Timmy elsewhereFebruary 21, 2014 Tim WorstallTimmy Elsewhere8 CommentsAt the ASI. Surprise! Communism produces malnourishment and stunting previousSo Tim, the reason your shoulder hurts is because your shoulder is fuckednextPerhaps inequality isn’t all it’s cracked up to be 8 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere” JimW February 21, 2014 at 9:54 am The height of British soldiers was identified as a problem during the Boer War. The minimum height was reduced to five feet. Result? School meals were introduced. Not a market solution in my opinion. Ironman February 21, 2014 at 10:27 am JimW And young men in S Korea are on average 6 inches taller than their N Korean cousins. And then there’s the Chinese example above…and then there is nothing at all, no evidence available to man that will get loop juices like you to change your minds is there? Last night I had the pleasure of a public meeting hosted by the catholic Justice & Peace movement. So you will understand I’ve taken just about all the agrarian commy bullshit I can suffer for a week or so. Their take on China’s prgress over the last 25 years: “China moved from an agrarian society to an urban industrial society and plunged millions into poverty as a result”. “But what about those well-documented famines that killed tens of millions before this market change” I argued “Didn’t happen” was the unanimous verdict of the room. I am not making this up!!!! JimW February 21, 2014 at 9:55 pm Sorry, Ironman, what? My comment supported the notion that malnutrition reduced average height. I added context and evidence. I disagree that the government’s solution – school meals – was a market-based action. How does that make me a “loop juice”? Happy to hear an explanation . . . . NiV February 21, 2014 at 11:58 pm “I disagree that the government’s solution – school meals – was a market-based action. How does that make me a “loop juice”?” I expect the disagreement was with the proposition that this was a “solution”. As I understand it, the first free school meals for the poor were introduced in 1906, but the provision was only to a very small fraction of those in need, and certainly wouldn’t have done much to address the shorter stature of military recruits. It wasn’t until 1944 with the introduction of the welfare state that it went mainstream. However, we would propose that school meals would have far less influence on nutrition than the general increasing supply and lowering of price of food, and the reduction in absolute prosperity, brought about by the market-driven industrialisation of farming and transport, which was the point of the article. Welfare can at best be a temporary stopgap – it doesn’t *solve* the fundamental problem. Technological development *can*. Ironman was perhaps a bit more impatient about your comment than necessary (no doubt having to deal with the CJ&P put him/her in a bad mood), but it can be irritating when it is claimed the solution to every problem is direct government intervention, at somebody else’s expense, and the problems that government intervention causes are ignored or dismissed. Had we as a nation not been paying so much towards welfare, fewer people today would need it. The communist states taking the system to extremes, took the consequences to extremes as well. NiV February 22, 2014 at 12:00 am Typo correction – that should have been “absolute poverty”. So Much for Subtlety February 22, 2014 at 12:28 am Ironman – “Their take on China’s prgress over the last 25 years: “China moved from an agrarian society to an urban industrial society and plunged millions into poverty as a result”.” The Chinese media is reporting this week that the Chinese population is getting fed so much better that the military is going to have redesign uniforms and equipment to make space for the larger frames of young recruits. It is not just Soviet-style tanks that are designed for the smaller soldier, apparently their airplanes are too – Yuri Gagarin was a tiny little chap come to think of it. Ironman February 22, 2014 at 12:20 pm JimW On reflection “loop juice” was out of order and I think I should offer you an apology for that. Reading your comment back you are indeed clearly only pointing to a government action that could only have been a good thing for society. You were raising a legitimate point and I should have engaged with you on that basis. BTW: You can take it the apology is genuine; I don’t like to have to make them. And yes, the previous evening’s engagement had left me absolutely out of patience with all lefty idiocy and all too ready to see it around every corner. However, if you are indeed arguing with the basic proposition, that Market based economics has done far more to improve the basic human condition than centrally managed economies, then I will be very robust in countering you; I feel obliged to be! TheJollyGreenMan February 22, 2014 at 8:19 pm In WW1 the British Army formed the Bantam Battalions for men who were shorter than the minimum height requirements. Most of the men for the Bantam Battalions were recruited from East Anglia, the part of the country that the industrial revolution basically by-passed. They were the men that still toiled the land like their medieval forefathers, and who did not move to the well-paid jobs in the factories in the North when the wages up there were three times the going rate for farm workers down here. As an asider; In the trenches the casualties suffered by the Bantam Battalions were much lower than that of the regular Army as being short had a definite advantage, think of the difficulty enemy snipers had to find targets to shoot at. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.