> So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of > these synthetic cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of > roots? > > For the answer, you need look no farther than the > farm bill.
this makes no sense at all. farm subsidies are distorting, but the reason it's cheaper to sell twinkies than carrots is not because it's cheaper to produce one, but because twinkies have more shelf life, so the cost of the entire retail transaction from production to sale (not the cost of production itself) is much cheaper. this is also why a fresh carrot is more expensive than a frozen one, which is more expensive than a canned one; or why coriander, which grows like a weed, is expensive in a supermarket (has to be very fresh and is bought in small quantities, at least in a western supermarket). anyway, europeans (and japanese) bave far greater carb-agro-subsidies and are not as fat as americans. there are many reasons for this, and one of them may be that fresh foods (which are usually healthier) are valued more. of course, it makes perfect economic sense in that case for them to be more expensive. in poor, starving societies where calorific value alone was the measure of value, high-calory foods would be (and are) _more_ expensive, so the rich are fatter - indeed, girth is traditionally a measure of wealth and general well-being. and this is justifiable. if you only live till 40, weight-related diseases are not a big problem. -rishab On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 10:22 +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
