timbuktom writes:

"Andrew Leonard writes good, advanced, nuanced stuff every day, about economics, in his blog "How the World Works." This article is a little more general, a little more sensational than usual, but it deserves better responses than some of this knee-jerk rant."

I checked out the blog -- seems entirely knee-jerk: "Find an economic problem? Regulate more! Never investigate if the problem was caused by previous interventions."

"This is a forum for coming up with new approaches. Please think and advance the discussion. Do not just replay all the conventional wisdom that has led us to this economic brink."

The conventional wisdom being Leonard's pertual call for bigger government?

Silenced wrote:

"Go down to the ghetto. Try to find fresh food. You'll find convenience stores where you can buy Cheetos and beer. But what if you want fresh chicken, whole wheat flour or broccoli? How do you buy those if you live in the inner city?"

This is ridiculous! I live in Brooklyn, and there is not a single neighborhood I've ever been in, no matter how poor, where you can't get "broccoli" within 4 or 5 blocks. To the extent that junk food dominates -- well, that must be because of demand, hey? If the poor really were craving steamed vegetables every day instead of Cheetos, don't you think the vegetable sellers would be working to accommodate them?

Every poor neighborhood here has at least one Chinese take-out, everyone of which is going to sell both steamed broccoli and deep-fried chicken puffs. Why don't you go survey those places and ask which dish sells better? You're living in a fantasy world where the poor would be dining everyday on tofu and sprouts if only someone -- God knows whom -- wasn't conspiring to keep those things from their waiting lips. To the extent that poverty correlates to obesity, it is a matter of the preferences of the poor.

A minor error in the article:

"Between 1929 and 1933, U.S. GDP growth declined by around 30 percent..."

I bet he meant that GDP declined 30%. GRP GROWTH declining 30% would be, e.g., growth went from 10% to 7% per year.

The worse problem: The author completely ignores the fact that the "fragility" of the system stems largely from the repeated government bailouts of the rich bankers, convincing them they can take any risks they want.

It makes me wonder: Is the author really on the side of the poor, or just on the side of expansive government?