Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Wealth Distribution in the USA
Comments
-
EDIT: ^^ Ah, pretty much same as above
Ok I think it best to get to one core point here: (I'm assuming you're arguing for deregulation, as it seems implied, but excuse if not)clairefontaine wrote: »The reason we are seeing more and more demand for purer foods over on this side of the pond is not to do with the FDA. THe FDA still endorses HFCS and has a former Montsanto director not high on up, appointed there by Obama.
We are seeing more and more purer foods because the people have copped on and are making different choices and different demands.
The more demand that is there the more companies will enter the market and increase competition, thus driving down cost to the consumer. Americans learn this basic principal in fourth grade.
To believe the government can be less corrupt and financially motivated than the private sector is naive. The FDA is a good example of this all around.
The idea that 'free markets' can self-regulate to the benefit of society, is a theory, an ideal that has never been realized in reality - it is impossible (particularly because, you can never have free markets while the state itself exists - the very existence of laws and a legal system automatically makes markets not-free).
In reality, there is fraud, and stuff like greshams dynamic which pretty much guarantees rampant fraud if the incentives in markets become perverse (which, being centered around incentivizing profit, and not incentivizing peoples wellbeing, will have a detrimental effect on society - especially because markets are short-term thinking, not long-term thinking about the health of the people they defraud).
So, the free market stuff you learned is all theory, and it does not work the way the myths say it does - it all reduces down to a no-true-scotsman type argument "well we've never tried real free markets without any government, if we get rid of a little more government it will work this time".
It's false though, it has no evidence whatsoever backing that it can work on the scale of an entire economy - and a lot of evidence that it can't (from the various failed experiments of deregulation).0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
KyussBishop wrote: »EDIT: ^^ Ah, pretty much same as above
Ok I think it best to get to one core point here: (I'm assuming you're arguing for deregulation, as it seems implied, but excuse if not)
The idea that 'free markets' can self-regulate to the benefit of society, is a theory, an ideal that has never been realized in reality - it is impossible (particularly because, you can never have free markets while the state itself exists - the very existence of laws and a legal system automatically makes markets not-free).
In reality, there is fraud, and stuff like greshams dynamic which pretty much guarantees rampant fraud if the incentives in markets become perverse (which, being centered around incentivizing profit, and not incentivizing peoples wellbeing, will have a detrimental effect on society - especially because markets are short-term thinking, not long-term thinking about the health of the people they defraud).
So, the free market stuff you learned is all theory, and it does not work the way the myths say it does - it all reduces down to a no-true-scotsman type argument "well we've never tried real free markets without any government, if we get rid of a little more government it will work this time".
It's false though, it has no evidence whatsoever backing that it can work on the scale of an entire economy - and a lot of evidence that it can't (from the various failed experiments of deregulation).
The reason HFCS has cornered the market and has FDA approval is because of the corn industry lobby and the US government going way way back. Read the Carnivore's Dilemmna for more info. It is fascinating.
Now I have to buy my Coke imported from Mexico.
As far as vaccines are concerned, American children go through something like 147 shots. The FDA only has approved single shot administrations. Apparantly Europe is ahead due to the FDA restrictions. When I told a doctor over here about the 6 in 1 she nearly squealed with delight. Will it ever make it across the pond? I doubt it.
How about the guy down in Texas with successful alternative and scientific cures for cancer? He has been taken to court something like five times by the FDA? http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/06/11/burzynski-the-movie.aspx
And yet now we have Obamacare, so any dissenters to any of this carry on have no choice but to sign up with these fascist HMOs. Does it feel better when I use the word fascist rather than communist?
Now when do you want to talk about the nationalisation of the federal reserve?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
This post had been deleted.
We need to be careful though. It's definitely in the Corn lobby's interests to promote HCF as safe and healthy but it doesn't necessarily mean it isn't any different for any other sweetner's. As far I can ascertain there's small scale studies that indicate it might. The more larger scales one indicate that currently there's either too much noise or there's actually little to suggest HCF adds significantly to weight gain as opposed to other. So we could probably fire studies back and forth all day. The key thing as far as I can tell is that there's no consensus yet on the issue. Or, if anything, the current consensus appears to be that HCF doesn't really change anything.
Anyway, apologies for dragging this off topic.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement