Hacker News Reader

Comment by pm90 | Hacker News Reader

Honestly its so much wasted human capacity. Its not even the case that we don’t have enough: there’s enough food to adequately feed everyone. Its a logistical problem and when markets are left to their own they will obviously lead to situations where only the cheapest products win out (not the most nutritious).

View on HN

> lead to situations where only the cheapest products win out (not the most nutritious).

Vending machine owners stock what sells. People vote with their dollars and their attention. We are free to choose what we eat, and free to throw out the TV. Most enjoy watching the 'breaking news' propaganda rather than putting in some effort to cook a simple meal at home. Your body, your choice.

Sometimes, but not always, top down approaches are more efficient and lead to better outcomes than bottom up approaches.

Top down means government control - socialism, at best.

Socialism is when workers control the means of production. That's not really the case in this example. Top down also doesn't mean government control. Corporations are driven top down, from a CEO down to the subordinates at each layer. Given a defining goal, they can be very efficient. If each subordinate was supposed to figure out what to do, it's not very efficient or effective.

No no no, socialism is when the government does things! This is basic knowledge here...

Does this fit better with present discussion:

Top down government control of individual's food choices.

Sounds good to me, as long as it creates positive effects. There is nothing wrong with banning sugar laden foods if we know they will cause obesity, for example.

You say it like it's something bad. Or are you for the abolishment of the FDA?

Meanwhile nobody pitches a fit that literally every single business is a centrally managed and top down entity, and it seems to do quite well for a lot of them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com