Hacker News Reader

Comment by landemva | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com