Capitalism v Communism

[Foxi4]

So your criticizing the guy based on past content?
Well if that's the case then. I guess him stating the the UN climate report of 2019 wasn't important or fact based.
Or "how America was almost overrun by hippos" which is historically correct.
His channel back around 2 years ago was primarily focused on scientific what if scenarios. For example, the death star one you brought up was made over 2 years, 3 and a half roughly speaking. (march 16 2018) he didn't make his own research up (creating shit out of thin air is what I mean), his source there was from the students economics blog at Lehigh University. Who did the research about the estimated amount it would cost to build a death star.
My point being, it's rather silly that your criticizing the guy over having silly videos over 2 years ago.And or different content from what he makes now.


And? I guess you don't look at the description for his sources
for example the video I just linked. the descriptions sources:
Capitalism and markets: https://www.rdwolff.com/capitalism_is... Capitalist perspective on dangers of short-term thinking: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/21/op...
Marx on class structure under capitalism: http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/s28f99.htm Imperialism: https://www.marxists.org/archive/leni... Amazon destroying products: https://www.itv.com/news/2021-06-21/a... Dunkin Donuts worker fired: https://www.dailydot.com/irl/dunkin-e... Dairy farmers dumping milk: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/perspe... Potato farmers abandoning crops: https://www.businessinsider.com/potat... Grocery store waste: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/fi... Texas electrical grid problems: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/21/us... https://www.utilitydive.com/news/the-... Champlain Towers collapse: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/26/us... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/06/us... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seZHb... https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/08/us/mia...

Saying it's not at least researched, is kinda misleading don't you think?



I should also point out that if your unable to criticize the actual content stated in the video, unable to refusing any of the talking points but rather through essentially a low ad hominium (talking about work history. and pretty much low key stating he is bad or inferior.) Then you don't really have a argument to stand on do you?

He's entitled to have an opinion - it's just an unqualified opinion. I watched the video - his entire premise hinges on redefining what efficiency is to suit his narrative and misrepresenting certain facts, like why a portion of food produced is destroyed (it's primarily a logistics problem) or how it's the profit motive that leads to construction disasters (it's actually negligence). Under a capitalist system a provider has a very specific incentive to provide good quality goods and services at an attractive price without excessive spending - the profit motive. If I hire someone to build a fence and that fence is crooked, I have legal recourse to recover my costs *and* I can hire somebody else while the bad contractor gains infamy over time. This drives quality rather than decreasing it. The quality of construction in communist countries is significantly lower than in capitalist countries, this can be observed in any post-soviet state where the now 40+ year-old high rises are often crooked and require constant maintenance because they were constructed quickly to meet demand with little concern for worker safety or building regulations. You don't have to look far to find stories of buildings collapsing.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...osion-soviet-housing-state-ussr-a8720686.html

In the case above a natural gas explosion, presumably caused by a leaking installation, took half the building with it, killing 39 residents. Oops.

Here's China - three buildings swallowed into a sinkhole, just like that. Big oops, I guess the foundation wasn't that great. Or maybe it's the fact that the government started building a subway *right underneath a residential area* with no regard for safety of the residents until they realised they made a booboo and had to rush to evacuate the neighbourhood.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-china-21242812

I know for a fact that the high rises I used to live right next to in Poland as a child had hidden bags of sand in the walls to fill the "gaps". I know this because they were built by forced prison labourers who traded cement and other building materials for tea and cigarettes on the side, whatever was missing was filled in with sand. Heck, I specifically know this because that's the only way my father could *get* cement to construct his garage back in the day - he exchanged his tea stamps for tea, then exchanged tea for building materials. Smart man. Do you think that is a safe or an unsafe practice? In any case, it's not uncommon to drill a hole in the wall for a shelf or a picture and have sand seeping into the apartment all of a sudden in one of those, that's a fact.

If you create content based on a false premise, your conclusion is de facto false. He's entitled to believe it, it's a free country (unlike socialist countries), but that doesn't make his opinion any less unqualified. He's as big of an authority on the subject as you and me are, so you're not bringing an expert opinion to the table, you're parroting "a guy" on the Internet. If you're looking for tips on economic policy, they don't sell that at Best Buy. He's indeed self-employed *now*, and that's great. I commend him for his Bachelor's in Journalism, he sure knows how to put an attractive video together and how to organise his sources, but that doesn't make the product any less tripe. Good on him for making that amount of money - that's great, and an inherent advantage of private enterprise in a capitalist system. I hope he will continue to create edutainment for his viewers, they clearly enjoy it enough to make it profitable for him. He earned every dollar producing content his viewers like consuming.

 

[smf]

He's entitled to have an opinion - it's just an unqualified opinion. I watched the video - his entire premise hinges on redefining what efficiency is to suit his narrative and misrepresenting certain facts, like why a portion of food produced is destroyed (it's primarily a logistics problem) or how it's the profit motive that leads to construction disasters (it's actually negligence).

You are overlooking obvious points there.

Disposing of food rather than distributing it to the poor is cheaper & protects the cost of food. Taxing food destruction would be an interesting experiment.

Negligence and cutting corners is cheaper & as it's the rich and powerful are the ones doing it they don't want punishments to be introduced (which is why the right wing are against regulations).

 

[jimbo13]

You are overlooking obvious points there.Negligence and cutting corners is cheaper & as it's the rich and powerful are the ones doing it they don't want punishments to be introduced (which is why the right wing are against regulations).

We oppose regulations for a variety of reasons, none of which you claim are accurate.

1) Regulations protect large corporations, they eliminate small and medium competition that can't afford compliance. You can easily find recent examples from Facebook & Amazon calling for regulation, because they are already established. Crippling regulation stymies upstarts that can't afford it. It is most evident in the Auto industry, small boutique builders that get exempted from regulation are limited to I think it's 3 cars a year? Might be more or less.

However there are thousands of small and medium motorcycle companies because the regulations are nil. You can't start a car company without billions in capital because of regulation.

2) Limited government should be limited on what it can impose.


Food is a horrible example to work from in this context, We subsidize Food to the tune of billions from Seed, to store, to table at every point. There is no semblance of a free market system at any point in industrialized food. We subsidize the production, the insurance on crop failures, the safety monitoring and regulation, the grocery stores, their low wage employees and the store itself so they will maintain a presence in low income areas. Every aspect is heavily subsidized and regulated. Then 25% or so of the public is on Food stamps to purchase that subsidized food and we haven't even gotten to free meals in Public school yet.

 

[Foxi4]

You are overlooking obvious points there.

Disposing of food rather than distributing it to the poor is cheaper & protects the cost of food. Taxing food destruction would be an interesting experiment.

Negligence and cutting corners is cheaper & as it's the rich and powerful are the ones doing it they don't want punishments to be introduced (which is why the right wing are against regulations).

Regarding food, it's not something I'm overlooking, it's something that's priced into the equation that occurs in both systems, but for different reasons. Corporations are incentivided to reduce food waste in a number of ways already. There is no benefit in purchasing excess stock, disposing of unsold stock is an expensive endeavour and not disposing of it bears liability. If a company distributes their "old" food items to the poor, ones that are near to or at their expiration date, they are automatically liable for any resulting health issues that may develop as a result of eating it. They also don't want to undercut their own product's suggested retail price by discounting it or giving it away for free - that's counter-intuitive from a business perspective. Capitalism in the food industry, as in all industries, pushes efficiency - retailers go out of their way *not* to order excess stock, but there will always be fluctuations in the market and some of it will always go to waste. From a customer's perspective waste is preferable to a shortage - when I go to a store to buy apples, I expect them to have apples, which is why a good retail store manager will order exactly the amount of apples they project to sell *plus* some to cover for fluctuations. The waste is not intentional, and in countries like the UK it's also recycled into other products. Corporations in the food industry even choose to self-regulate - The Courtauld Commitment 2025 comes to mind. Wasting food is *not* a sign of capitalism, or a sound business practice - corporations do not intentionally waste capital. Some waste is simply the cost of doing business, it will always be there, we can only endeavour to minimise it. On the flip side, farm subsidies, which are socialist in nature, cause farmers to produce *too much* unwanted product which then has to be price-controlled, it's often purchased by the government and subsequently destroyed because we're not suffering from famine, and we're not going to anytime soon. Farm subsidies are one of the primary culprits behind inflated food prices and enormous food waste. In terms of your other comment, saving costs is one thing, cutting corners is another. The quantity over quality model of communist states which I've already touched upon creates objectively worse products and lesser quality housing - the residential buildings in communist states are atrocious and nobody in their right mind would build like that in the west, or even be allowed to build like that at all.

 

[smf]

There is no benefit in purchasing excess stock, disposing of unsold stock is an expensive endeavour and not disposing of it bears liability. If a company distributes their "old" food items to the poor, ones that are near to or at their expiration date, they are automatically liable for any resulting health issues that may develop as a result of eating it.

The date on most food is for stock control purposes. They will sell food close to expiration at a discount, they could give it away.

There is a benefit in purchasing excess stock, if you're buying something for $1 and selling it at $5 then you want to er on ordering too much rather than not enough. Ordering too much loses you $1 per item, ordering too little loses $4 per item.

They also don't want to undercut their own product's suggested retail price by discounting it or giving it away for free - that's counter-intuitive from a business perspective.

It's counter-intuitive from a profit above all perspective, which I thought was the discussion.

Wasting food is *not* a sign of capitalism

Waste is a consequence of capitalism

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-06-21...ouses-every-year-itv-news-investigation-finds

On the flip side, farm subsidies, which are socialist in nature, cause farmers to produce *too much* unwanted product which then has to be price-controlled, it's often purchased by the government and subsequently destroyed because we're not suffering from famine, and we're not going to anytime soon.

Farm subsidies are complex, you don't want your farms to decide to close and leave you at the mercy of food imports. I don't know why we haven't seen more technology being used to bring everyone together to figure out what crops should be produced. It seems like random people just choose what crops they are going to grow and sit back and complain about the price they get.

The quantity over quality model of communist states which I've already touched upon creates objectively worse products and lesser quality housing - the residential buildings in communist states are atrocious and nobody in their right mind would build like that in the west, or even be allowed to build like that at all.

That isn't a particularly good argument, because that isn't communism that causes it but the lack of money. Russia didn't improve just because they stopped practicing communism.

 

[Foxi4]

The date on most food is for stock control purposes. They will sell food close to expiration at a discount, they could give it away.

Why?

There is a benefit in purchasing excess stock, if you're buying something for $1 and selling it at $5 then you want to er on ordering too much rather than not enough. Ordering too much loses you $1 per item, ordering too little loses $4 per item.

Already covered above - order enough to cover demand plus some. Anything past that point is a waste unless there are bulk discounts at play, in which case you order whatever is best price for volume and distribute to other locations.

It's counter-intuitive from a profit above all perspective, which I thought was the discussion.

It's almost as if that was the point of retail.

Waste is a consequence of capitalism

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-06-21...ouses-every-year-itv-news-investigation-finds

False. Tell your labour representatives to stop subsidising farming so that the market can stabilise instead of operating on price fixing.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...te-the-farming-subsidies-destroying-the-world

Farm subsidies are complex, you don't want your farms to decide to close and leave you at the mercy of food imports. I don't know why we haven't seen more technology being used to bring everyone together to figure out what crops should be produced. It seems like random people just choose what crops they are going to grow and sit back and complain about the price they get.

Why don't you want excess farms to close? They should close, especially if the only thing keeping them afloat are subsidies. It's unwanted product that is destined to be recycled into feed, plastics (excess meat) and other products created from biodegradables. 75% of tomatoes sold or processed in Britain are imports from Italy, this boat has already sailed.

That isn't a particularly good argument, because that isn't communism that causes it but the lack of money. Russia didn't improve just because they stopped practicing communism.

The rapid social and technological progress across all post-Soviet states after 1989 says otherwise, and you can't convince me otherwise because I'm *from one*.

 

[SG854]

The date on most food is for stock control purposes. They will sell food close to expiration at a discount, they could give it away.

There is a benefit in purchasing excess stock, if you're buying something for $1 and selling it at $5 then you want to er on ordering too much rather than not enough. Ordering too much loses you $1 per item, ordering too little loses $4 per item.



It's counter-intuitive from a profit above all perspective, which I thought was the discussion.



Waste is a consequence of capitalism

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-06-21...ouses-every-year-itv-news-investigation-finds



Farm subsidies are complex, you don't want your farms to decide to close and leave you at the mercy of food imports. I don't know why we haven't seen more technology being used to bring everyone together to figure out what crops should be produced. It seems like random people just choose what crops they are going to grow and sit back and complain about the price they get.



That isn't a particularly good argument, because that isn't communism that causes it but the lack of money. Russia didn't improve just because they stopped practicing communism.

If you believe they are for stock control purposes then I'm sure you have no problem eating expired food

 

[Foxi4]

If you believe they are for stock control purposes then I'm sure you have no problem eating expired food

In all fairness, expiration dates and best before dates are, for the most part, total guesswork. They're not really supported by much scientific research, it's a statistical guessing game with huge variability depending on storage conditions. In order to determine if food is expired or not, you have to inspect it - the date is just a bunch of numbers someone pulled out of a hat.

https://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/19/...cate freshness,t necessarily make people sick.

 

[smf]

If you believe they are for stock control purposes then I'm sure you have no problem eating expired food

I don't. I won't eat anything that looks or smells bad though, no matter what date they printed on it.

In all fairness, expiration dates and best before dates are, for the most part, total guesswork.

Right, but they know that people will throw it out and buy it again if they put a shorter date on it and therefore increase their profits. So it pays to guess low & they do.

For tinned/dehydrated/etc food then the dates are essentially "when do we want them to throw this away" dates.

For fresh food I'd rather see a "when this was picked" date, but they aren't going to do that as it would make people question what "fresh" meant.

 

[Foxi4]

Right, but they know that people will throw it out and buy it again if they put a shorter date on it and therefore increase their profits. So it pays to guess low & they do.

For tinned/dehydrated/etc food then the dates are essentially "when do we want them to throw this away" dates.

For fresh food I'd rather see a "when this was picked" date, but they aren't going to do that as it would make people question what "fresh" meant.

Products past their expiration date are are not given "new" expiration dates, if that's what you're implying. They get gradually discounted (yellow sticker) just like damaged goods until they sell, and if they don't sell anyway, they're disposed of like other biodegradables. Supermarkets will go as low as 1p for food items, but they won't give them away for free because that changes the nature of the transaction from a purchase to a donation. There's too much red tape and too much liability to deal with at that stage - if the government wants to give that food to the poor, it's up to them to make reasonable arrangements with food stores around the country. Private enterprise is not responsible for welfare, the government is. They don't even have to pay them for the goods per se - a tax break would be a very reasonable arrangement. If they don't want to meet retailers half-way then it is what it is.

Edit: I've re-read your post and I think I may have gotten you wrong. In either case, no - supermarkets do not put "shorter dates" on products they sell, that's counter to their business model which operates on selling goods at the most profitable price the market can bear. Discounts are not the default mode of operation, they're a way of selling stock that they would otherwise have to dispose of, incurring cost. The food industry invented preservatives *for a reason* and they shove them into everything, including food that doesn't need any, like chutney (which is already vinegar-based, but many brands add sulphates anyway).

 

[smf]

Products past their expiration date are are not given "new" expiration dates, if that's what you're implying.

I don't know why you'd think I was implying that, but that does of course happen.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...pplier-food-safety-dates-2-sisters-food-group

And that is not an isolated incident. There are even cases where supermarkets take packed chicken off the shelves, washed it and repackage it with a new date.

Chlorine is used in america to freshen the chicken up perfectly legally.

Edit: I've re-read your post and I think I may have gotten you wrong. In either case, no - supermarkets do not put "shorter dates" on products they sell, that's counter to their business model which operates on selling goods at the most profitable price the market can bear.

How is it counter to their business model? If they know they sell 1000 of an item a week, then it doesn't matter to them what date goes on there as long as it's out of the store in time. But if someone takes it out of the cupboard and decides that the date is now past and throw it out & buy a new one then they've increased their sales.

Tinned tomatoes would normally have quite long dates, after the panic buying cleared shelves there were suddenly new tins with only a couple of months on them. I believe this was to put off people from panic buying too many.

 

[ChubSwagLad]

communism does not work

 

[Foxi4]

I don't know why you'd think I was implying that, but that does of course happen.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...pplier-food-safety-dates-2-sisters-food-group

And that is not an isolated incident. There are even cases where supermarkets take packed chicken off the shelves, washed it and repackage it with a new date.

I'm not surprised that the chains stopped buying from the plant considering the fact that date manipulation being illegal.

Chlorine is used in america to freshen the chicken up perfectly legally.

In America and many other countries, it's perfectly suitable for that purpose. It's also added to pool water, along with acid, in case you didn't know. It's also in your tap water, because why wouldn't it be?

How is it counter to their business model? If they know they sell 1000 of an item a week, then it doesn't matter to them what date goes on there as long as it's out of the store in time. But if someone takes it out of the cupboard and decides that the date is now past and throw it out & buy a new one then they've increased their sales.

It's in the retailer's interest to have food items with the longest possible shelf life in order to avoid disposal costs, that's why they go out of their way to extend it in a variety of ways, including chemically. If the customer doesn't eat their food in time, that's on them, not the retailer.

Tinned tomatoes would normally have quite long dates, after the panic buying cleared shelves there were suddenly new tins with only a couple of months on them. I believe this was to put off people from panic buying too many.

You can believe whatever you want - stock was low with no news on when new stock will arrive due to the government's inability to secure a new trade deal with the EU, hence it was rationed. That's what *actually* happened, but you're welcome to your weird conjecture.

 

[smf]

In America and many other countries, it's perfectly suitable for that purpose.

Suitable for making dodgy chicken look fresh?

I can see why we are ideologically going to disagree.

You can believe whatever you want - stock was low with no news on when new stock will arrive due to the government's inability to secure a new trade deal with the EU, hence it was rationed. That's what *actually* happened, but you're welcome to your weird conjecture.

Weird conjecture? You're delusional if you think that tins of tomatoes randomly appeared that were now only safe to eat for the next two months. If the pandemic hadn't happened then you really think they would have just thrown them away? From your argument of capitalism these tins would have made it out to market, they wouldn't be selling the tins with dates further in advance and then when they run out sell the ones with dates about to expire.

You just don't want to admit you're wrong, which you repeat regularly. On some products the dates are used for controlling consumers. It's a widely accepted practice, the US were even forced to introduce legislation to try to end the practice https://hawleytroxell.com/2018/02/food-date-labels-hunger-america/ although capitalism resists being controlled when profits are to be made.

 

[Foxi4]

Suitable for making dodgy chicken look fresh? I can see why we are ideologically going to disagree.

Chlorine-dipping is a perfectly acceptable method of anti-microbial rinsing and reduces the risk of spreading salmonella, among other diseases. It's been thoroughly tested and does not have any adverse effects - the amount of chicken you'd have to eat before experiencing any far surpasses what any normal person would be capable of eating. Chlorate tolerance is ridiculously high - something like 15% of body mass, and moreover, chlorine evaporates rather quickly when exposed to heat. If you're making chicken soup, whatever chlorine might be in it is gone within 6-8 minutes. Americans have been eating chicken treated with chlorine dioxide for years and we're yet to record any mass death by chicken - saying otherwise is silly. European measures against the practice are thinly-veiled protectionism of the market from cheaper imports that are contrary to the idea of a global marketplace.

Weird conjecture? You're delusional if you think that tins of tomatoes randomly appeared that were now only safe to eat for the next two months. If the pandemic hadn't happened then you really think they would have just thrown them away? From your argument of capitalism these tins would have made it out to market, they wouldn't be selling the tins with dates further in advance and then when they run out sell the ones with dates about to expire.

A retailer is not going to flog off the entirety of their supply in one go - if it's a large chain, they will ration their stock so as to supply more locations and reach more customers in a larger area, as opposed to filling the shelves to the brim and reciting one final hail Mary. They want to maintain the appearance of having ample supply and cover a larger area with it - their customers will have a better experience buying one tin of tomatoes in their store of choice instead of having to hunt for them around the area just to get two.

You just don't want to admit you're wrong, which you repeat regularly. On some products the dates are used for controlling consumers. It's a widely accepted practice, the US were even forced to introduce legislation to try to end the practice https://hawleytroxell.com/2018/02/food-date-labels-hunger-america/ although capitalism resists being controlled when profits are to be made.

*Reads the link*

Millions of Americans go hungry, while 40% of the food in the United States is wasted. Research has shown that 43% of the waste occurs in homes and that consumers are making decisions about purchasing and throwing away food without understanding the meaning of the food date labels.

Right - so it's uneducated consumers that are the problem. Exactly as I said. Sounds like I don't have to admit that I'm wrong, considering the fact that I'm not wrong. "Best Before" does not mean "Expired", it refers explicitly to product quality. A pack of cookies that is well past the Best Before date might be a bit stale, but they're still perfectly edible since they're dry foods unlikely to expire in a short period of time. I'm sorry that some consumers don't understand that, but that's not the manufacturer's fault. It's the consumer's fault for not reading the damned label, not opening the pack of cookies and not immediately realising that they're completely safe to eat. It's also the consumer's fault if they purchase food products with no intention of actually eating them in the ridiculous amount of time they have to do so (a pack of cookies often lasts for *years*, they had plenty of time to indulge their sweet tooth).

If you want to further discuss food-related regulations, you can make a thread about it. We're straying further and further away from the actual "meat" of the thread, pun intended.

 

[smf]

Chlorine-dipping is a perfectly acceptable method of anti-microbial rinsing and reduces the risk of spreading salmonella, among other diseases.

And makes dodgy chicken look fresh.

It's used so they can keep the chickens in bad conditions (because it's cheap) and then clean up the mess and make it look fresh afterwards. That is capitalism at work.

Europe doesn't do it. We aren't all dying from food poisoning.

Right - so it's uneducated consumers that are the problem. Exactly as I said. Sounds like I don't have to admit that I'm wrong, considering the fact that I'm not wrong.

You're wrong, you just like to twist and turn to avoid it. We all know you do this, you are a meme.

They don't want consumers to be educated, they want to mislead at every turn to increase profits. But I predict you will distort reality to make your precious capitalism perfect and it's everyone elses fault.

When you're right about something, we'll all have a party to celebrate.

 

[Foxi4]

And makes dodgy chicken look fresh.

It's used so they can keep the chickens in bad conditions (because it's cheap) and then clean up the mess and make it look fresh afterwards. That is capitalism at work.

Europe doesn't do it. We aren't all dying from food poisoning.



You're wrong, you just like to twist and turn to avoid it. We all know you do this, you are a meme.

They don't want consumers to be educated, they want to mislead at every turn to increase profits. But I predict you will distort reality to make your precious capitalism perfect and it's everyone elses fault.

When you're right about something, we'll all have a party to celebrate.

Sure, let's neglect to mention this year's salmonella outbreak.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...lla-outbreak-in-uk-linked-to-chicken-products

Again, not a thread about food safety.

 

[smf]

Sure, let's neglect to mention this year's salmonella outbreak.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...lla-outbreak-in-uk-linked-to-chicken-products

Again, not a thread about food safety.

And the chlorine doesn't seem to help the US either.

CDC estimates Salmonella bacteria cause about 1.35 million infections, 26,500 hospitalizations, and 420 deaths in the United States every year.

It's not about food safety, but about how capitalism can reduce food safety and increases wastage.

Socialist Europe seems to work better. Could one of the types of communism work better? Possibly/possibly not. Certainly not right now.

Populism has taken over as capitalists lie about what is possible. It's going to end badly.

 

[Foxi4]

And the chlorine doesn't seem to help the US either.

CDC estimates Salmonella bacteria cause about 1.35 million infections, 26,500 hospitalizations, and 420 deaths in the United States every year.

It's not about food safety, but about how capitalism can reduce food safety and increases wastage.

Socialist Europe seems to work better. Could pure communism work better? Possibly/possibly not. Certainly not right now.

We can't be sure how many *deaths* are due to foodborne illnesses directly and how many are due to other factors like access to healthcare. What we *can* measure is the prevalence of salmonella in tested samples. Now, how people prepare that chicken and consume it is out of the manufacturer's hands.

EDIT: Since you keep adding to your post, I'll do the same. Your contention was that chlorinating chicken doesn't work and you've presented a statistic to support that, but with no controls. The way you'd actually test that is that you'd take two batches of chicken, chlorinate one and leave the other one alone. One of those two batches will have a higher prevalence of salmonella - can you guess which? You're missing at least 5 controls - prevalence in local stock, food handling, storage, transport, and preparation methods, that's why your number doesn't translate into what you think it does. What you're comparing is prevalence of salmonella, *not* the effectiveness of chlorination, as you claim.

As a side note, I have now goaded you into arguing two internally inconsistent, mutually exclusive and contradictory points - that the American food industry *simultaneously* artificially decreases expiry dates on food in order to make it seem expired sooner *and* artificially increases them using chemicals to make it seem fresher. Someone's definitely a meme here, but it's not me. Your mental gymnastics explanation for this is that they re-stamp products en masse and nobody's noticed so far, aside from a handful of isolated incidents (not surprising since date tampering is illegal). I was waiting for you to pick up on that, but you never did, which was a great source of amusement. If we're actually talking about comparing capitalism to communism, the rate of salmonella in the staunchly conservative Japan is extremely low - you can eat Japanese chicken raw fairly safely, and it's not unusual there. Seems to me that their rampant capitalism didn't lead to an increase in salmonella cases, so again, you're missing a bunch of controls here.

 

[Julie_Pilgrim]

you're all wrong