> The market should decide if beef consumption is viable

The market has decided, ant it decided that the well off are more important than the rest so they get what they want at everyone elses expense.

Maybe we should stop thinking market forces are in any way right or moral. At least saying 'I got mine, fuck you' would be honest.

▲

b65e8bee43c2ed0 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

those 33 calories are dirt cheap carbs. there's absolutely no shortage of soy and corn syrup for you to consume.

▲

r_p4rk 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Soy is an excellent protein source?

	▲	b65e8bee43c2ed0 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		1. "protein" is a blanket term for a number of amino acids we need, and vegetable sources tend to miss a bunch of them. 2. atrocious calorie to protein ratio due to carbs. I imagine eating a pound (dry weight!) of any legume every day would get real old real fast. 3. phytoestrogens. not just soy, all legumes are full of them, even peanuts.

▲

rayiner 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is stupid thinking indulged in by westerners who were born in the lap of luxury. The market is incredibly moral. When my dad was born in a village in Bangladesh, 1 out of 4 kids didn’t live past age 5. Thanks to market reforms and the resulting economic growth, child mortality in Bangladesh has plummeted. Bangladesh’s under-5 morality rate is better today than America’s was at the same time my dad was born.

If India and Bangladesh hadn’t fucked around with socialism for decades after independence, we could have reached the same point many years ago. Millions of children would have been saved. Talk about immorality.

▲

datsci_est_2015 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Amazing that advancements in Bangladeshi quality of life is due to only market forces! What an incredibly unique geopolitical phenomenon.

	▲	rayiner 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It’s not unique at all! When my dad was a kid in the 1950s, Singapore, China, South Korea, and Taiwan were poor—all under $1,000 GDP per capita. They were a little ahead of Bangladesh but less than a factor of 2. The U.S. at the time was around $10,000. Today, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea are rich, and China is getting there. Multiple dirt poor Asian countries getting rich within a few generations thanks to One Simple Trick!

▲

worik 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Bangladesh has done well, in difficult circumstances

Market reforms helped. But those reforms could not have happened unless the state did sensible things

Those same market reforms impoverished the entire middle class in New Zealand, where the state did not do sensible things (the reverse)

Markets are good at fully allocating resources, which feudalism and central planning is not. But they also concentrate wealth into the hands of very few (that is what wrecked New Zealand's middle class) and it takes deliberate government policy to avert that.

	▲	rayiner 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Market reforms helped. But those reforms could not have happened unless the state did sensible things The state did almost nothing sensible! Bangladesh’s government, and the culture of the people more generally, is one of the most dysfunctional in the whole world. We just overthrew our government again! The free market is just a hardy plant growing in inhospitable ground as long as you don’t completely strangle it.

▲

selimthegrim 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why don't you ask noted anti-socialism state Pakistan (pre and post-1971) how that's going?

▲

rayiner 4 hours ago | parent [-]

We have A/B comparisons in India and Bangladesh keeping the underlying culture constant. Pakistan’s problem seems to be a Pakistan thing.

	▲	danaris 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		So..."Pakistan's problem is a Pakistan thing", unrelated to markets.... ...but Bangladesh's success is purely attributable to markets? It's not "a Bangladesh thing"? You might want to check your prejudices there.

▲

mhurron 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You mean the Socialism that produces higher quality of life in Scandinavia as compared to to say the US where the oh so moral market decides if you weren't born into the upper end of society you deserve to die of disease and conditions that can be treated?

The market is not moral, it is amoral and it serves those with the money to direct it.

	▲	rayiner 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> You mean the Socialism that produces higher quality of life in Scandinavia as compared to to say the US where the oh so moral market decides if you weren't born into the upper end of society you deserve to die of disease and conditions that can be treated? Scandinavian countries have highly market oriented economies. Denmark and Norway are in the top 10 in Heritage Foundation’s economic freedom index and Sweden is #11. Capitalism is what generates the surplus to feed the socialists in Scandinavia.