Soviet-style Breadlines come to America.

[Big Phil]

Because it's an iconic visual image. Duh. Sort of like the Tiananmen Square tank man is an iconic visual image, and if that happened again anywhere in the world, we would make the connection, regardless of whether the surrounding circumstances are identical.

Seriously, how many contortions of the English language do we need to put up with in this thread? I've been informed that the word "style" means "caused by the same underlying factors" many many times, even though that it doesn't, and no matter how many times this is pointed out, people keep repeating that it does.

So we should be interpreting her comment of "Soviet-style breadlines" as simply "breadlines?"

Are you deliberately trying to be stupid? It obviously means "breadlines which look like the classic image of a Soviet breadline". Why the fuck would it necessarily mean "breadlines which are caused by the same underlying socio-economic conditions as Soviet breadlines?"

If all we're talking about is "breadlines which look like the classic image of a Soviet breadline," this entire thread is meaningless. There have been breadlines "which look like the classic image of a Soviet breadline" since (at least) the Great Depression, and they get shorter or longer depending on economic conditions.

The statement only has value if the descriptor "Soviet-style" means something more than "hey, it looks like a line of people waiting for food!" People at the lower end of the economic food chain having to wait in lines for free food is hardly something new.

[Darth Wong]

If all we're talking about is "breadlines which look like the classic image of a Soviet breadline," this entire thread is meaningless. There have been breadlines "which look like the classic image of a Soviet breadline" since (at least) the Great Depression, and they get shorter or longer depending on economic conditions.

And the economic conditions are getting bad, so they're getting longer, which is why they now look like Soviet breadlines. Duh.

The statement only has value if the descriptor "Soviet-style" means something more than "hey, it looks like a line of people waiting for food!" People at the lower end of the economic food chain having to wait in lines for free food is hardly something new.

So your idea of "meaningless" is "anything which is not happening for the very first time in all of history?" Is it meaningless every time someone says that it looks like we're heading into a serious economic depression, just because the country has had depressions before?

As I said, people keep throwing up more and more objections which have nothing to do with the statements under discussion. If it's not about knee-jerk defense of capitalism, then why are people doing this?

[Illuminatus Primus]

How does the word "Soviet" even apply here?

Because it's an iconic visual image. Duh. Sort of like the Tiananmen Square tank man is an iconic visual image, and if that happened again anywhere in the world, we would make the connection, regardless of whether the surrounding circumstances are identical.

Seriously, how many contortions of the English language do we need to put up with in this thread? I've been informed that the word "style" means "caused by the same underlying factors" many many times, even though that it doesn't, and no matter how many times this is pointed out, people keep repeating that it does.

Because its inappropriate and stupid. Everyone knows Marina is a shill for ridiculous unqualified melodrama in fields outside her expertise, whatever that is (I've never seen her state or post her qualifications, just "I'd like to be a nuke eng"). The rest of us don't go off in diatribes sprinkled with Napoleonic era romantic allusions, and expect it to be a forceful argument. The fact of this thread is that she started it because of her little pissy vendetta with Ossus for making her look stupid in the rice price thread. Petty bullshit. Now tied with her usual MO and the fact that the she has repeatedly suggested the U.S. is headed for communist reaction and even wrote a goddamn story on that basic premise, that her analogy of "Soviet-style breadlines" goes more than skin-deep is hardly an unfair assertion. Yes, are they evocative in imagery of the Soviet Union's infamous breadlines? Sure. But in the context was it appears, it is nothing new, it is not indicative of a thorough collapse of the system and endemic staple shortages across the population. Breadlines in the 1980s Soviet Union were endemic phenomena that the common gainfully employed citizen with technical degrees would probably still endure. This is a single example of a phenomena which has occurred before in the U.S. and I'd be amazed if poor house food drives in Canada and elsewhere had had bouts of increased demand and occasional lines as well. Is it fair to say this is about a logical dispute? Probably not, there's no deductive line of reasoning. I think a lot of posters are probably exasperated by Marina's shameless opportunism and piss-contest with Ossus - the sole purpose of this thread, and was so desperate for petty points she scrounged for a single example of a poor food bank having a line. Which of course, is totally different from her original context of "Soviet-style breadlines" (namely, that common consumers would suffer them regularly for rice in CostCo).

[Darth Wong]

Because its inappropriate and stupid. Everyone knows Marina is a shill for ridiculous unqualified melodrama in fields outside her expertise, whatever that is (I've never seen her state or post her qualifications, just "I'd like to be a nuke eng").

So? How does that make it any more or less accurate to distort the meaning of the word "style"? This whole shitfit is nothing more than an increasingly blatant violation of the no-vendetta rule.

Which of course, is totally different from her original context of "Soviet-style breadlines" (namely, that common consumers would suffer them regularly for rice in CostCo).

Her penchant for dramatic exaggeration was probably best exemplified in a statement she once made about how highway overpasses would be deserted in 20 years, not this. This was a one-liner, and people are jumping on her for it because they dislike the other things she's said; your own post makes this all too clear.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You asked for an explanation, I never said you'd like it. Anyway, I'd say Marina is the one who started it deliberately to continue a pissing contest, given it was a direct reply to Ossus' signature (the two of them are actually in a tandem pissing contest with their signatures, but I digress). Still, Ossus is an economist or works in the field, he cited his sources last time, and I find it irritating when Marina goes on these bombastic speeches about the history of thought. She is not a renown scholar or university professor. And in this particular case, her opponents have generally had better expertise in the on-again, off-again argument and cited their sources better.

[Darth Wong]

Well, my views on the validity of economists' claims of expertise are probably well known, so I won't get into that in detail again. Suffice it to say that Ossus once tried to refute my claim that salary is poorly correlated to productivity in today's economy by simply defining productivity as salary, and then telling me that he didn't really have to explain himself because he's an economist and I'm not: if this is how real economists think, then I understand how the sub-prime crisis happened without any of them predicting it. So I've never been too impressed by Ossus saying "I'm a real economist".

Frankly, every time I've seen Ossus debating Marina about issues like this, I've never felt that either of them was doing a particularly great job. Marina gets overly melodramatic, while Ossus says stupid things like "if people can't afford food, they just need to re-prioritize", as if you can seriously assume that all poor people have spare money laying around.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Yeah, but your claims are well-defined, and not combined with amnesia about gas prices in your own region in service to your melodramatic speeches ("Capitalism is the horror of the ages, if we listened to the philosophes and then blah blah blah Napoleon said blah blah blah"). In your case, I'm not really sure what Ossus is talking about, but productivity is a measure of output volume versus input volume. Given there are detailed studies on how office arrangement and office temperature can effect productivity and the employees are obviously being paid the same salary in both cases, I do not know what he is talking about. And of course, times of bubble and speculation lead to situations where the figures on productivity are distorted by inflated value in the economy, the quantity of which becomes clear only when the market begins to correct. A lot of times what something means depends on how you choose to define it in a given context or paper. If you are in real estate, productivity from your point of view may easily be simply the size of the commissions you're earning versus the number of hours spent working on houses (for this reason infamous studies suggest that consistently people's houses get sold slightly too early from the perspective of their profit maximization, because they have an incentive to move on). The gross labor productivity of the real estate whole sector might be qualified but be misleading because much of the money in the system was speculative.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The simple answer is that I don't find material prosperity to be a necessarily ideal outcome. That is to say I find human happiness completely disconnected from economic success. Therefore I can't even really communicate effectively with an economist, because there seems to be an implicit goal in economics of creating the best possible performance in any given economy, when I do not necessarily find that desireable.

And I really did just bloody well misremember the gas prices.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Well maybe you shouldn't speak so bombastically and melodramatically on your own authority. Ossus IS less universal and arrogant in his claims, and it is within his magisterium. Is it within yours? I don't know many economics graduate students, even the Marxian ones, who speak with such tenured authority on the topic as you. I find it odious, especially because, from what I have gathered, your expertise is library or Internet reading. Autodidactics are not the same thing as education and experience in a field.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Incidentally, there's a reason I don't go around claiming qualifications--because you're not supposed to claim that you're right because you have a fucking degree, you're supposed to back it up. And maybe there's more than a little of the fact that I want myself to be wrong in more than a few cases going on in the fact that I'm reluctant to elaborate. I simply refuse, in short, to go around waving diplomas and try to wedge them into a claim of expert knowledge.

And, again, the reason why these debates get so melodramatic is that there's simply no common ground. I don't want society to be organized on capitalist lines, so no communication with an economist is productively possible for me. It's essentially asking me to accept some basic preconditions of capitalism which I simply won't accept in the first place. I cannot in good conscience support a capitalist society as it is currently organized, and under its current governing first principles, that is to say, that continuous economic growth correlates with prosperity. This seems to me to be a rather straightforward conclusion to the issue, and that was the point I was trying to make with that quote of Ossus' in my sig,

Namely, to point out the inherent immorality of allowing food to be governed by an unrestrained capitalist market economy. What he said is, in fact, structurally correct. It is simply immoral.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well maybe you shouldn't speak so bombastically and melodramatically on your own authority. Ossus IS less universal and arrogant in his claims, and it is within his magisterium. Is it within yours? I don't know many economics graduate students, even the Marxian ones, who speak with such tenured authority on the topic as you. I find it odious, especially because, from what I have gathered, your expertise is library or Internet reading. Autodidactics are not the same thing as education and experience in a field.

I simply don't know if there's any formal studies related to my economic theories. Possibly there are in the Basque Country (or Brazil or Argentina), but we don't have any graduates of a Mondragon college here, which rather leaves me. It is however fairly easy to disagree with capitalism in the fashion that I'm doing, and so I'll cut the bullcrap and give you exactly what you apparently want to hear:

Capitalist free-market economics is about maximizing efficiency and productivity and therefore producing maximal profit, which is considered an ideal outcome. I disagree that this is an ideal outcome, and therefore there is no real baseline between myself and Ossus or really anyone else on this issue.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Incidentally, there's a reason I don't go around claiming qualifications--because you're not supposed to claim that you're right because you have a fucking degree, you're supposed to back it up. And maybe there's more than a little of the fact that I want myself to be wrong in more than a few cases going on in the fact that I'm reluctant to elaborate. I simply refuse, in short, to go around waving diplomas and try to wedge them into a claim of expert knowledge.

Yeah, but someone whose knowledge on the subject is limited to what they find at the library and the Internet on their own is not the equal of the formally education. The formal education does not make you right, but it establishes credibility - especially the tone and authority with which one speaks. I suspect your silence has more to do with the fact your attitude is not substantiated with education, and your silence is in service to that fact. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if you had any formal education on this topic. What are you anyway? A classicist? A BA in history? I do not feel comfortable making assertions as broad as yours.

I don't have to find only educated people correct, or think you have to be educated to be correct, but I CAN find it odious when people who don't know what they are talking about talk big. J has been educated in geology by one of the major contributors in the field, especially with reference to Hubbart's theories. What I wonder is why you feel so capable of broad pronouncements on the topic, beyond the scope of which others are comfortable making.

And, again, the reason why these debates get so melodramatic is that there's simply no common ground. I don't want society to be organized on capitalist lines, so no communication with an economist is productively possible for me. It's essentially asking me to accept some basic preconditions of capitalism which I simply won't accept in the first place.

What are you even talking about? If I were to ask you to explain basics of macroeconomics which students can take in advanced placement in High School would you even know what I was talking about? There are simply characteristics of economics which hold true regardless of the society in which they are implemented. Does compound interest not work? What about the theory of price? Do you suggest that even knowledge or study of such things necessarily predisposes one to a laissez-faire policy? I guess that will be news to Stas, a socialist and an economist educated in Russia. What about Marxian economics? Austrian School? How about the economics surrounding integralism? How do you even begin to approach these aspects of social policy if you have no use for economics or economists, full stop?

I cannot in good conscience support a capitalist society as it is currently organized, and under its current governing first principles, that is to say, that continuous economic growth correlates with prosperity. This seems to me to be a rather straightforward conclusion to the issue, and that was the point I was trying to make with that quote of Ossus' in my sig,

And that's your whole fucking problem; not everything is some goddamn screed about philosophy and history of nations. Ossus made fun of you in the last thread because you made a stupid argument about prices and shortages and economics. For his other faults, you were in such a rush to substantiate your polemics with nitty-gritty things - fact-based things - about economics. And you didn't know what you're talking about. That results in getting made fun of on this board. When you're particularly tenured and melodramatic about saying something stupid, you shouldn't be surprised when you get made fun of even harder.

Namely, to point out the inherent immorality of allowing food to be governed by an unrestrained capitalist market economy. What he said is, in fact, structurally correct. It is simply immoral.

Which is universal amongst OECD states and their economic policies? Really? This is a problem across all modern nations? Because maybe I'm mistaken, but you just went on a screed about the loss of virtuous medieval institutions and now you're complaining about something which is not universal to modern states all of which lack those virtuous medieval institutions. First of all, you're a moron, because food in the U.S. is not the product of unrestrained capitalist market economics, but the conscious result of deliberate interference by the government in order to enrich the already rich.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I simply don't know if there's any formal studies related to my economic theories. Possibly there are in the Basque Country (or Brazil or Argentina), but we don't have any graduates of a Mondragon college here, which rather leaves me.

Don't you ever get tired of name dropping? It must be easy to snipe at others' education from a perspective of little or none. I'm sure my friend who does work with the Sandanistas in Nicaragua will be surprised to find out he is only concerned institutionally with propagating neoliberalism because of his chosen field of education.

It is however fairly easy to disagree with capitalism in the fashion that I'm doing, and so I'll cut the bullcrap and give you exactly what you apparently want to hear:

Capitalist free-market economics is about maximizing efficiency and productivity and therefore producing maximal profit, which is considered an ideal outcome. I disagree that this is an ideal outcome, and therefore there is no real baseline between myself and Ossus or really anyone else on this issue.

So you can dismiss everything ever written on a topic because of a perceived bias on desired outcome within the field? I suppose you think this is why food is expensive, not deliberate protection of domestic food production, poor income redistribution policies, capital gains taxes purposes, and ethanol subsidies. Nope, that's all free marketeering, my mistake!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

What I wonder is why you feel so capable of broad pronouncements on the topic, beyond the scope of which others are comfortable making.

I simply don't think I am, particularly when compared to Valdemar I see myself as being rather fundamentally conservative on what's happening right now.

What are you even talking about? If I were to ask you to explain basics of macroeconomics which students can take in advanced placement in High School would you even know what I was talking about?

Yes, of course, I've studied economics myself (that much, I can prove, I just didn't get very far in it before my heart was ripped out by it).

There are simply characteristics of economics which hold true regardless of the society in which they are implemented. Does compound interest not work? What about the theory of price? Do you suggest that even knowledge or study of such things necessarily predisposes one to a laissez-faire policy? I guess that will be news to Stas, a socialist and an economist educated in Russia. What about Marxian economics? Austrian School? How about the economics surrounding integralism? How do you even begin to approach these aspects of social policy if you have no use for economics or economists, full stop?

I didn't say I have no use for them, I said I had different goals than they do. I've REPEATEDLY said now that I acknowledge that what Ossus is saying is factually correct, I simply find it immoral. Why the hell are you attacking me over my supposed refusal to recognize facts in economics when I had, in fact, just stated that I DO recognize such facts, you little shit? Are you that blind and eager to attack me that you aren't even bothering to read what I said?

Which is universal amongst OECD states and their economic policies? Really? This is a problem across all modern nations? Because maybe I'm mistaken, but you just went on a screed about the loss of virtuous medieval institutions and now you're complaining about something which is not universal to modern states all of which lack those virtuous medieval institutions. First of all, you're a moron, because food in the U.S. is not the product of unrestrained capitalist market economics, but the conscious result of deliberate interference by the government in order to enrich the already rich.

No, I was complaining about the attitude of economists in this regard. As usual, you choose to completely ignore what I'm trying to say so you can keep following your damned script.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Don't you ever get tired of name dropping? It must be easy to snipe at others' education from a perspective of little or none. I'm sure my friend who does work with the Sandanistas in Nicaragua will be surprised to find out he is only concerned institutionally with propagating neoliberalism because of his chosen field of education.

Ah yes, and how many marxist economists practice in the United States these days with any influence? I suppose it's okay for me to turn this debate into one about Argentine Autogestion, which I CAN quote copious sources on, and then apply that to the United States by fiat...

So you can dismiss everything ever written on a topic because of a perceived bias on desired outcome within the field? I suppose you think this is why food is expensive, not deliberate protection of domestic food production, poor income redistribution policies, capital gains taxes purposes, and ethanol subsidies. Nope, that's all free marketeering, my mistake! :roll:

I simply don't care about whether or not food is expensive; the government should provide it to the poor, fullstop, free, without the cumbersome system of food stamps.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Yes, of course, I've studied economics myself (that much, I can prove, I just didn't get very far in it before my heart was ripped out by it).

In other words, you have nothing but a high school diploma to show for your efforts, like me, but unlike me you have the boorish, tenured confidence to say stuff like "there is not economics outside of the Basque County, Brazil, or Argentina." You're an intellectual impostor. I mean, there is no microeconomics in the U.S. now? Stuff which is legitimate in the studies of government programs and funding initiatives? What about setting up a business or running finances? Is everything political economy?

I didn't say I have no use for them, I said I had different goals than they do. I've REPEATEDLY said now that I acknowledge that what Ossus is saying is factually correct, I simply find it immoral. Why the hell are you attacking me over my supposed refusal to recognize facts in economics when I had, in fact, just stated that I DO recognize such facts, you little shit? Are you that blind and eager to attack me that you aren't even bothering to read what I said?

You said, "there is no formal education in economics outside the Basque Country, Brazil, and Argentina." How is that not a fundamental attack on the legitimacy of modern political economy in general? Or can you not even tell when you are being a windbag anymore?

No, I was complaining about the attitude of economists in this regard. As usual, you choose to completely ignore what I'm trying to say so you can keep following your damned script.

Oh please. You do not make limited arguments such as the ones I described because that would get in the way of your ridiculous script of long-winded polemics and other bullshit, and would require citing your sources, and inevitably result in revealing your ignorance. You' are rhetoric and nothing beneath.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Ah yes, and how many marxist economists practice in the United States these days with any influence? I suppose it's okay for me to turn this debate into one about Argentine Autogestion, which I CAN quote copious sources on, and then apply that to the United States by fiat...

But they do exist and contribute to academia in the United States. You're simply full of shit, and caught your hand in the cookie jar and are now backpedaling from one of your characteristically polemic but meaningless statements like "there is no formal study in economics outside of the Basque Country, Argentina, and Brazil."

My problem with you is that you have a bigger mouth despite making obvious errors than people like Ossus and Mike, people with careers and academic credentials. Yet you have more sweeping polemics to offer.

I simply don't care about whether or not food is expensive; the government should provide it to the poor, fullstop, free, without the cumbersome system of food stamps.

Why? Do you have evidence or detailed explanations on how this would benefit more people, not provide more or new perverse incentives or more or new opportunity for abuse, be more efficient than the current system, or any other tangible measurable benefit? Or does it just feel right to you? What would you qualify the poverty level as for recipients. What agency would coordinate it? How would you prevent fraud?

Or did you just say it because it felt right?

[Illuminatus Primus]

I should add that now you get an ATM card like benefit called the Electronic Benefit Transfer, actual Food Stamps were phased out in favor of alternatives in the late '90's. Is this what you're talking about? Or do you not even know?

[Erik von Nein]

But they do exist and contribute to academia in the United States. You're simply full of shit, and caught your hand in the cookie jar and are now backpedaling from one of your characteristically polemic but meaningless statements like "there is no formal study in economics outside of the Basque Country, Argentina, and Brazil."

Actually, she said "I simply don't know if there's any formal studies related to my economic theories. Possibly there are in the Basque Country (or Brazil or Argentina), but we don't have any graduates of a Mondragon college here, which rather leaves me." Not that there weren't any formal economic studies outside those areas.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

But they do exist and contribute to academia in the United States. You're simply full of shit, and caught your hand in the cookie jar and are now backpedaling from one of your characteristically polemic but meaningless statements like "there is no formal study in economics outside of the Basque Country, Argentina, and Brazil."

That is not what I said. The implication there is that Third-way economics have largely been considered verbotten from intellectual discussion due to the fact they were adopted as a characteristic of certain fascist regimes, preventing any meaningful studies from being done.

My problem with you is that you have a bigger mouth despite making obvious errors than people like Ossus and Mike, people with careers and academic credentials. Yet you have more sweeping polemics to offer.

Well, I am not just talking about economics, of course. My whole political philosophy is after all one that believes in the Organic Whole of society.

Why? Do you have evidence or detailed explanations on how this would benefit more people, not provide more or new perverse incentives or more or new opportunity for abuse, be more efficient than the current system, or any other tangible measurable benefit? Or does it just feel right to you? What would you qualify the poverty level as for recipients. What agency would coordinate it? How would you prevent fraud?

Or did you just say it because it felt right?

I wouldn't try to prevent fraud. I'd just hand out food. There would be no income test; the basic nature of the food (grains only) along with the stigma the upper classes would associate with a bread dole would be, in my opinion, sufficient. I don't mind waste, in short, I just really don't care about it, as long as everyone who feels they need it has access to a basic amount of grains and/or flour to keep themselves alive. This was provided in medieval society--why should our's be different? Why did you even bring up efficiency when I explicitly stated that I reject efficiency as an aim in society? You can disagree with me on that, but why the hell did you impose it as a metric on one of my proposals? Are you that blind? I say something, and you just obliviously continue on making an implicit assumption of the exact opposite.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I should add that now you get an ATM card like benefit called the Electronic Benefit Transfer, actual Food Stamps were phased out in favor of alternatives in the late '90's. Is this what you're talking about? Or do you not even know?

That is indeed what I'm talking about. People say "Food stamps" all the time to the point where the official federal government website calls it the FOOD STAMP PROGRAM, you stupid cunt. This is another example of a massive fucking display of bias on your part. You're playing stupid, shitty little semantics whoring games. "Or do you not even know?" Jesus fucking christ, now you have to make a debate over the METHOD USED TO DISPENSE FOOD BENEFITS? Holy fucking shit, my argument is entirely wrong because I used the term "Food Stamps" instead of "Electronic Benefit Transfer", even though, you know, the federal government website ALSO calls them FOOD STAMPS.

[Illuminatus Primus]

[I wouldn't try to prevent fraud. I'd just hand out food. There would be no income test; the basic nature of the food (grains only) along with the stigma the upper classes would associate with a bread dole would be, in my opinion, sufficient. I don't mind waste, in short, I just really don't care about it, as long as everyone who feels they need it has access to a basic amount of grains and/or flour to keep themselves alive. This was provided in medieval society--why should our's be different? Why did you even bring up efficiency when I explicitly stated that I reject efficiency as an aim in society? You can disagree with me on that, but why the hell did you impose it as a metric on one of my proposals? Are you that blind? I say something, and you just obliviously continue on making an implicit assumption of the exact opposite.

God, the purpose of the food stamp program is to make sure the poor don't skimp on nutritional needs due to low incomes, and your solution is to provide bare grains or only bread? That's WORSE than the current program, and your laughable nostalgia to bullshit PRIMITIVE social programs has been pointed out on this very point in this very forum before. GRAINS AND FLOUR ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO KEEP PEOPLE HEALTHY AND ALIVE. You cite times and traditions when nutrition and GERM THEORY DID NOT EXIST. You are a fucking idiot.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

God, the purpose of the food stamp program is to make sure the poor don't skimp on nutritional needs due to low incomes, and your solution is to provide bare grains or only bread? That's WORSE than the current program, and your laughable nostalgia to bullshit PRIMITIVE social programs has been pointed out on this very point in this very forum before. GRAINS AND FLOUR ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO KEEP PEOPLE HEALTHY AND ALIVE. You cite times and traditions when nutrition and GERM THEORY DID NOT EXIST. You are a fucking idiot.

Did I say anywhere that the food stamp system should be eliminated? I said food should be provided without that system, viz. "I simply don't care about whether or not food is expensive; the government should provide it to the poor, fullstop, free, without the cumbersome system of food stamps."--not that the system of food stamps should be eliminated. The two, in short, would be supplementary, not alternatives to each other.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That anyone could take this seriously is absurd and inane. Medieval famines were worse than Soviet-era ones, and your solution is laughably pathetic and inferior to the existing social infrastructure. You provide your own rebuttals.

[Illuminatus Primus]

God, the purpose of the food stamp program is to make sure the poor don't skimp on nutritional needs due to low incomes, and your solution is to provide bare grains or only bread? That's WORSE than the current program, and your laughable nostalgia to bullshit PRIMITIVE social programs has been pointed out on this very point in this very forum before. GRAINS AND FLOUR ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO KEEP PEOPLE HEALTHY AND ALIVE. You cite times and traditions when nutrition and GERM THEORY DID NOT EXIST. You are a fucking idiot.

Did I say anywhere that the food stamp system should be eliminated? I said food should be provided without that system, viz. "I simply don't care about whether or not food is expensive; the government should provide it to the poor, fullstop, free, without the cumbersome system of food stamps."--not that the system of food stamps should be eliminated. The two, in short, would be supplementary, not alternatives to each other.

Its also useless and inferior. Why not expand coverage and size of the food stamp program, which will actually provide more help to more people if you're not proposing to eliminate it? Again, nothing but "I feel this way" arguments.