The carbon unit using the name Torsten Brinch in
gave utterance as follows:

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 19:53:11 +0200, "Javi"
wrote:

I understand it is cheap, be it 7% or 12%. Half the human beings'
income is less than two dollars a day, and most of these two dollars
is spent in food.

But, the question is: from the observation that country A spends a
smaller proportion of its total disposable income on food than country
B -- do we conclude that, of these two countries, country A has the
cheapest food?

I'd say that food in country A is cheaper than in country B *for its
inhabitants*. If we only compare A and B, or if in A the food is cheaper
*for its inhabitanrs* than in every country compared, I'd say that, *for its
inhabitants*, country A have the cheapest food. Of course, as I understand
it, it's essential that the words "for its inhabitants" be added explicit or
implicitly. Anyway, I had no problem in understanding the original post, as
I added "for its inhabitants", because I think that affluence, when speaking
about people, not about countries, is a relative term: the rich man in one
country is the poor man in another.

I admit that if we only read what was written in the original post and not
add "for its inhabitants", you are right.

--�
Saludos cordiales

Javi

Conjunction of an irregular verb:

I am firm.
You are obstinate.
He is a pig-headed fool.