This means that it's cheaper to produce wheat than heroin. It doesn't mean that heroin is cheaper to purchase than food. That's like suggesting that food is cheaper than shoes. It's a rather meaningless comparison.
And it is quite good news.
"With wheat prices doubling in the past year, and the street price of heroin falling..."
Seems demand-driven to me.
Yes, but they are still not substitutes. My point is that there is no rational way to conclude that heroin is more or less expensive than bread, because there are no clear and meaningful units on which to compare them.
Well, no, they aren't substitutes on the demand side. They are, however, production alternatives. How can you possibly imply that the price of wheat rising, and the price of heroin falling, is a good thing?
(And, yes, there is a meaningful units on which to compare them: price per acre. That comparison has been done. By the Afghani farmers. That's the point.)
I think this was more about me being pendantic about a post which was actually quite funny.
This is one of those good things that is rather unfortunate.
Fair enough!
Commenting by HaloScan
