On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 11:03:07 +0200, "Javi"
wrote:

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.

But, if we accept that, we'd have to say that food becomes cheaper in
country A *for its inhabitants* on, e.g., a policy to privatize
public health care and education, balanced by a reduction of taxes.

We would have to say that food becomes cheaper for the inhabitants,
even if this tax reduction were progressively to benefit only the most
affluent of them -- or indeed, if there were no significant tax
reduction at all, and the vacant tax revenue were instead channeled
into building palaces for the ruler of country A, or to buy weapons
to attack country B.