Dance around all you want, but we're still stuck with the "inconvenient truth" that poor people in the US are almost always over-fed. They're not starving. (The exceptions are folks who don't like the free food, which makes them a lot like the folks who are homeless because they don't like the free shelter.)
Where else are the poor as well off? (Inequality does not make someone less well off. Well off is what you have, regardless of what someone else has.)
Why is that an inconvienient truth, exactly? I don't understand why the excellent access to food of the American poor has anything to do with whether the free market can feed everyone.
> I don't understand why the excellent access to food of the American poor has anything to do with whether the free market can feed everyone.
It's the (mostly) free market that is producing that food at low cost and in such large amounts.
As I asked at the beginning, where do you have both free markets and starving people? I ask because it's easy to find places with starving people, yet they're not uniformly distributed.
And, how many places with not free markets manage to not have starving people and/or the occasional famine?
Where else are the poor as well off? (Inequality does not make someone less well off. Well off is what you have, regardless of what someone else has.)