So a long time ago there was a massive epidemic that took out most of Europe. I don't like to make light of such matters, but it was like 700 hundred years ago, so we can all lighten up a little now. There were a lot of different periods of massive epidemic, but I'll limit myself to the 14th century. What really sucked is that the Catholic church went around blaming others (primarily the Jews), and subsequently killing them for their responsibility in the outbreak. That's some pretty stupid shit. All in all, a lot of people died, many needlessly and people got really depressed. However, the plague's effects on the population made land and food cheaper and increased per capita income among the common folk. So if you managed to live you were living swell.RATING: 9%
Posts
15 comments:
Haha, this got more points than coldplay. Yeah that's right, coldplay sucks big time.
Well, the food and land at the time were both covered in all kinds of animal feces all the time, so I don't know if I'd say you were living swell.
Swell then meant better than dead.
9% seems pretty low for this. I'd give the plague a good solid 26% because it was so long ago and it's exciting to read about in history classes.
Also, if there was a plague kicking about killing everything, why was there so much poop on stuff? Additionally, salmonella tomatoes.
I agree that it was interesting to read about in history, but I gave it such a low score because of the Catholic Church. I stand by my rating and its/my infallibility.
So are you suggesting that we should have a repeat of this? So that we can have an increase of per capita income? Maybe to offset gas prices?
Look pecksniff, if people are dying left and right then maybe the food supply also drops, and therefore doesn't become cheaper. What kind of moron are you?
Hey breadboy, are you then suggesting that food production in countries, like China, is growing at the same staggering rate as their population? The two don't necessarily have anything to do with one another. What? Are you some kind of moron?
Pecksniffleritis.
Uh...China's population is GROWING, let alone at a 'staggering rate'? Don't think so. Their anti-growth measures were in place before you were born and have been remarkably successful, if not always morally palatable. God, what's wrong with this kid?
Hey! Lower your swords against Chris! Unhand, the boy! He could be right. Here's why: the plague was primarily an urban phenomenon, with infected rats infecting those more often in tight population centers.
The rural areas, where the food was grown, escaped the decimation for the most part. Therefore, food supply was holding constant, while demand was falling, and hence the price was falling. RIght?
Felicitus, you're as moronic as this Chris punk! How do you picture trecento Italy? Like Kansas, with single family farms dotting the landscape, sequestered safely away from population centers? Individual neighbors separated by miles of waving wheat? You idiot. You sorry piece of brain detritus. Arable land during that time was like a wheel and those farming it were living together in the center like a hub. So, these hamlets were in fact quite populated, full of humanoids living in close quarters. And they too were consumed by the dreaded black death. The land they were farming went fallow, food production dropped, and supplies fell into place with lower demand. Both supply and demand decreased, and the prices remained constant, reflecting this rough equilibrium. Therefore both you and Chris are wrong: food did not become cheaper.
(Confession: I came upon this blog after googling 'retarded')
Look, Chris, you refer to China's population growth maybe putting pressure on food supply. Brilliant point!
But, the 14th and 21st centuries are different. Think hard: What were more people doing in back in 1350? Was it a) high finance b) manufacturing c) working in hotel lobbies d) agriculture.
I'm guessing you guessed right and chose d, agriculture. So if agriculture accounts for say 60% of labor, and suddenly 50% of the population dies off, is it a safe bet that food output declines? Is it further safe to assume that if food supply falls prices rise? Sure, but only if demand stays constant, which it doesn't if a disease ravages the population. But you claim food prices would FALL? Please explain how.
What ails your thinking so, Chris? What mars your capacity for simple logic? Is there a small bite near your forehead, an inexplicable bump mysteriously growing in size each day? Pecksniff, all too human.
I can't believe there's all this fake arguing going on over a joke blog post on a comedy website. And worst of all, it's not even bumping up the comment numbers on one of MY posts!
PS - I wish it really was true that you could come across this blog after googling "retarded."
I'm pretty sure the only point in my comment was that correlation does not imply causality. Nothing more. Now on to more of the retarded reviews you've all come to know and love.
Post a Comment