After reading my syrup post, Cole Stryker emailed me a link to this article on corn syrup vs. sugar. It’s a quick read and you don’t have to be an economics expert to understand it. A few excerpts:
“American soda is sweetened with artificially tasting high fructose corn syrup, while foreign sodas are made with natural cane sugar. Why would the American public accept such a mediocre substitute?”
“Whenever the public doesn’t get what it wants and consumer demand is subservient to corporate interest, the most likely culprit is government policy. On the free market, consumers drive production, whereas under a system of protectionist corporatism, politicians and bureaucrats guide the market.” (emphasis mine)
“Instead of weeding out the most inefficient companies, the state subverts the consumer and keeps these companies propped up with corporate welfare. This is particularly true with respect to the agricultural industry.”
“At least 43 percent of ADM’s annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM’s corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10.”
As I read more about this, my big-picture perspective of how the US works grows bleaker. But I don’t educate myself because I want to feel cheery. I educate myself because I want to know the truth.
I find the theme of “change” amongst presidential candidates laughable. Change to what? They all seem to advocate slightly different versions of the same misguided government we’ve experienced for decades. It’s like an obese person changing his diet from hamburgers to hot dogs.
This is why people like Ron Paul, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich will never become president of this country. People who advocate drastic change of the status quo in the United States are labeled as “radicals” when, in actuality, it’s the radicals and zealots in charge and the rationalists who want to change things.
