When food production is criticised in regulated markets - it is always the issue that far too little is produced and that everybody is hungry - but isn't the agriculture of the most "free-markets" regukated and subsidised by the state quite heavily? Farmers are paid to meet quotas, farmers are paid not to grow too many crops. They do this, of course, in order to not destroy the primary sector of the economy and protect
it from imploding due to the vast quantity of goods produced. It is common practice, for example, for farmers to contaminate perfectly good food, potatoes, with a purple dye making the crop inedible....just in the name of saving the market!
Is this not then an unfree market? Is this a planned economy?
I can just as simply say that the overproduction of food in Western Europe and the need for agricultural regulation is simply endemic of the free market fearing its own implosion, so selfish and bullheaded that such great amounts of food are destroyed whilst people go hungry on the streets of London. Oh yes, I will show you something that'll make you change your mind.
Not true. There was massive food shortage in Poland during communist time, with meat being scarce. There is no such thing now and in fact nobody really starves.
Explain the Bengali and Irish famines? Explain why the greater portion of the 19th Century Europeans lived in abject poverty. Post industrialism was borne out of a painful transitory period of starvation which kept the greater mass alive by their necessity for the capitalist system to thrive. Capitalism is built on blood, just as feudalism purged or assimilated the last "barbarous" celts from England.
Anyway, I haven't asked, what on earth does morale have to do with much anyway? I'm sure people more democratically aligned would be more willing to be proactive, as they have a more hands-on approach to governance...hence the socialisms on this board.