What an unmitigated shitpile of an article.
This x 1000. Author bounces between arguments, cherry-picking the facts he chooses to mention while conveniently ignoring the point. Who on earth said calories are the only component that matters in a meal? What about the intense monoculture created by McDonald's massive demand for only Russet potatoes? What about the unsustainable business practice of drenching fields with pesticides while giving no thought to the runoff? Why the hell would anybody eat only low-caloric vegetables every day? Has he even heard of rice or beans? Instead of asking rhetorical questions, I could write out legitimate arguments in response to this author, but what's the point? He's made up his mind and doesn't appear to give any legitimate care towards the arguments made on the other side of the fence. P.S. Apparently people are either scraping to get by each month or metropolitan rich white ladies focused on food fads.What an unmitigated shitpile of an article.
Ironically enough, every statement you make is an externality - an effect or impact that does not impact the microeconomics of the transaction, but may profoundly effect or impact the macroeconomics of the larger system within which the microsystem dwells. Externalities, of course, make up the bulk of the arguments within Freakonomics, the blog of which is the source of this argument. One of the many reasons I hate Freakonomics.
If you're going to comment on how cheap something is and use that as an argument, you need to dig into WHY it's cheap. All of your arguments are about externalities as to why it's cheap. None of these arguments about externalities were raised by the Freakonomics fuckwits because they completely undercut their point... when 90% of the time, when the Freakonomics fuckwits want to make a point, they go in search of Wild Externalities. Externalities aren't bad, they're just things that aren't necessarily accounted for in the main discussion. Which is why the article is such bullshit.
Why would that be a reason to hate Freakonomics, though? Just wondering.
Not going to bother dissecting their entire argument, they didn't bother with a thorough argument, so it's well beyond my care. But, let's take their point that eating plants is somehow prohibitively expensive. No need to leave your house or buy a fridge. Exhibit A[1]2[3][4][5]: It has more calories (More per $ than their quoted number for junk food), more protein, over ten times the fiber, and less than sixth of the sodium. Just add water. It's not fast, mind you, but it's not difficult to set up a container to let it soak all day. Plus that shit's vegan and gluten free. P.S. I live 15 minute walk from gourmet galore. If I ate out only at the organic shops there all day, everyday, it'd still be cheaper than their quoted number from U of W. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Royal-Basmati-Rice-15-Pound-Bag/dp/B00... [2] http://www.amazon.com/Bobs-Red-Mill-Organic-32-Ounce/dp/B004... [3] http://www.amazon.com/Bobs-Red-Mill-Lentils-27-Ounce/dp/B000... [4] http://www.amazon.com/Bobs-Red-Mill-Turtle-26-Ounce/dp/B004V... [5] http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/product_nutrition.sandwi...
The McDouble is cheap because it is produced from: - Wheat (subsidized at the expense of other crops) - Beef (subsidized at the expense of other livestock, fed on corn which is heavily-subsidezed at the expense of other crops) - Cheese (subsidized at the expense of other farm product) And produced by - Welfare labor (subsidized at the expense of taxpayers) - Child labor (subsidized by their parents) Not only that, but the taxes paid by McDonald's are subsidized. So yeah. The burger is cheap because everyone else is paying for it. There's a reason "locally-grown" costs so fucking much more - no one else is footing the bill. FUN FACT FROM "THE END OF FOOD:" The only "food" crops in the United States, according to the USDA, are corn, wheat, soy and canola. Everything else is a "specialty crop." FUN FACT FROM "EAARTH:" The cost of bacon, if produced in an environmentally-sustainable, locally-supporting way, varies from $8-$12/pound. That doesn't mean McDonald's makes cheaper food. That means everyone else is paying the difference. As far as "nutritious", let's go to the tape: "and so on." A fistful of sawdust has 100% of your daily fiber. The fact that they list protein, fiber, calories and calcium means you're getting meat, cheese, sugar and cellulose. We can do this a lot simpler. Ultrameal Dutch Shake: There's 40 servings in that bucket, so we're coming in at under a buck... and it's damn near Soylent Green. Their numbers are bullshit, by the way. I'm supposed to be getting 70g of protein a day. See how easy that was? All you have to do is presume that if someone is telling you something simple and controversial, they're probably making shit up.It has 390 calories. It contains 23g, or half a daily serving, of protein, plus 7% of daily fiber, 20% of daily calcium and so on.
Just get rid of them! The pain is short-lived, but the benefits keep rolling in year after year. NZ proved it can be done. Our farmers have prospered, and we are a heavily agricultural nation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#New_Zeala... http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/save-farms-end-s...
Thanks for the analysis. If it is simply a matter of getting calories, carbs, and protein into a human gut at the lowest cost, the freegan is going to win, dining on dumpster sushi or roadkill. If we are going to be at all realistic, the solution is going to have to at least appear to be a meal, even if it's not something you would want to eat three times a day. thundara, you picked the very cheapest staples, and nearly half of your menu consists of a bowl of rice. Most people see these as ingredients, not food. And while "appetizing" was not among the criteria, availability was, and there is a considerable opportunity cost difference between a stop at Mickey D's and a $90 internet order, secure delivery, sanitary storage, cooking, and cleanup. This is, I fear, a stretch for many of the people who see the Dollar Menu as a boon, and can't afford to lose sleep over potato monoculture. kleinbl00, if we don't consider ingredients whose prices are distorted by government interference, we will be reduced to eating dandelions from the backyard. The soy in that brown powder you advocate is heavily subsidized, and Amazon's tax break is almost double that of McDonald's, according to the source for the article you cited.
Or die of dysentery because they ate food that was trashed for a reason. (I have friends who will dive, but it's very much an at-your-own-risk proposition.) Careful with your assumptions. Rice and beans is a staple in most other countries. It's not gourmet, but we're working with a dollar here. I have a breakfast of oatmeal made from those rolled oats and whatever else I feel like adding on top that day. It's less pleasant without cut fruit or ground nuts, but it's food. My only key additive is ground flax seeds for the bowels. Let's not change the ball game, nothing is going to beat fast food on this mark. I'm responding to claim directly made in the title of the submission. I did try to pick items that store well in bulk, though. Up-front costs may seem a bit high, but then you can sit each of them in a sealed plastic container and stave off starvation for another month. Also, tangential fact, those Red Mill Rolled Oats have a 73% markup over what I get for my house.If it is simply a matter of getting calories, carbs, and protein into a human gut at the lowest cost, the freegan is going to win
Most people see these as ingredients, not food.
And while "appetizing" was not among the criteria, availability was
McDonald's is doing something singular here. I can give a guy on the sidewalk a dollar, and if he is fortunate enough to live in a state with no sales tax on food, he can have something tolerably pleasant and relatively safe to eat ten minutes later. In my view, the author is vindicated, despite being a smartass. • Cheap: I think we all agree on this, though we may have reservations about why it's cheap. • Nutritious: If it means "contains nutrition," this is hard to argue. • Bountiful: More than 33,000 locations[3]. Where two all-beef patties are not popular, the McAloo Tikki[4] is available (about US50¢ on the Happy Price Menu[5]). [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080130-AP-ha... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_and_beans [3] http://www.mcdonalds.ca/ca/en/our_story/mcdonalds_worldwide....Careful with your assumptions. Rice and beans is a staple in most other countries.
I don't want to upset the rice fans. I would have guessed rice as the "greatest food in human history" before seeing this provocative story on the Freakonomics blog. It's true, when there are no better alternatives, people will even eat mud pies[1]. But I strongly suspect, and some reading suggests[2], that rice and beans is topped with meat, vegetables or some kind of garnish whenever possible. And even if arroz con frijoles meets the criteria, it does not mean the McDouble does not.Let's not change the ball game, nothing is going to beat fast food on this mark. I'm responding to claim directly made in the title of the submission.
Your alternative wins in cost-per-calorie, but I don't think that's very meaningful. A sack of sugar would do even better. My request was for an argument that the McDouble is not, as the author claims in his first paragraph, cheap, nutritious, and bountiful.It's not gourmet, but we're working with a dollar here.
This is the crux. It's a dollar! What else can you buy for a dollar? You are already a little over budget with your monochromatic staples, and you still have to supply kitchen utensils, a stove, energy costs, and now a plastic container. I'm getting "tangy pickles, minced onions, ketchup and mustard" thrown in! People may be eating plain rice and beans around the world, but how many of them would switch to the burger if it were available?
*Argumentum ad O Veni:
A logical fallacy in which the arguer, while energetically indicating the absurdity of the opponent's position and indignation at being exposed to it, neglects to perform what should be the simple task of showing how it is flawed. Example: "Dude, don't you know Nike uses sweatshop labor?" "What? I like these shoes." "But poor Indonesians are working twelve hours a day in unsafe factories!" "Well, I suppose they must be better off working there than staying home, or they would stay home." "Oh, come on!"
Never worked at McD's, but I did flip burgers in high school and first year of college. It was such a great job. Learned a lot about hard work and nailed a few waitresses, too. I think that everyone should have to work in food service when they are young. If nothing else it teaches you how to not be a complete asshole in restaurants.
There is that behavior thing. I was mostly thinking about the people who purchase products at fast food 'straunts. Me, personally, I always tried to pack my own lunch because I'm cheap and I had certain basic facilities. But a lot of people don't have that option, so cheap fast food that provides good calories is a good thing. =XC