triknighted: gotlucky, to which race do you presume I belong? You might want to check your "bigot" accusation because frankly you know nothing about me.
gotlucky, to which race do you presume I belong? You might want to check your "bigot" accusation because frankly you know nothing about me.
triknighted doth protest too much, methinks. It was a joke, albeit one at your expense. But I'm beginning to think I might have nailed it by accident. I don't care what race you are. For all I know, you could be a self-hating black. But as I said, you are protesting just a little too much.
triknighted: So again, I must ask (unless you will continue to dodge the question by throwing red herrings at me): Above, you stated . . .
So again, I must ask (unless you will continue to dodge the question by throwing red herrings at me):
Above, you stated . . .
What red herrings?
triknighted: Let me specify: what were you insinuating by your "cornbread" reference? Why would you assume that I "just forgot to throw in cornbread as well"? It's a simple question, and I am waiting. . . .
Let me specify: what were you insinuating by your "cornbread" reference? Why would you assume that I "just forgot to throw in cornbread as well"? It's a simple question, and I am waiting. . . .
My goodness, you can't possibly be this ignorant. You originally said to Clayton:
triknighted: Clayton is right. I see people buying shit food on food stamps. Watermelon, fried chicken, grape soda, diapers, alcohol . . . .
Clayton is right. I see people buying shit food on food stamps. Watermelon, fried chicken, grape soda, diapers, alcohol . . . .
As Clayton pointed out, watermelon is not shit food. I assumed that you actually knew that, and that you were not really talking about shit food. The first two words you listed are commonly known to be stereotypes of black people. So, since watermelon is clearly not shit food, it seemed pretty clear that you were purposely listing stereotypes. I went on to say that you forgot to list "corn bread", another stereotype of black people. Do you need a source for this nonsense? Okay, here is a quote from an article about Hermain Cain:
For some people, these are nothing more than charming phrases; but for others, they raise the specter of race in ways that are unsettling. For example, "shucky-ducky" is a nonsensical phrase often associated with uneducated Southern blacks. Cain's wish to be called "cornbread" is also troubling, since it can be viewed, like watermelon and fried chicken, as a stereotype applied to blacks.
So, where did I dodge your question? You asked what was I insinuating, and I responded. I was insinuating that you are a bigot and had simply forgotten to list a third stereotypical food of black people, and that you had only listed two. And of the two you listed, you claimed watermelon was shit food. I mean, come on, are you really this dumb?
Here in Missouri we also have WIC (women infants children) which is another food-stamp like program but I think it's only for single mothers and you only get the food approved by WIC.
Most notably to me is that there are only two approved baby formulas: Enfamil and Similac. Not coincidentally, the grocery store I work at only sells these two brands of crazy-expensive baby formula. Almost no person can afford these on their own, and here's WIC to save the day!
This seems like a case of cartelization, a newcomer in the formula market couldn't possibly compete with free, allowing the WIC favored-companies to keep the retail price high, pushing more people into the WIC program. Vicious cycle.
Clayton: @mikachussetts: See my prior post - the conclusion holds ceteris paribus and, yes, the conditions are qualified in the actual fact but in a way that makes my case stronger, not weaker. The effects of food stamps on the overall budget is dependent on the recipient's schedule of wants, of course, but because they are redeemable only for food, this must boost demand for food, even if it boosts demand for other things as a side-effect. Demand cannot increase without an increase in production (Say's law) and a concomitant increase in consumption. Clayton -
@mikachussetts: See my prior post - the conclusion holds ceteris paribus and, yes, the conditions are qualified in the actual fact but in a way that makes my case stronger, not weaker. The effects of food stamps on the overall budget is dependent on the recipient's schedule of wants, of course, but because they are redeemable only for food, this must boost demand for food, even if it boosts demand for other things as a side-effect. Demand cannot increase without an increase in production (Say's law) and a concomitant increase in consumption.
Clayton -
In my opinion you are discounting the amount of bartering that goes on with food stamps. They are really a currency of their own in low income neighborhoods, usually worth 50c to the dollar. I have some extra food stamps and I need some cigs/weed/cds/gas etc etc etc... I trade you my food stamps for cash. This is pretty widespread actually.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Quite the opposite, I'm partly relying on this fact to make my case: sooner or later those foodstamps must all be redeemed for food. Looking at how John Doe rearranges his household budget as a consequence of receiving food stamps is immaterial to the larger question of whether food consumption will increase - if John Doe does not increase his own food consumption, then he will trade his leftover food stamps to someone else who will increase theirs.
I think the confusion arises between these two propositions:
The second proposition is clearly false but does not imply the falsity of the first proposition, which is a statement about a population not about an individual.
Clayton:@mikachussetts: See my prior post - the conclusion holds ceteris paribus and, yes, the conditions are qualified in the actual fact but in a way that makes my case stronger, not weaker. The effects of food stamps on the overall budget is dependent on the recipient's schedule of wants, of course, but because they are redeemable only for food, this must boost demand for food, even if it boosts demand for other things as a side-effect. Demand cannot increase without an increase in production (Say's law) and a concomitant increase in consumption.
No, you are still wrong. Let's say I spend $500 a month on groceries, without food stamps. The govt comes along and offers me $400 in food stamps. Now, I only have to spend $100 of my own cash in addition to the foodstamps in order to get the same amount of groceries. In other words, I can spend all of my food stamps without spending more on food!
I'm not saying that food stamps don't boost demand for food at all -- I'm arguing against your logic that it must. The only cases where food stamps would necessarily increase demand is where the amount given out in food stamps is more than what would have been spent on groceries otherwise. And as Laotzu points out, this is still denying the fact that they can be bartered.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
mikachusetts: I'm not saying that food stamps don't boost demand for food at all -- I'm arguing against your logic that it must.
I'm not saying that food stamps don't boost demand for food at all -- I'm arguing against your logic that it must.
QFT. It's a very strong inductive argument, but it is not a sound deductive argument.
Let's say the government spent $1B on direct subsidy to grocery retailers - just outright gave $1B to Safeway, Albertson's, etc.
Would that increase, decrease or have no effect on consumption of food? Well, logic dictates that it would increase consumption as it would lower prices.
Now, instead of giving $1B directly to grocery retailers, let's say the government created $1B in "grocery stamps" and handed them out by lottery in small denominations (say, $5-$10). Because everyone's food budget exceeds the small amounts of the lottery, it is guaranteed that all of the stamps will be redeemed. Logically, this is nearly indistinguishable from the first case because the stamps must be redeemed at the grocers to be of value, The distinction between the stamps and outright subsidy is that the stamps divide consumers into two groups who feel opposite effects from the stamps. The lottery winners feel a decreased price of food and, thus, as a group, their consumption is increased. The lottery losers feel an increased price of food. Unlike an outright subsidy (which the grocers feel as a reduced cost of business), the stamps appear to grocers as an increase in demand, thus causing prices to rise.
What is different with food stamps from the hypothetical grocery stamps is that they are not distributed randomly (primarily to low income people who have a different schedule of wants from foodstuffs, namely, they consume more unhealthy foods than people with higher incomes) and the "lottery winners" receive substantial amounts of money rather than a token $5 or $10. But because the food stamps can be bartered, they will still ultimately end up in the pockets of the grocers no matter how many hands they change or what they are bartered for on their way home. The fact that the food stamps are not randomly distributed is important - in the case of random grocery stamps, we might speculate that the increased demand on the part of lottery winners will be offset by a concomitant decrease in demand in response to the rising price of groceries by lottery losers. But in the case of food stamps, this is definitely not true - the food budgets of those who do not receive food stamps (middle class) are by definition less sensitive to price changes than those who receive food stamps (low income).
Food stamps are naught but a food industry/grocery retail subsidy that is laundered through the hands of low income people on the way. The net effect of the subsidy is an increase in consumption of food (thus increased retail grocery prices). In terms of health effects, the increase in obesity is completely predictable. Yet the NYT and the Atlantic Monthly will continue wringing their collectivist hands in collectivist puzzlement at the inexorable increase in Americans' waistlines even as welfare of all forms reaches ever unprecedented heights. Go figure.
Clayton: In my opinion you are discounting the amount of bartering that goes on with food stamps. They are really a currency of their own in low income neighborhoods, usually worth 50c to the dollar. I have some extra food stamps and I need some cigs/weed/cds/gas etc etc etc... I trade you my food stamps for cash. This is pretty widespread actually. Quite the opposite, I'm partly relying on this fact to make my case: sooner or later those foodstamps must all be redeemed for food. Looking at how John Doe rearranges his household budget as a consequence of receiving food stamps is immaterial to the larger question of whether food consumption will increase - if John Doe does not increase his own food consumption, then he will trade his leftover food stamps to someone else who will increase theirs. I think the confusion arises between these two propositions: Food stamps cause obesity If you use food stamps, you will become obese The second proposition is clearly false but does not imply the falsity of the first proposition, which is a statement about a population not about an individual. Clayton -
This makes sense. It did seem you were proposing the latter. My apologies for misunderstanding you.
I'm not sure that obesity is really a problem in low-income communities tho, and would like to see some data. In my experience (personal anectdote, and so irrelevant) obesity is more of a middle income problem. When I drive around the ghettos in my area, I see a lot of skinny (and quite muscular) people. Again, this is personal anectdote, and could just be because obese people don't go outside much (which could also be the major cause of their obesity). Data data data. We can get nowhere without it.
@Laotzu: Yes, I would definitely be interested in a study on the correlation between absolute welfare levels and obesity - specifically, such a study would need to look at:
While data is important, I want to note that the government and its buddies in the food and grocery industries do not have the moral prerogative to put the burden-of-proof on opponents of food stamps ... "Show your data, or else the program is justified." I see this verbal jujutsu in my company all the time. When management wants to bury an initiative without outright killing it, they all of a sudden start chiming "where's the data? we need data that proves this is a positive ROI initiatve"... and when they want some initiative to go ahead, asking for data is treated like betraying the company's core objectives. "We all need to be on the same page, here... you can't get the data until you've PoC'd anyway and this initiative is in line with the company's core objectives. We'll look at the data in the project post-mortem."
*rolling eyes*
Clayton, you are still ignoring my main point!
If the government spends $1B on food stamps, it doesn't necessarily follow that grocery stores receive a single dollar more than they would have otherwise. The reason why, is because individuals who receive stamps were still buying groceries before, and that previous grocery budget can now be shifted away from food. Food stamps are as good as cash because they essentially free up cash which was normally budgeted for food.
If I gave you $100 to spend a week only on food, and you continue to buy the same things you did before, what happens when you balance your checkbook? You suddenly have $100 more in your checking account to spend on anything you want!
gotlucky: triknighted: gotlucky, to which race do you presume I belong? You might want to check your "bigot" accusation because frankly you know nothing about me. triknighted doth protest too much, methinks. It was a joke, albeit one at your expense. But I'm beginning to think I might have nailed it by accident. I don't care what race you are. For all I know, you could be a self-hating black. But as I said, you are protesting just a little too much. triknighted: So again, I must ask (unless you will continue to dodge the question by throwing red herrings at me): Above, you stated . . . What red herrings? triknighted: Let me specify: what were you insinuating by your "cornbread" reference? Why would you assume that I "just forgot to throw in cornbread as well"? It's a simple question, and I am waiting. . . . My goodness, you can't possibly be this ignorant. You originally said to Clayton: triknighted: Clayton is right. I see people buying shit food on food stamps. Watermelon, fried chicken, grape soda, diapers, alcohol . . . . As Clayton pointed out, watermelon is not shit food. I assumed that you actually knew that, and that you were not really talking about shit food. The first two words you listed are commonly known to be stereotypes of black people. So, since watermelon is clearly not shit food, it seemed pretty clear that you were purposely listing stereotypes. I went on to say that you forgot to list "corn bread", another stereotype of black people. Do you need a source for this nonsense? Okay, here is a quote from an article about Hermain Cain: For some people, these are nothing more than charming phrases; but for others, they raise the specter of race in ways that are unsettling. For example, "shucky-ducky" is a nonsensical phrase often associated with uneducated Southern blacks. Cain's wish to be called "cornbread" is also troubling, since it can be viewed, like watermelon and fried chicken, as a stereotype applied to blacks. So, where did I dodge your question? You asked what was I insinuating, and I responded. I was insinuating that you are a bigot and had simply forgotten to list a third stereotypical food of black people, and that you had only listed two. And of the two you listed, you claimed watermelon was shit food. I mean, come on, are you really this dumb?
It's pretty sad that you think food can somehow correspond to racism.
The reason why, is because individuals who receive stamps were still buying groceries before, and that previous grocery budget can now be shifted away from food.
But you're missing the point that the government has just corralled $1B that previously could have been redeemed for anything and decreed that it can only be redeemed for groceries. In order to flow back into the regular state of being redeemable for anything, those stamps must first go through the hands of a grocer.
Let's push it to the extreme to see the point.
Scenario #1: Government randomly burns half of all dollars in existence. In this case, the value of the remaining dollars would roughly double but then, as Hume pointed out, on balance, nothing would really change.
Scenario #2: Government randomly seizes half of all dollars in existence and randomly gives them to retail grocers. In this case, the price of groceries would plummet as grocers scurry to outcompete each other and attract more customers with their gigantic sums of cash. Food consumption would soar as food prices plummet. Ironically, food production would also soar as the flood of new cash into the food industry signals a false demand. This is very similar to the business cycle situation created by inflation, just limited to a single industry.
Scenario #3: Government randomly converts half of all dollars in existence into food stamps. In this case, the value of the remaining dollars would go up but not as much as in Scenario #1. The half of dollars converted to food stamps would still be redeemable for groceries. The grocer can then exchange the stamps with the government for dollars.
The half of dollars which have been converted into food stamps have to pass through the hands of a grocer in order to become dollars again. Demand for groceries would soar. It doesn't matter if people were selling them at 25 cents on the dollar to go buy a new TV, the half of all dollars that have been converted to food stamps are now only redeemable for groceries. The economic effects would be indistinguishable from Scenario #2 except that food prices would rise rather than fall. Consumers would consume more groceries (since groceries are "cheaper" than other goods, with the food stamps) and food production would also soar.
Go back and think about it again - the government waves a wand and half the dollars in your bank account have been converted to food stamps. Now what do you do? Doesn't matter whether you buy groceries or barter them away for something else, more groceries will get bought than when we all had dollars that could be exchanged for anything.
triknighted:It's pretty sad that you think food can somehow correspond to racism.
Ikr?
Everybody likes fried chicken, everybody likes watermelon, everybody likes dat corn bread, so enough with the malicious insinuations.
Buzz Killington: triknighted:It's pretty sad that you think food can somehow correspond to racism. Ikr? Everybody likes fried chicken, everybody likes watermelon, everybody likes dat corn bread, so enough with the malicious insinuations.
LMAO!!!
triknighted: It's pretty sad that you think food can somehow correspond to racism.
I'm not the one who makes up the stereotypes. It's pretty sad that you deny reality. What happened to you, triknighted?
gotlucky: triknighted: It's pretty sad that you think food can somehow correspond to racism. I'm not the one who makes up the stereotypes. It's pretty sad that you deny reality. What happened to you, triknighted?
My response.
You are just a troll. Go somewhere else.
gotlucky: You are just a troll. Go somewhere else.
That is exactly what trolls usually say. Being that I created this thread, how about you heed your own request and "go somewhere else."
Back to the topic at hand . . . unless you insist on further derailing the discussion, of course. . . .
Cute, you derailed it with your racism. But sure, you are right. I will stop derailing by addressing your bigotry. The ball is in your court.
Clayton:But you're missing the point that the government has just corralled $1B that previously could have been redeemed for anything and decreed that it can only be redeemed for groceries. In order to flow back into the regular state of being redeemable for anything, those stamps must first go through the hands of a grocer.
Okay. Lets say the City of Baltimore takes in $1B in tax revenue and hands this out directly in the form of food stamps. All tax payers are now collectively poorer by $1B, and all food stamp recipients are now collectively richer (in the form of food alone) by $1B.
If we look only at the tax payer side, we see $1B going (eventually) to the grocers, in addition to the normal amount that taxpayers spend on food. When you look at the food stamp recipients side, you $1B going to the grocers (in the form of food stamps) instead of $1B in cash, not in addition. The food stamp recipients are $1B richer in cash because they shifted that cash away from groceries and towards whatever else they want. As a whole, its a total wash. Its no different than directly transfering $1B in cash from one side to the other.
Now, like I've said, this is assuming that the food stamps is equal to or less than the amount they would have spent on groceries otherwise. If its more than that, then yes, demand for food has increased. But that's an empirical point that you need to make, not a praxeological one.
But this isn't whats going on. Sure, if everyone was suddenly forced to spend half of their entire bank account on food, that would most definitely increase demand for food -- no one would deny that.
Your whole argument rests on the assumption that more money is being handed out in the form of food stamps than what would have been previously spent on food. You have to prove this though. If we aren't going to look over the actual data on this, I think my assumption is much more realistic -- that the amount handed out in food stamps (as a whole) is less than or equal to what would have been spent on food otherwise. The reason why, is becuase most people are not starving to death and they spend money on food before most other goods.
triknighted:That is exactly what trolls usually say. Being that I created this thread, how about you heed your own request and "go somewhere else."
Trolls certainly can and sometimes do create threads. As long as they haven't been banned, I see nothing stopping them from doing that.
triknighted:Back to the topic at hand . . . unless you insist on further derailing the discussion, of course. . . .
I concur with GotLucky. You intentionally provoked an off-topic response by invoking racial stereotypes. Technically that goes against the rules of this forum, so any one of us would be within our rights to report it as abusive. Furthermore, invoking racial stereotypes is itself off-topic, so congratulations for derailing your own thread.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Autolykos: triknighted:That is exactly what trolls usually say. Being that I created this thread, how about you heed your own request and "go somewhere else." Trolls certainly can and sometimes do create threads. As long as they haven't been banned, I see nothing stopping them from doing that. triknighted:Back to the topic at hand . . . unless you insist on further derailing the discussion, of course. . . . I concur with GotLucky. You intentionally provoked an off-topic response by invoking racial stereotypes. Technically that goes against the rules of this forum, so any one of us would be within our rights to report it as abusive. Furthermore, invoking racial stereotypes is itself off-topic, so congratulations for derailing your own thread.
First off, let me quote myself from the beginning of this thread that I created:
triknighted: This is more for entertainment than discussion.
This is more for entertainment than discussion.
Hopefully that identifies the proper context of this thread. Next . . . you might want to watch your tone, as you might put it. Next, the way you're defending gotlucky, it's almost as if you're the one he "gotlucky" with. Let me seriously specify, in case the context hasn't been sufficiently relayed: the latter comment was also intended for entertainment purposes.
Also, when did I invoke racial stereotypes? I merely pointed out that gotlucky automatically assumed I was. Seems to be a bit premature on his part. If you're upset, it must be at the fact that I pointed out that he was presumptuous in assuming racist overtones with food. As I pointed out, I meant nothing of the sort.
Relax. This thread was mainly intended for entertainment. I'll resume the serious discourse in the serious discussion threads.
triknighted:First off, let me quote myself from the beginning of this thread that I created: triknighted: This is more for entertainment than discussion.
What kind of "entertainment" were/are you looking for, exactly?
triknighted:Hopefully that identifies the proper context of this thread. Next . . . you might want to watch your tone, as you might put it.
I see no reason thus far to watch my tone.
triknighted:Next, the way you're defending gotlucky, it's almost as if you're the one he "gotlucky" with. Let me seriously specify, in case the context hasn't been sufficiently relayed: the latter comment was also intended for entertainment purposes.
I'm not amused, and I've reported your post for this. No matter how much you might say it's intended for "entertainment purposes", I consider it to be unwarranted and contrary to the intent of the forum.
triknighted:Also, when did I invoke racial stereotypes?
I'd say you did so right here.
triknighted:I merely pointed out that gotlucky automatically assumed I was. Seems to be a bit premature on his part. If you're upset, it must be at the fact that I pointed out that he was presumptuous in assuming racist overtones with food. As I pointed out, I meant nothing of the sort.
I don't believe you. Neither does he, I imagine.
triknighted:Relax.
No.
Autolykos: triknighted:First off, let me quote myself from the beginning of this thread that I created: triknighted: This is more for entertainment than discussion. What kind of "entertainment" were/are you looking for, exactly? triknighted:Hopefully that identifies the proper context of this thread. Next . . . you might want to watch your tone, as you might put it. I see no reason thus far to watch my tone. triknighted:Next, the way you're defending gotlucky, it's almost as if you're the one he "gotlucky" with. Let me seriously specify, in case the context hasn't been sufficiently relayed: the latter comment was also intended for entertainment purposes. I'm not amused, and I've reported your post for this. No matter how much you might say it's intended for "entertainment purposes", I consider it to be unwarranted and contrary to the intent of the forum. triknighted:Also, when did I invoke racial stereotypes? I'd say you did so right here. triknighted:I merely pointed out that gotlucky automatically assumed I was. Seems to be a bit premature on his part. If you're upset, it must be at the fact that I pointed out that he was presumptuous in assuming racist overtones with food. As I pointed out, I meant nothing of the sort. I don't believe you. Neither does he, I imagine. triknighted:Relax. No.
I agree with a few of the others on Mises.org. You're neurotic. Your signature about JJ says it all, frankly.
Peace.
If by "neurotic" you mean that I stand up for what I believe in and what I think is right, and will not back down for anyone, then, in the words of Richard Dawkins, I heartily accept the rebuke. The same goes if you instead mean that I'm ruining the fun you're trying to have by trying to troll the forum.
I have to say, I assumed triknighted was making a racial 'joke' as well. It seemed fairly clear, in fact.
Food Stamps (now in the form of a credit card to reduce the stigma of the handout) tend to be used to buy a lot of junk food that can sit on a shelf indefinitely as opposed to fresh meats and vegetables. I've seen this a lot. Folks will buy what's cheap even if there's a hand out. Rather than get better quality food, they'll just get more of it.
By eating right, are you suggesting the Government's way of 'eating right' which consists of eating a boat load of subsidized corn and soy products, including that wonderful and inexpensive high fructose corn syrup?
Still comes down to individual choice. Those who make bad decisions without food stamps tend to make bad decisions with food stamps.
+1 KC Farmer!
Food stamps, mcdonalds, ice cream...etc....don't cause obesity; just like marijuana doesnt cause pot addicts etc....it takes an addictive personality to become addicted to something, such as drugs, food, sex, porn...etc. The presence of a gun, doesn't make me a murderer.
Food stamps....don't cause obesity
See my response to Consumariat above. The proposition "If you use foodstamps, you will become obese" is false but that does not imply that foodstamps don't cause obesity in the population.
Come on, rising obesity is probably the only way for Social Security to avoid inevitable bankruptcy. What's the big deal?
This is incorrect. If someone spends $100 a week on groceries without food stamps, and then you give them an additional $100 per week in food stamps, all this does is free up the initial $100 for use any way they wish. Sure, they might buy $200 in groceries a week, but its just as plausible that they spend that initial $100 on DVD's or lottery tickets or school supplies.
Bingo. There is no way to tell what is going into the system, all we can say there is now $100 accounted for in food spending via tax. Nothing more can be said
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
There's a new one: