Why Does the Media Hate (Poor) People Having Cheap Food?
For the Media: Awful News
The media are, of course, almost uniformly Leftist - which means they just about always toe the Party line. Including the belief that in order to help the poor - government must perpetually grow. Of course we conservatives also want to help the poor - we just think shrinking government is the way to actually do it.
When things get more expensive - the poor get hammered hardest. But the media misses the obvious - the more government there is, the more things cost. It is axiomatic - in (at least) two ways.
One: Government needs money to do anything - and government doesn’t make any money. So it must take it from the private sector. Prices inexorably rise - to offset the money government just took.
Two: When government imposes regulations, the private sector has to waste time, money and energy complying with them. Which inflates prices in (at least) two ways. Compliance with government costs time and money - which raises prices. And that time and money could have been much better spent making their stuff better and cheaper - which prevents prospective price reductions.
So when we actually succeed in reducing some government - prices will of course fall. And when that happens - the media freak out. Because they don’t like the visual aide of the Less Government Model working. So they try to warp the good news - into bad news.
To wit: The European Union (EU) has just reduced a bit the government’s uber-involvement in sugar production. And as always happens when government shrinks - sugar prices will fall. Which means food prices will fall. Because sugar is in a LOT of food - not just desserts. Seriously, check the labels in your refrigerator and cupboards - and not just the sweet stuff. Sugar is a food staple.
So prices falling is good news for everyone - especially the poor. But for the Big Government media - not so much. Instead of heralding it, the media give us this inanity:
Europe could soon be swamped with cheap sugar – including fructose, which is blamed for fueling the US obesity epidemic – because of the planned liberalisation of the sugar market, experts have said….
Reforms set to be completed in 2017 will end the artificial barriers, which have enabled a handful of Europe’s sugar beet producers to dominate the market, supplying sucrose to food and soft drinks manufacturers.
They will lose the protection of the EU’s common agricultural policy, which has kept sugar prices high, blocked imports and imposed a production cap on fructose….
The market reforms take no account of their likely impact on health or their potential effect on those on the lowest incomes, according to Emilie Aguirre and colleagues from Cambridge University writing in the British Medical Journal….
So government must be kept bloated - so we can lose weight? How about we’ll just eat less - and pay less when we do? How about we have more trade - for less money?
How about we have billions of global individuals each make their own individual dietary decisions - and be able to make them with cheaper food as a part of the mix? And what about the billions of people around the world who can’t afford food - who will see this policy approach as a boon to, you know, not starving to death?
The media can’t stand for any of this sort of liberalized thinking. Their cacophony on this is, as always, of one note.
And get this:
The exact same headline - from two different stories. Not at all hive-mind-like. And get this:
The liberalisation of the sugar market in the EU may increase sugar consumption, particularly among the lowest socioeconomic groups, and damage public health across Europe and beyond….
The media is - with a straight face - actually reporting “Food gets cheaper - poorest hardest hit.”
The joke, as always, is on us.