Grocery stores are incentivized to sell as much food as possible, which does not align with keeping their customers as healthy as possible.
But, assuming altruistic grocers, it would be interesting to see how they decide what food to steer people towards. Would I have to share my medical records and height/weight/exercise routine or would they personalize based on something else?
Or otherwise generate the best possible margin. Either by volume or by price. They might optimize slightly differently, but never for the best of the consumer. That is they will aim to generate as much as possible in total sale value and on other hand have as high as possible margin with the that value. Think of health-insurance, not exactly great for consumer.
That is many big words to be so blind. A big brain does not make a person immune to poverty or war. If a person does not believe maximizing economic growth (as measured by GDP and/or the performance of the Dow Jones Industrial Average) is the most holy of missions, then I suppose their genetics are just too impure.
I am not a serious wrestler, but I do not want the government instituting genetic programs as a final solution to a perfect society.
Could you elaborate? I'm not sure how calling an idea 'detached from reality and actively harmful' and then vaguely referencing a different social media platform contributes anything.
Economics may be the most elaborate in manipulating mediocre data to support a hypothesis, but it is important to remember how incredibly easy it is to be wrong or mislead others when using data and complex statistical methods.
I hard disagree. Economics (of any flavor) is as soft as any other social science. The field of economics can be a useful lens to help one understand the world and human behavior, but it relies too much on human behavior to be consistently testable in the same way as 'Hard Science'.
I think the term "hard science" is squishy enough to where you both can argue in good faith, but have a different definition in-mind.
I agree that Econ doesn't quite have the hardness of say Physics, but insofar as you can characterize physics as the development of models that can meaningfully explain reality within reasonable error bounds and feasible energy usage, then Microeconomics sometimes does do this as well.
I don't agree that it depends on the news source. The problem is consuming media and not acting on it. A person can use social media to inspire real positive change in their behaviors and their life, and a person can read in-depth, well-written articles about atrocities happening half-way around the world and just end up feeling powerless and depressed.
There are legitimate opportunities to act on the news. For example, I avoided a fairly convincing phishing attempt with my work email due to reading a relevant article in a mainstream newspaper. News can similarly help a person avoid scams and cons.
News also provides common conversational topics with different types of people. A lot of people in business read The Wall Street Journal, and it’s easier to find common talking points with them if I read the news (especially on news about their industry). Similarly, a lot of academics and people in education read The New York Times. Though reading the news isn’t necessary to start a conversation, it’s often an easy starting point.
I would say that interacting with the physical world/people is much richer and more fulfilling than social media (or any other media). Being aware of 'the world & big matters' does not make a person good or interesting. What really matters is not what media a person consumes (or does not consume), but what they do.
I think many people want to spend less time consuming media ('social' or otherwise) and more time interacting with the physical world/people. But it is difficult to do that these days because there is endless attention-grabbing media to consume and that is what it feels like everyone else is doing so it becomes the default.
Although the linked article does not address it, the FDA is certainly working to mitigate any fallout from the plant closure. Much of the complexity is that WIC is administrated at the state level, so the FDA must work with each state individually to address the shortage.
Of particular note:
>more infant formula has been produced in the last four weeks than in the four weeks that preceded the recall, despite one of the largest infant formula production facilities in the country being offline during that time.
But, assuming altruistic grocers, it would be interesting to see how they decide what food to steer people towards. Would I have to share my medical records and height/weight/exercise routine or would they personalize based on something else?