Ron Allen wrote:
> Michael Price wrote:
> > Of course subsistence communities generally
> > can't consistently provide even the absurd
> > minimum you describe.
>
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > If a subsistence economy cannot consistently
> > provide the minimal needs of human beings, then
> > it is not a subsistence economy.
>
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > Yes it is, Ron, learn some bloody history, or
> > economics or something before you open your big
> > yap.
>
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > I make every effort to learn both history and
> > economics.
>
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > No, Ron, you don't. If you did you'd know that
> > mild malnutrition is _normal_ in subsistance
> > economies.
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > If I am still in error, then I am nevertheless
> > entitled to freely express what I believe to be
> > true.
>
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > Yes, but not free to avoid the consequences of
> > that expression, namely that people realise that
> > you talk of things you don't know.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> From what I have studied and learned, poverty and
> subsistence are not the same condition.
Poverty, but the standards of people in capitalist countries,
is normal in subsistence economies. Even someone so
ignorant of economics that they get all their information
from Marx should know that.
> And, in fact, in these United States, today, mild and
> severe malnutrition are everyday happenings.
>
Even if that's true (and I doubt severe malnutrition is anything but
extremely rare) it's not from lack of money. Even those whose
income is substantially below welfare rates can afford fruit and even
meat. Malnutrition in america is due to bad choices not
lack of means.
>
> <><><><><><><><>
>
> "Fools ask for evidence; wise men never oblige."
> -- Anonymous
**** you're an idiot if you believe that.
|
