Andrew, are you paid a salary to go to blogs that badmouth bureaucracy and write poorly reasoned essays? You’re like the Karen Hughes of City Hall, and you make just about as much sense talking about veggies as she does talking about the war!

The fresh produce in bodegas statistic is bogus, as several people have pointed out here and the Neighborhood Retail Alliance has also observed.

The survey also displays the cultural bias which I noted above: apples, bananas, and oranges are not the only nutritious fruits in the world. Every single bodega I have ever been in has had mangoes and huge, lush, Florida avocadoes for a dollar. I must note as Manuel did above that bodegas are for the things people most want on a whim — cigarettes, a pint of ice cream, and a few staples they ran out of. They carry far more than that, but the point still stands that bodegas are not for grocery shopping — supermarkets are. And there are supermarkets, none more than a few blocks from anywhere in both Bushwick and Bed-Stuy. When you consider far more people have cars in Brooklyn than in Manhattan, the choice is even greater for many. Another fabulous source of nutrient-packed produce has been completely ignored by this study — the frozen aisle. They are frozen at the peak and remain in that peak state until they’re cooked. There is no reason not to carry that if there is a demand for veggies but a perishables storage problem. They store fine in the freezer for weeks and months. The point is that there is no significant dearth of healthy options for the people of these neighborhoods, “despite” the clear cultural preference against certain fresh fruits and vegetables.

#1: a) I don’t care if people do heroin or whatever else needles are used for and b) the war on drugs causes most of the hideous problems associated with drug use in this country. Really, if people can’t be bothered to procure clean needles when they inject themselves with recreational drugs, why in the hell should I be bothered to provide them? Anyway, some bodegas DO sell drugs. Apparently you think that because something is illegal it is also unavailable. This creates a bit of a problem when debating reality.

There are places to buy condoms. Which is remarkable in the face of competition with FREE condoms from the city. I would expect nobody to ever sell condoms anywhere if the city provides them for free. I guess the market for condoms is even more complex than I could have ever imagined! Amazing.

#2: The pdf you provided gave me comparisons of shelf space per resident by the borough. It’s comparing the rich with the relatively poor. That tells me nothing significant, except that rich people probably buy more stuff — not exactly a revelation.

That has nothing to do with the availability of heads of lettuce. I’m willing to venture that people by Wendy’s Value Meals instead of heads of lettuce because heads of lettuce SUCK. They LIKE Wendy’s. Ray already seems to have dealt with this subject above.

#3: This made me laugh out loud. First, and this is key: there is no free market. The boom and bust business cycle was created by prior — and massive — government interventions. Government controls the money supply. Government regulates so many facets of the financial system it would take me all day to list them. The Federal Reserve’s tinkering with interest rates is a shockingly laughable attempt at central planning in our alleged “free” market. I mean, go ahead and start a bank. It’s a free market, right? Anybody can do anything! Tell me how it goes.

Anyway, nowhere have I ever suggested that the market is exempt from corruption and inefficiency. That is because humans can be corrupt and inefficient. The whole problem here is that you and too many other people do not understand what the market IS. It is not a system we can choose among many from a shelf and say, “we’re going to use the market to organize society!” and then go about it. The market is the sum of all voluntary human action in the world. What we do IS the market. Humans will usually prefer to cooperate, as that is conducive to wealth creation, as Coase suggested. What is considered a “bad” is violence and theft because it undermines cooperation and wealth creation. It’s why I equally condemn a mugger and the government, as both cannot do their jobs without stealing and especially in the latter case, at least threatening to kill. When you say that the market needs the state to regulate it so that, in your judgement, it works better, what you are actually saying is that voluntary human interactions need to be subjected to a bit of violence to make them work more toward the goals that you prefer.

No, my argument is simply this: the market is more efficient than the government in providing for human needs. That is all. That does not say that the market is perfect, because people are not perfect. To believe otherwise would be to subscribe to a kind of reverse nirvana fallacy, which I described in the Bushwick Initiative thread: “That’s where you compare actual human limitations operating in the market to flawless superhuman actions operating as the government, and thus ‘prove’ the superiority of government intervention.”

Wall Street has gotten itself into trouble — so what? What’s key is that they are not fed any bailouts, as they always have been in the past. Otherwise, they operate with far less risk than in — omg! — a truly free market. But no, the moronic administration, following in the footsteps of all its predecessors, will lavish Wall Street with gazillions, and also probably pass legislation that will decrease creativity and competition in the financial markets and thus consolidate even more wealth at the top for those already established.

#4: Why shouldn’t the govt be responsible for the health of its citizens? Since you’re the one assuming a positive obligation, I’ll just ask you why it should. I’ll add that there is no reason why the state can do better than everyone else. In fact, it does NOT do better.

“Why should the government work to ensure length of life and quality of life? Does anyone else? Does the free market?” Haha, yes. It’s the only thing that has. The government has done nothing but stifle innovation, misallocate funds to disastrous effect, keep potentially lifesaving products off the market, the list goes on. Governments steal and beat and kill and destroy. The market creates and invents and provides and responds.

Look at all this waste of time. The purpose of writing so many words on so many subjects and including so many rhetorical questions is so that nobody bothers to waste the time to answer you, thus “proving” the correctness of your missive with their silence. Good thing I have an unhealthy obsession.

Honestly, are you paper-pushers so desperate to prove the usefulness of your job that you had to launch an all-out multi-pronged attack on the market itself — in a post about fruit? LOL. Christ, if this is what capitalism is up against, I should just stop wasting my time refuting your points and just let whatever happens happen. Let me tell you: I’m not worried.

As many above noted, the green cart program will not work because few are likely to even apply for the permits. That is if I am right. If others here are right, and these people really do prefer to buy fresh produce but people just don’t feel like selling it to them (*snort*), then we should expect to see green carts proliferating throughout Bed-Stuy and Bushwick — and for them to do a brisk business.

-d

As my name suggests, I’m a native of these parts and everyone that I’ve known, since I was a wee lass as always gone OUT of the neighborhood to get good fruit and veggies so, though the bodegas may not sell a great selection and what is available in the supermarkets may not be great, when one is importing their produce, what is available in walking distance doesn’t have to be great.

When I was a kid, my parents drove a few neighborhoods over to get fresh, good produce for our family. When I became an adult, I did the same but now that I’m lazy and make a bit more money, I get my stuff from Fresh Direct. Maybe others in the nabe do the same?

I’m not mistaking anything for anything. You’re listing several ways of measuring the value of food, then picking the one you feel proves your point best. Of course you’re omitting some of the ways you yourself mention, such as vitamins (you think Doritos provide more vitamins than bananas?). So we can remove all considerations of fiber, protein, carbohydrates, simple sugars, complex sugars, vitamins and minerals and just look at the actual amount of food someone’s buying. Or we can pretend fat people are just being rational to a fault in their calorie-counting.

Furthermore, you haven’t convinced me Doritos will “sustain you” longer or even make you feel fuller. Bananas have far more fiber and water in them, both of which make a person feel full. Doritos are a classic carb-binging food: simple carbs are wholly unsatsifying and only lead to more binge-eating later on, when the blood sugar spike leads to the inevitable blood sugar drop.

There is one and only one reason people buy Doritos over bananas: they like the taste.

“As for your 1 dollar meals at home, what are you eating?”

Like most non-poor people, I pay attention to how much money I spend and on what. If I didn’t know how much money I spent, I’d probably be a poor person. At home I eat eggs, chicken, steak, rice, pasta, yogurt, fruits, vegetables, soup, beans, breads, and cheeses. Obviously the meals with expensive meats cost more than a dollar, but plenty of meals that cost less than a dollar make up for it. A dollar is the average. When I’m feeling lazy, I grab fast food and spend 5 times as much. You know, like poor people do every day.

In an 8 ounce bag of Doritos, there are roughly 1120 calories, 56 grams of fat, and 144 grams of carbs. In the 3 bananas, medium size (126 grams each, or about 5 ounces each, for a total of 15 ounces), there are 330 calories, 0 grams of fat, and about 90 grams of carbohydrates. Although they weigh more, they aren’t going to sustain your body or your mind.

As for your 1 dollar meals at home, what are you eating?

No, it does NOT make more financial sense to buy a bag of Doritos than bananas. A bag of Doritos, even a large bag, costs around 25 cents an ounce. The edible part of a banana costs around 7 cents an ounce. This is for large bags of Doritos at the grocery store; if we’re talking about small snack bags at a convenience store or bodega, it’s closer to 35 to 40 cents an ounce. 4 bananas will definitely fill you up more than a bag of chips.

Something else that makes no economic sense: eating fast food. I spend an average of a dollar on a meal at home; to stuff a fat face at a Burger joint can cost double or triple that for the same amount of food (and if you’re overweight, you’re probably spending more than $3 on a trip to Burger King).

People eat fast food and Doritos because it takes no work. We live in a culture of convenience.

By the way, a box of Twinkies costs around 25 to 30 cents an ounce. I can only imagine what those little 2-packs at bodegas cost.

People are completely delusional about food prices. The most expensive meats are fatty cuts. The most expensive frozen foods are the ones that take the least work and have the most fat. Cheese: expensive. Chips: expensive. Candy: expensive. Poverty does not cause obesity; they’re two effects of the same cause.