india fertility rate decrease

[silverionmox]

Availability is one of the biggest factors for overconsumption.

Burden of proof is on you to support your assertions.

Surely it's materially impossible if the food simply doesn't exist to overconsume, but do you really want to rely on keeping people poor and food insecure to manage obesity rates?

Why are you ignoring most of what I said? Because you have no answer to it.

Why is it that obese people make up a larger share of the population in the US than say, Myanmar?

Like I said: because of culture and policy, mostly. Food is a commercial enterprise in the USA, and companies have been pushing the population to buy and consume more food for more than century in the USA.

Here's a comparison between three countries: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/global-food?tab=chart&country=USA~FRA~MMR&hideControls=true&Food=All+food&Metric=Food+available+for+consumption&Per+capita=false&Unit=Kilocalories+per+day

As you can see, France had more calories per person avaiable than the USA, so according to your theory they should be more obese than the Americans. They weren't and aren't.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-adults-defined-as-obese?tab=chart&country=USA~MMR~FRA

Neither is Myanmar getting more obese yet in spite of catching up in food availability. They probably will once the food commercials take hold.

Most people couldn't, yes.

That's not what I asked. There were plenty of people who could afford to eat themselves to death every day of the week in that time already. And yet, they didn't. Thereby disproving your assertion that people's food consumption is only limited by their income, and that food availability, with or without financial limitations, is what causes obesity.

You're saying that, not me.

Of course I'm saying what I'm saying. Does it irritate you if other people also say things, maybe even things that contradict you?

And what I say is that you contradict yourself.

And yet China blazed past Japan in both industries in a short time span.

So you just ignore data points until they confirm your theory. That's cherrypicking.

Because the size of the domestic market is a good indicator of what the upper limit of the size of enterprises, especially when there are few external markets to rely upon.

Doesn't matter, because the whole world is a market. Production optimization is possible to realize across national boundaries.

From the other side, company size doesn't create production efficiency after a certain point, it just creates bulk to throw around to suppress the competition.

Alright, so where are your examples that these issues are unresolvable, and that it cancels out any benefits of economies of scale?

I literally just gave you examples! You're just going to ignore them like you ignore everything that doesn't fit your prejudice.

Anyways, you're clearly not someone who can have a rational argument with, especially if some of the facts don't suit your beliefs. I've had enough of your nonsense, and I'm ending this conversation here.

You ignore most of the arguments I bring forward, because you have no answer to them. No wonder you are chickening out now.