Reply-To: "David P"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.50.162.195
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1060779051 34374196 212.50.162.195 (16 [65596])
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
Path: text-east!propagator-sterling!news-in-sterling.nuthinbutnews.com!news.csl-gmbh.net!newsfeed.r-kom.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!212.50.162.195!not-for-mail
Xref: 127.0.0.1 sci.med.nutrition:170002 nz.general:589416 sci.agricultu63355


"Mooshie peas" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:21:57 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:38:42 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

Well, Gordon's original comment, in response to which you provided
the
price list in US$, was "We do pay a price for having the cheapest
food
on the planet"

To me, cheapest means most affordable. Comparing prices using
arbitrary exchange rates is far less relevant than comparing them
as
minutes of average workers' wages. YMMV.

Bill Gates goes into a bar where nine unemployed workers are
nursing
their beers. "Whoopee!" shouts one of them. "This room now has the
cheapest beer on the planet."

If you wish to take it to ridiculous extremes by individualising it.

We were comparing nations, remember? Bill Gates, the Queen of
England,
or the Sultan of Brunei are quite irrelevant to this discussion.
They
are hardly averages of the different nations' workers.

One could look at the mode incomes. No doubt they would be around
somewhere. May be a better guide to relative affordability.
[I'll resume lurk now].

David