your dacha or mine?

Where in the study did it show grocery stores were being destroyed? Its a lack of investment that was the problem.

Now Bud, stop being an asshole.

[Bud Struggle]

Where in the study did it show grocery stores were being destroyed? Its a lack of investment that was the problem.

Now Bud, stop being an asshole.

Spend the money and they will come! Remember this is Capitalism--if the people want to eat at McDonalds--then there will be seven of those in the neighborhood and no grocery stoors.

[Robert]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1604023#post1604023)
Who would be stupid enough to destroy a good store?
The Proletariat?

Oh, I don't know. I was just, you know, asking. http://planetsmilies.net/angel-smiley-8388.gif

[Jimmie Higgins]

Nicely, an islolated case.First of all Los Angelese and Oakland are about 500 miles apart, so I don't see how something which exists in (at least) both these cities is ISOLATED!


There are PLENTY of supermarkets--everywhere. In rich areas and poor--and one thing I've noticed, groceries are less espensive in poorer areas.You must not live in the US then.

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LHWJll2Q3Xpphy2CSYhRJ X1QhrHJSxMP3XWcznqPvyN1kgLCzkZL!-1269011426!-2106413634?docId=5001894946 (http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LHWJll2Q3Xpphy2CSYhRJ X1QhrHJSxMP3XWcznqPvyN1kgLCzkZL%21-1269011426%21-2106413634?docId=5001894946)


Do the Poor Pay More for Food? An Analysis of Grocery Store Availability and Food Price Disparities.

by CHANJIN CHUNG , SAMUEL L. MYERS JR. Do the poor pay more for food? To answer this question, this study was conducted to provide an empirical analysis of grocery store access and prices across inner city and suburban communities within the Minneapolis and St. Paul metropolitan area. The comparison among different types of grocers and geographic areas is drawn from a survey of approximately fifty grocery items for fifty-five stores. Results indicate that the poor pay only slightly more in the Twin Cities grocery market. More significantly, those who shop in non-chain stores pay a significant premium, and the poor have less access to chain stores. This study reveals that the biggest factor contributing to higher grocery costs in poor neighborhoods is that large chain stores, where prices tend to be lower, are not located in these neighborhoods.

So yes, the working poor not only pay more for food as a percentage of their income (if you make 1,200 a month and pay $200/month for food that's much more difficult on you than if you make 2,400 and pay $200 for food) they pay higer prices!

If you are in the US, are you willfully ignoring facts or do you not know how to do a simple google search? Because I typed in "cost of food, poor neighborhoods" and got tons of hits describing this FACT.

http://books.google.com/books?id=1iL0zg6D7AYC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=grocery+costs+in+poor+neighborhoods&source=bl&ots=V8jLQb-fU6&sig=1sDO85Gjj3N4F0CCfpwn8Acv5II&hl=en&ei=dFYHS-v5KobwsQPyz5zBCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=grocery%20costs%20in%20poor%20neighborhoods&f=false

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/oct/21/report-says-cost-of-living-higher-in-states-poor/

The report prepared by the Statewide Poverty Action Network and VOICES of Spokane details how the poor pay more for goods and services than higher-income residents.
From a loaf of bread to a home mortgage, the poor pay higher prices, not just in terms of percent of income, but in real dollars, according to the report, “The High Cost of Being Poor in Washington State.”

[Jimmie Higgins]

Spend the money and they will come! Remember this is Capitalism--if the people want to eat at McDonalds--then there will be seven of those in the neighborhood and no grocery stoors.

Yes like people wanted to have McMansions they couldn't afford and SUVs they didn't necessarily want. Oh, wait, no it's because these things are more profitable than affordable cars for everyone or family houses for the lower-earning workers.

Why is it that the most ardent supporters of capitalism have no idea how capitalism works? If you were airplane pilots I bet you'd think that jets run of pixie dust and children's dreams. Your equivalent in the feudal age was a toothless peasant talking about how God hand-picked the duke of such-and-such to rule us and how great it is:rolleyes:.

[Bud Struggle]

First of all Los Angelese and Oakland are about 500 miles apart, so I don't see how something which exists in (at least) both these cities is ISOLATED!

So yes, the working poor not only pay more for food as a percentage of their income (if you make 1,200 a month and pay $200/month for food that's much more difficult on you than if you make 2,400 and pay $200 for food) they pay higer prices!

If you are in the US, are you willfully ignoring facts or do you not know how to do a simple google search? Because I typed in "cost of food, poor neighborhoods" and got tons of hits describing this FACT.


You are mixing your metaphors here. Well I agee that food cost more in urban areas than suburban ones--but that is across the board. I had an apartment in mid town Manhattan (affluent area) and a gallon of milk cost six dollars. And I could understand that--delivery costs are higher, rent is higher. That's just the price of living in the big city. You have to pay for all the amenities that you get living there.

In the suburbs the poor and middle class areas are often so close together that the stores are interchangable. Also in the area I live in the food chains have low cost sub chains that cater expecially to the less affluent communities. (e.g. Here in Florida Save Rite stores owned by Winn-Dixie.)


Yes like people wanted to have McMansions they couldn't afford and SUVs they didn't necessarily want. Oh, wait, no it's because these things are more profitable than affordable cars for everyone or family houses for the lower-earning workers.



Who exactly forces people to buy houses they can't afford and cars they don't want?

[Tungsten]

Yes, by extricating labor from Africa (and peasants from common lands in Europe) at the point of a gun and creating a surplus of wealth.

So every country on Earth with a higher standard of living than Africa must have at some point extricated labour from Africa.

I'm sorry I mistook you for someone with sense.

The comment on the peasants is even more absurd. Ten people in a group, each with a dollar. One person steals the money from all the others, is the group any richer? No. Does the group now have a "surplus of wealth?" No.


Yes like people wanted to have McMansions they couldn't afford and SUVs they didn't necessarily want.

If they don't want them and can't afford them, then why buy them? There are far cheaper houses and cars available. Especially second hand.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If they don't want them and can't afford them, then why buy them? There are far cheaper houses and cars available. Especially second hand.


Who exactly forces people to buy houses they can't afford and cars they don't want?
My point is that these are PRODUCED because they are more profitable - a McMansion is a better return than a small family home that people can afford. In the 90s automakers flooded the market with SUVs because they make more profit per vehicle than they do with compact family cars.

See, the most ardent supporters of capitalism have no clue as to how the business world actually functions.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The comment on the peasants is even more absurd. Ten people in a group, each with a dollar. One person steals the money from all the others, is the group any richer? No. Does the group now have a "surplus of wealth?" No.Supporters of capitalism don't even know where wealth comes from.

10 people in a group each with a dollar? What the fuck are you talking about? People aren't born with X amount of dollars - people are born, however, with a capacity to create things through their efforts and labor. The efforts of this labor can then be stolen - so ex-peasants kicked off the common lands to find work then sell their labor for less than the value they have created. This is where surplus wealth or profits come from - this extra bit of money then can be used to buy more land, hire more laborers to increase the surplus or invest in technology to also get more bang for the labor power.

If 16th century merchants and mill owners that still believed that bloodletting could cure diseases could figure this out, surely you can too.


So every country on Earth with a higher standard of living than Africa must have at some point extricated labour from Africa.

I'm sorry I mistook you for someone with sense.Oh you're right - you caught me making a flippant comeback to this ahistorical remark:

"Most countries "extricated" themselves out of that, didn't they?"

[Tungsten]

My point is that these are PRODUCED because they are more profitable - a McMansion is a better return than a small family home that people can afford. In the 90s automakers flooded the market with SUVs because they make more profit per vehicle than they do with compact family cars.

See, the most ardent supporters of capitalism have no clue as to how the business world actually functions.
If people can't afford it, they're generally not going to buy it. If there's a market for small, low-cost housing, then people are going to build them and sell them. If your theory were true, no one would build anything but Rolls Royce-level cars and palaces on the basis that they would get a better return on them.

Supporters of capitalism don't even know where wealth comes from.
No doubt you're going to tell us that it comes from labour and that labour is intrinsically valuable.

10 people in a group each with a dollar? What the fuck are you talking about?
I used the example to illustrate how a nation doesn't get any richer by robbing its own people; it's just the broken window fallacy on a larger scale.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'll take the fact that no one is still talking about the cornucopia of good food options in poor neighborhoods as a sign of conceding that point to the examples I cited - really it should just be the admission of observable reality in the US - I can't believe I even had to google examples that most people where I live know from simple observation of the realities of life in the US.


If people can't afford it, they're generally not going to buy it. If there's a market for small, low-cost housing, then people are going to build them and sell them. If your theory were true, no one would build anything but Rolls Royce-level cars and palaces on the basis that they would get a better return on them.The housing bubble is empirical proof that you are just plain wrong. It was more profitable to produce something only a small part of the population could actually afford.


I used the example to illustrate how a nation doesn't get any richer by robbing its own people; it's just the broken window fallacy on a larger scale.Well in the US wages have stagnated while profits have soared over the last 30 years. Tax breaks were given to corporations to "lure" business while the cost of taxes has been pushed onto the working class to make up for corporate tax breaks. The economic boom in the 90s was based on the US robbing it's own workforce to a greater extent than it had in the past.

Profitability began dropping in the 70s and so the way the major industries and business interests tried to correct this was by restoring profitability by getting the working class to produce more at a lower cost in wages. So most industries saw speedups and "scientific management" regimes; there was a move of some industry to the non-union south as well as oversees and industry used this to beat remaining unions into expecting and asking for less and less with each contract; unions were busted outright; government began divesting from social programs of the post-war period.

Now the US working class has less job security than a generation ago, union membership went from almost a third of the workforce to 7%, American workers have less benefits and lower wages than in other regions but work more hours and produce more than people in Europe or Japan, and inequality is much much greater in the US than anywhere else in major industrial countries.

The US's second guided age was made possible because the population has been robbed.