Not that I disagree, but maybe you should provide an argument in favor of your side, rather than literally saying five words in favor of it. 

Only theorising noobs who rarely venture outside academia believe in fantasies like market equilibrium theory and efficient market theorem. The most long-term consistent, successful investors in the world know those theories are bunk, and act as if they are.

Those who believe in the above invested in Long Term Capital Management. That should tell you something.

> [TI] ARFeh zee Frenchie wrote:

> > esa wrote:

> Help me,
I have been infected by swine flue! <

Thanks God the private sector is taking steps to protect the public!

They actually are. Google correlates flu related searches with geographical areas in order to help track the spread of flu. And don't forget it is a private company who makes any vaccine or medicine you would use. The CDC is inept.

> avogadro wrote:

> free market economy doesnt work for agriculture because when prices go down on food, people dont eat more food, the demand stays constant.

Obesity proves you wrong on this.

Food isn't one single category.  There is a level of need-based food, and a level of desire-based food, both operating at the same time.

Need-based food would include cheap bread.  Some examples would include bread, cereal, or instant soup.  Basically, this includes anything cheap.

Then there's the desire-based foods.  This is anything that's even remotely a luxury.  Going to a nice restaurant to eat, making lobster at home instead of a ham sandwich, or even something as simple as lower-fat meat.

Here's how it works:

When the price for food increases, there is an overall reduction in food consumption.  People who are obese may simply not be able to afford as much food, and have to cut down.  In addition, less filling foods may be eaten instead of more filling foods.  For example, if food prices are expensive, I may skip having chicken for lunch in order to have a ham sandwich.  That reduces the demand for both meat (which is generally more filling than vegetables), and for the corn used to feed those chickens.

Then theres issue #2: food quality.  When the price of food is low, I can afford to grab a dessert after lunch, or go out to eat instead of eating at home.  I can get higher quality food.  However, at higher prices, I'm forced to favor lower prices instead, causing my lunch will be cheaper, as I substitute a glass of milk with a glass of water and some chicken for a sandwich.

Now, if the food industry was more monopolized, I would agree with you that market economics doesn't work.  However, there are SOOOOOOOO many businesses in the food industry that it is truly competitive.  The only exception to this stance would probably be the fact that farmers have formed lobbies to Congress, organizing together to get government subsidies.

Hmm... good point.  However, you have to present a reason for why that happens.

Want my reason?  Simple: A market failure, and government intervention.  Government subsidies that promote particular crop production (corn, soy) encourage the production of foods that, when consumed in large quantities, result in obesity.  While I'm not arguing that impoverished people consume corn and soy outright, they do consume it via fast food.  Thus, fast food functions in large part as a result of government subsidies.  Market failure, and government intervention.

But still, my argument about quantity vs. quality of food is still there.

No, but they will:

A: Store food for the future
B: Eat better quality food, which results indirectly in an increase in consumption (by eating meat instead of bread, for example, the meat requires corn and other breads to be produced, resulting in an overall increase in consumption).