Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

This forum can be a scary place, 'cause we got lax rules: let's see your war face. Take a breath, and roll the dice, you might find out we're really nice.

Moderator: Mod Squad

Re: Weekly discussion 19 (6/18-6/25): NYC shenanigans

Postby Q.U. » Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:59 am

Image
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3252
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 19 (6/18-6/25): NYC shenanigans

Postby Valhallen » Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:32 am

MetsFan wrote:Fuck socialism. Go corporations.
Period? What about socialized fire protection, law enforcement, military, and infrastructure? Do you think that private corporations should do those things?

NeoWarrior7 wrote:Fuck corporations.
But only enough to provide for efficient market operation and a healthy society.

MetsFan wrote:Corporations are awesome.
Things are allowed to be both awesome and dangerous. I propose that there is a positive correlation between the the two descriptors, actually.

DaCrum wrote:Corporations are cool, but will trample upon the common man if given the chance.
If the management believes it would be profitable to do so.

NeoWarrior7 wrote:Hell, they'll trample the common man if they AREN'T given a chance.
Rhetoric aside, corporations often go as far beyond the law as they think they can get away with, but that doesn't mean they will be self-destructively malicious. They typically want profits, after all.

MetsFan wrote:Corporations have given the common (Westerner) man everything he could ever want and more.
They don't just give their products away. We don't live in a post-scarcity system where people no longer need to economize. In exchange for the products and services that underlie the modern Western lifestyle, consumers have given major corporations wealth and power comparable to nations of the past.

MetsFan wrote:cheap food
Government subsidies and price stabilization prevent the boom and bust cycles that led to shortages, price swings, and farmer bankruptcy in the formerly "free" markets, to the betterment of all, including the agricultural corporations that invest in food production because they can count on relatively stable prices. It was largely government-funded research that enabled the Green Revolution.

MetsFan wrote:cheap cellphones
Strict government regulation is needed to maintain a semblance of a competitive market in telecommunications, which is a natural monopoly market. Without mandated infrastructure-sharing, spectrum regulation, and antitrust laws, places would see either fragmented service (and therefore lower utility and higher costs from reduced economies of scale) or monopolies (and therefore higher costs and reduced attention to consumer satisfaction due to the telecom corporation exercising market power to maximize profits).

MetsFan wrote:relatively cheap computers
Which came from the establishment of demand for military computation in World War Two. Private sector demand caused it to snowball, but the initial demand for large scale electronic computation came from governments.

MetsFan wrote:affordable videogames
They charge what they think will be most profitable, which is usually affordable for many but not all people. They also do other things if they think it will be profitable, like first-day DLC and rootkits

MetsFan wrote:wal-mart
Walmart keeps costs low by importing goods from China (Chinese currency policy artificially lowers the cost of Chinese goods in foreign markets) and by reducing worker compensation to the least it can get away with. So cheap stuff is nice, but that's not the only relevant datum about Walmart.

MetsFan wrote:planes
Which are built largely using technology initially developed by military research, and operate under strict government safety and operational regulation. What do you think air travel would look like without the FAA or similar agencies?

MetsFan wrote:lotsa cars
Which would not be very useful without government-provided transportation infrastructure and regulation.

MetsFan wrote:trains
Iffy. Private corporations can operate effective rail networks, but only if they operate cooperatively to maintain system cohesion, and that takes some heavy regulation to prevent monopolistic abuse.

MetsFan wrote:relatively cheap guns
Where would the major gun manufacturers be without military and police contracts? Look at their history. Wartime orders let them expand and take advantage of economies of scale, which then let them offer lower prices to the private market.

MetsFan wrote:the internet
Which was initially built on government orders for its own use. It was decades before private consumer use really took off, and governments regulate the Internet today to ensure global functionality. What do you think the state of Internet businesses would be like if we'd had a Beta vs. VHS type fight for global data infrastructure during the dot com boom?

MetsFan wrote:everything i could ever pirate
In which you are subverting the operation of legal markets, taking advantage of government-mandated network freedom to make data flow more freely than media corporations would like. What do you think things would be like if corporations could do what they wished with the Internet?

MetsFan wrote:and so on and so forth
I am the Consumer.
Regarding the above, yes, corporations do a lot of cool stuff. However, they don't do that cool stuff on their own. In order to work effectively for society, corporations need governments to provide basic research and regulation to ensure enough safety and honesty to enable markets to work. Many markets are volatile enough when left to themselves that they need regulatory stabilization to operate effectively over the long term. Also, corporations need a strong consumer base in order to provide demand for their operation. Minimum wage and other employment laws help ensure that, even though a single corporation considered in isolation would see larger profits by slashing worker compensation (tragedies of the commons hurt everyone, including corporations which would rationally inflict them if not prevented by regulation). Consumers acting independently are not in a position to compel corporations to systemically act nice.

NeoWarrior7 wrote:Doesn't mean they AREN'T totally evil.
I suppose this is something of a semantic issue.

MetsFan wrote:
DaCrum wrote:Yeah, that's all good. They'll still trample you if you let them.
Give me five personal examples, either from your life or the experience of an immediate friend or relative.
Irrelevant, since DaCrum's personal experience is not the issue. Are you unfamiliar with what corporations did (and do now in parts of the world) when not restrained by regulation from making profits by being dicks? Do you not know about 96 hour work weeks, child labor, wage (and chattel) slavery, truck systems, unregulated workplace safety, snake oil, banana republics, corruption, and moral hazard?

But anyway, have you ever used a checking account or telecommunications service (say, from Comcast)?

MetsFan wrote:[Corporations are] a boon. Best thing that ever happened to humanity.
Runaway selection for intelligence. Development of language, ranged weapons, and control of fire. Agriculture. Social specialization and civilization. Metallurgy. Writing and law. Philosophy and math. Currency, banking, and finance. Democracy and representative government. Capitalism. Printing. Science. Engineering. Electricity. Antibiotics. Telecommunications. Computers. Modern-style corporations have been important, but calling them the best is a stretch.

MetsFan wrote:Especially with more and more companies moving towards the "beneficent company" model.
Of course. Oh, wait.

NeoWarrior7 wrote:Yeah, for now.
Then one day you'll wake up, and a dozen men own all the wealth, and we're all brainwashed slaves to the corporate state. Like 1984, but with corporations.
Image
Deteis represent.

MetsFan wrote:Writing's a pretty good contender, I must admit. I guess it would be safer to say corporations are the best thing to happen to modern civilization.
Debatable. The depredations of corporations a century or so ago are why communism showed up. Butterflies, ripples, etc.

MetsFan wrote:Consumerist propaganda? More like, advocacy of technological capitalism.
An advocate of technological capitalism should understand the economics of corporations, and accordingly know that they can cause a lot of trouble if not suitably controlled.

MetsFan wrote:Corporations are able to complete huge projects that can't really be accomplished through anything else.
Except governments and major institutions. We do have them for reasons, after all.

MetsFan wrote:Ultimately, their goal isn't to control the world; it's to get rich.
Meaning, if a corporation thinks that it would be profitable to meddle in politics, it will do so. What do you think of the recent Citizens United case and the rise of superPACs?

MetsFan wrote:You can't just summarize a corporation as "evil"; they're made up of people.
And what are people? Or some are, at least.

MetsFan wrote:Executives run things to make the stockholders happy and keep their own salaries high.
Except executive compensation has been decoupled from performance, often by way of gaming the system.

MetsFan wrote:Managers follow executives' orders to make executives happy, making the shareholders happy, and keep their own salaries high.
Image
Ever heard of the Peter Principle? Incompetence in middle management is ubiquitous comedic fodder for a reason. And yet they often enjoy standardized compensation packages with scheduled raises by corporate policy.

MetsFan wrote:The common man follows managers' orders to make managers happy, making executives happy, making the shareholders happy, allowing them to make a living. Then the common man goes home and buys everything to make him happy (videogames, for me) and is able to do so because a) his corporate-paid wage and b) how cheap and accessible corporations make goods.
Ideally, sure, but it seems that in reality, real wages have stagnated while productivity and executive pay have increased. Why is this? It seems that the common man's negotiating power for wages has declined concurrently with the decline in union power. It's as if corporations have exercised their greater power in labor markets.

MetsFan wrote:The notion that a dozen men will own all the world's wealth is ridiculous. The world moves too quickly and randomly for that to happen.
Image
A problem with democracy and free markets is that they are only metastable. Change and randomness can make it hard for power to accumulate too much, but once it does, that accumulated power can be used to entrench the control of those at the top. From there, they can ride out instability short of a revolution while suppressing potential competitors. That is why democracies turn into dictatorships and free markets turn into monopolies if they are not prevented from doing so. Now, what do you think is going on in real life regarding such preventative mechanisms?

DaCrum wrote:Wizard: Right now, 1 percent of the US population controls around 40% of the wealth. You're saying that the world is too tumultuous to keep wealth in one hands? Yeah, you're right. Unless those wealthy and those corporations turn the rules in their favoring with favorable taxes, laws, and politicians. Which you can see very obviously in US tax code, corporate laws, the influence of corporations and other special interest groups in the past 25 years.
And it seems that wealth inequality does indeed vary inversely with social mobility.

NeoWarrior7 wrote:They're run by people, that's WHY they're evil.
Evil exists only in the heart of man my friend.
There are different kinds of evil. Corporations tend to be interested primarily in profit, and therefore pursue self-interest regardless of the effects on others, making them Neutral Evil in the usual alignment scheme. Such evil can work out nicely for others, since rational evil can recognize that it is often better to live in a nice place. The people that make up corporations run the gamut, and they are not entirely rational or perfectly informed, so real-world practice varies.

NeoWarrior7 wrote:Also, hell and space monsters, but we'll get to those later.
Image
Who you gonna call?

RuffDraft wrote:CM: If I understand what you're saying, the corporations trample over everyone all the time BECAUSE the top 1% "controls" 40% of the wealth? Forgive me, but I don't understand exactly how that works. Could you explain how one is directly related to the other?
In an ideal free market, no entity has appreciable market power. In the real world, large corporations can control significant percentages of their markets, which lets them use market power for monopolistic practices like price fixing of products and wages. The more power controlled by a single entity or small group, the more they are able to steer the functioning of markets to modes of operation that benefit them at the expense of the economy / society as a whole (they capture more of the market surplus in a manner that reduces the total market surplus). This is exacerbated when politics is added, where those with some concentration of money can use it to enact legislation that protects their position at the expense of others. For example, this has led to a significant shift in the balance between the public and private domains in copyright law. Long-term copyright allows media corporations to milk established franchises indefinitely instead of innovate, while incentive to innovate was the major justification for copyright in the first place. What would you expect tax, capital gains, and inheritance policy to look like if those with the most wealth were allowed to use it to influence politics without meaningful restriction? What would those with the most wealth want it to look like? Remember this?

RuffDraft wrote:EDIT: Also, how exactly is the tax code stacked in the favor of the rich? It was my impression that over 40 million Americans pay zero taxes, and some even see a negative tax rate. Even if a rich person only pays 20% of their total income in taxes, they're still paying 20% more than 40 million people. Could I get you to expand on that?
Your impression is wrong. I mentioned it in previous discussion, but while there are many people who pay zero or effectively negative federal "income" tax, there are local, state, and other federal taxes that affect poorer people much more than wealthier people. Things like payroll taxes (percentage of income up to a cap), property, gas, sales, etc. taxes (percentage of something's value) apply very much to poorer people but relatively little to wealthier people whose income and wealth tend to be used in ways not applicable to those taxes. The overall tax burden is rather flatter than you characterize it. And recall that the really rich folks make most of their income from capital gains, which is taxed at 15%. Remember Mitt Romney's 13.9% tax rate (lower than what the bottom quintile pays, even though Romney makes thousands of times as much)? More info.

Also, did you mean that 40+ million American workers pay zero taxes? Because there are more than that many children in the US too young to legally work. I hope you don't expect them to pay the same tax rate as business dudes. They still pay sales taxes, but that's not very high.

Q.U. wrote:A good balance of temporary subsidies and correctly placed taxes could encourage the development and growth of a more sustainable and healthy food market. The food market can be very well guided by the legislation. And once sufficient improvement is made subsidies can be slowly recalled and incentives not to use the previous means of production either banned or taxed accordingly so as to prevent them from re-emerging.
The thing is, fast food (and its attendant franchises and vertically integrated supply) is very appealing for its convenience even apart from issues of direct monetary cost. When pressed for time or when traveling, it is very nice to be able to travel a short distance to a franchise restaurant with a known menu, quality, and cost, and get a meal in less time than it would take to cook. I don't think that reasonable market intervention will make fast food go away or remove its appeal. However, I propose that it can be made healthier in practice with targeted incentives to shift consumer preferences within their offered menus. Say, a cent tax per milligram sodium after each item's first two hundred grams, and a similar tax on calories per item. Fast food would still play its (useful but hopefully smaller) role, but hopefully some of the health issues would be lessened.

Q.U. wrote:
Some things shouldn't be fed to humans, but what's wrong with mechanically separated meat?
That meat by itself is not a problem. Since it provides a very valuable source of somewhat nutritious food. The problem with it is how hard it is to control and enforce most standards in it.
Fair enough. Though I don't know of there being any food poisoning cases from it. Unlike many other foods (fresh vegetables, say).

Q.U. wrote:Which is why it's so easy to bypass the standards and limits as to fat content and many other regulations with this kind of meat. A lot of the meat that litters the food market with unhealthy fastfood is MSM. Keep in mind MSM was only labelled as meat for human consumption in 1994. Which seemed to overlap with a new increase of obesity rates in the US. Now, correlation does not imply causation. But a relation between these events is likely.
Actually, fat and risk of obesity isn't really an issue with this type of meat. In its manufacturing process, it is heated and centrifuged to separate the muscle fibers from the fat, and the resulting meat paste is rather lean (this is why the "pink slime" is technically called lean finely textured beef). It is often used to make ground meat leaner.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 19 (6/18-6/25): NYC shenanigans

Postby DaCrum » Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:46 am

Friend who wants to become a meat scientist told me there's nothing dangerous about pink slime so I'm inclined to agree with the woman who makes the damn stuff.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 19 (6/18-6/25): NYC shenanigans

Postby NeoWarrior7 » Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:07 am

I missed Valhallen.

Can you just, like, run for president or something?
Image
For the Greater Good
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11824
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:15 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 19 (6/18-6/25): NYC shenanigans

Postby Rough Giraffe » Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:13 am

DaCrum wrote:Friend who wants to become a meat scientist told me there's nothing dangerous about pink slime so I'm inclined to agree with the woman who makes the damn stuff.
I still don't want to eat food and taste ammonia, do you? If it only saves them about 3 cents per pound, can't it be eliminated entirely?
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1158
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 19 (6/18-6/25): NYC shenanigans

Postby Q.U. » Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:00 am

Fair enough. Though I don't know of there being any food poisoning cases from it. Unlike many other foods (fresh vegetables, say).

The only real returning issue with MSM like that would be spinal cord bits that tend to get into the pink slime and their relation to bovine spongiform encephalopathy. As for fat, the issue there is method of preparation rather than the substance itself. Deep frying everything is not the healthy solution. And that seems to be the most common and popular way of eating pink slime.
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3252
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 19 (6/18-6/25): NYC shenanigans

Postby DaCrum » Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:31 pm

RuffDraft wrote:
DaCrum wrote:Friend who wants to become a meat scientist told me there's nothing dangerous about pink slime so I'm inclined to agree with the woman who makes the damn stuff.
I still don't want to eat food and taste ammonia, do you? If it only saves them about 3 cents per pound, can't it be eliminated entirely?

The meat is tested after the ammonia bath for ammonia levels. It only goes on once the ammonia levels are back to trace. Have you ever tasted ammonia in your meat?
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 19 (6/18-6/25): NYC shenanigans

Postby Rough Giraffe » Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:18 pm

I don't really go for ground beef; if I want beef, I go for a steak or jerky or something. But there have been reports of either the smell of ammonia, or just that it tastes strange. A journalist for the Chicago Sun-Times did a taste test and remarked that the pink slime burger just tasted "flat." Perhaps it is the amount of ammonium hydroxide they use?

Either way, why do we allow this practice to go on at all?
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1158
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 19 (6/18-6/25): NYC shenanigans

Postby Whatis6times9 » Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:25 pm

RuffDraft wrote:Either way, why do we allow this practice to go on at all?

The short answer, lobbying.
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 8971
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:10 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 19 (6/18-6/25): NYC shenanigans

Postby DaCrum » Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:29 pm

Because it isn't dangerous? Did people notice this before the whole 'pink slime' controversy started? No. This is mental effect. People are just being whiny, again.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 19 (6/18-6/25): NYC shenanigans

Postby Rough Giraffe » Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:46 pm

Whatis6times9 wrote:The short answer, lobbying.
I'm not so sure about that, based on the fact that it was only the USDA's decision to allow this meat into the markets (which did not apparently receive congressional approval). According to the Wiki on pink slime:
USDA scientists Carl Custer and Gerald Zirnstein say they argued against approval, saying that it was not "meat" and was in fact "salvage," but were overruled. Approval was ultimately granted by then-Under Secretary of Agriculture JoAnne Smith, who according to former USDA microbiologist Carl Custer stated "It's pink, therefore it's meat."


DaCrum wrote:Because it isn't dangerous? Did people notice this before the whole 'pink slime' controversy started? No. This is mental effect. People are just being whiny, again.
People used to think that amalgam fillings in teeth were harmless. The WHO released a study in 1991 saying that the leading cause of mercury in the body was in fact these very amalgam fillings.

The long term effects of ammonium hydroxide include chronic inflammation of bronchi, and airway hyperactivity[1]. There is no way to tell whether the "small" amount of ammonium hydroxide that is left over from the process will cause these problems or not. I wouldn't call that risk "nothing dangerous." Meat scientist be damned.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1158
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 19 (6/18-6/25): NYC shenanigans

Postby Whatis6times9 » Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:54 pm

Lobbying can extend past congress, if you notice the woman who approved later joined on the company that produces it.
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 8971
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:10 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 19 (6/18-6/25): NYC shenanigans

Postby DaCrum » Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:56 pm

Except there is already trace amounts of ammonium hydroxide in meat. Your body produces ammonium as nitrogen waste which is then released as urea. All ammonium hydroxide is ammonium suspended in water. Considering you already have nitrogen waste IN your body, I'm fairly sure trace amounts aren't going to kill you. Those diseases caused by ammonia are caused by the inhalation of it. In large amounts, the ingestion of it would be fatal, but trace amount are hardly noticeable or deadly.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 19 (6/18-6/25): NYC shenanigans

Postby Mir@k » Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:01 pm

Every time i eat bread there is a risk of me dying from asphyxia because of the lack of moisture in the dough. I propose we test every bread for moisture levels before consumption.
24 Karat
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:00 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 19 (6/18-6/25): NYC shenanigans

Postby DaCrum » Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:05 pm

For god's sake, I'm a socialist, and I don't want too much freaking oversight on my meat.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 19 (6/18-6/25): NYC shenanigans

Postby Rough Giraffe » Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:36 pm

Do you understand what you just told me? "Trace amounts" of ammonium hydroxide exist in meat, yes. We're talking about treating "waste" meat with high doses of it in order to disinfect it, then mixing it into regular ground beef; they don't even have to add a label saying that this is what they've done.

I thought you were anti-big business, and yet you would allow these meat packaging corporations to make extra profits by selling a cheaper, lower-grade product at the same price?
Last edited by Rough Giraffe on Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1158
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 19 (6/18-6/25): NYC shenanigans

Postby DaCrum » Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:43 pm

Oh my god Ruff you are not listening to me and it's very annoying. The meat AFTER the ammonia bath is TESTED for ammonia levels, and can only pass if rated safe by the USDA. Generally regarded as safe ammonium hydroxide is trace amounts of it within the meat. They aren't just blinding injecting ammonia into the meat and keeping it there. Also you misspelled trace. A LOT of your food is disinfected with an ammonia wash, and just like LFTB, the amounts after the bath are TRACE. What that means is that the amounts are in such little PPMs that it is not dangerous. It is significantly below the LD50 of the chemical.

I am against business when business is wrong. I am against irrational fear mongering, especially when it hurts business, and I am against waste when you don't have to. The fact is this meat is edible, it is safe, and there is no reason to make such a fuss over it.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 19 (6/18-6/25): NYC shenanigans

Postby Rough Giraffe » Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:51 pm

lol whoops. trance. trace. typing too fast. haha

Well anyway, I see we're not going to agree. I won't bother trying to convince you.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1158
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 19 (6/18-6/25): NYC shenanigans

Postby Q.U. » Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:31 pm

I propose that it can be made healthier in practice with targeted incentives to shift consumer preferences within their offered menus. Say, a cent tax per milligram sodium after each item's first two hundred grams, and a similar tax on calories per item. Fast food would still play its (useful but hopefully smaller) role, but hopefully some of the health issues would be lessened.

That, I can agree with. Accessible and cheap food is very convenient for the society and economy. I do also, however, wish there were more efforts to making it more healthy rather than less. But as we both know, that would require an interested consumer, and tough controlled regulations. Unfortunately regulations are too often ignored or bypassed, and the majority of the consumers are happy to eat trash so long as it costs next to nothing and doesn't kill them within 30 minutes after eating it. And since the great decline of health and obesity epidemic stemmed from fast foods, and since I really doubt the problem can be tackled effectively with your proposed approach, I jumped immediately to the more forceful method. I mean, sure, if you can come up with a working way to make fast food incentivised to be healthy then It's better than what I'm proposing.


People used to think that amalgam fillings in teeth were harmless. The WHO released a study in 1991 saying that the leading cause of mercury in the body was in fact these very amalgam fillings.

Just to point out. There's not a single element of the periodic table, molecule, chemical compound or substance in the universe that would be harmful to you in the right dosage/exposure. There's not a single one of those that would be harmless in an excessive dosage/exposure.
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3252
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 19 (6/18-6/25): NYC shenanigans

Postby Rough Giraffe » Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:55 pm

Q.U. wrote:
People used to think that amalgam fillings in teeth were harmless. The WHO released a study in 1991 saying that the leading cause of mercury in the body was in fact these very amalgam fillings.
Just to point out. There's not a single element of the periodic table, molecule, chemical compound or substance in the universe that would be harmful to you in the right dosage/exposure. There's not a single one of those that would be harmless in an excessive dosage/exposure.
The WHO reports that no level of mercury exposure is considered safe. The long term effects of mercury poisoning (that is, people who have been exposed to small quantities of mercury over a long period of time) has been linked to nervous system damage, memory loss, muscle coordination problems, and so on, and may be irreversible (from what I can tell, people with long-term mercury poisoning have shown improvement when the mercury has been removed from their environment, but have never fully recovered).

We have the technology now that we no longer need the amalgam fillings, yet they are still used in some offices. I just think we should rather be safe than sorry and always choose the safer alternative.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1158
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 19 (6/18-6/25): NYC shenanigans

Postby Valhallen » Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:37 pm

Weekly discussion 20 (6/28-7/5): Obamacare

Dun dun dunnn. So it looks like it will mostly be going into effect after all. Thoughts?



If anyone wants to continue the previous discussion, I can make a new thread for it.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 20 (6/28-7/5): Obamacare

Postby Q.U. » Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:10 am

Obamacare?

I'm awaiting the upcoming storm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn5c1FuLDd4
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3252
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 20 (6/28-7/5): Obamacare

Postby Rough Giraffe » Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:33 pm

Shall I comment? No one seems to like or agree with anything I have to say. I don't want to start some kind of flame war...
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1158
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 19 (6/18-6/25): NYC shenanigans

Postby BeeAre » Sat Jun 30, 2012 1:45 am

Valhallen wrote:Weekly discussion 20 (6/28-7/5): Obamacare

Dun dun dunnn. So it looks like it will mostly be going into effect after all. Thoughts?



If anyone wants to continue the previous discussion, I can make a new thread for it.


i am basically happy that for a little while longer i won't have to worry about my 3000$ every two weeks injected drug costing over 5$ instead of not that not happening and me having until basically the end of the year to find a way to pay for those injections or just hope my local doctor can prescribe me pain pills. best poster, worst digestive system. :X
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5627
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 20 (6/28-7/5): Obamacare

Postby EagleMan » Sat Jun 30, 2012 3:08 am

Most constitutional professors, even most conservative ones, agreed that Obamacare had solid constitutional backing, whether or not they liked it on its merits. The fact it came so close is rather ridiculous.

Also Clarence is still a bit of a scumbag for not recusing himself from the case despite the fact that his wife is actively involved in an organization that wishes to repeal the ACA.

I don't much like Obamacare, given how much of a conservative idea it is, but it's a step in the right direction and better than nothing.
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 13871
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:24 pm
Gender: None specified

PreviousNext

Return to Wham, Spam, Thank you, Ma'am!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests