The KGB Oracle
Posted By: Sini Free Markets hard at work - 03/08/13 07:54 PM
Sugar industry's secret documents echo tobacco tactics

Quote:
When Cristin Couzens went on the hunt for evidence that Big Sugar had manipulated public opinion, she had no idea what she was doing. She was a dentist, not an investigative reporter. But she couldn't let go of the nagging suspicion that something was amiss.


You are never wrong when you can use money to redefine what "ture" is.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/08/13 08:37 PM
Has nothing to do with Free Markets.
Posted By: Derid Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/08/13 10:33 PM

I am sure if it was a govt bureaucrat/apparatchik deciding what people should eat, we would all be better off. amiright?
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/09/13 03:18 AM
@ Hele Then what it has to do with? "Free" markets are all but free, because information capture is not any different from regulatory capture or legislative corruption. The system is self-corrupting.

@ Derid False equivalence.
Posted By: Derid Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/09/13 04:04 PM

Well then how should it work? Either people are able to make their own choices, and final responsibility for ones diet rests with the individual - or it rests with someone else.

If a party was able to stop all research into a topic, that would be one thing. But I do not think that is the case here.

Besides, when it comes to things like sugar - it is clear that it is not particularly bad for you. Unless you overeat to the point of obesity... in which case anything is bad for you.

Trying to tie in age-related disease... I think is a mistake. Once people age to a certain point, the body has a harder time doing many things properly.
Posted By: Arkh Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/09/13 07:43 PM
Originally Posted By: Derid

Besides, when it comes to things like sugar - it is clear that it is not particularly bad for you.


It is. And the corn based one you get in the US because of taxes on cane sugar import is even worse.
Processed sugar = type 2 diabetes.
Posted By: Derid Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/09/13 08:08 PM

I consider that age-related more than anything. Of course a lot of people here eat too much of it. But its not like drinking a soda immediately makes you sick. The problem is some people make an entire lifestyle out of poor foods, by choice, and of course it catches up with them when they are older. So I suppose technically speaking, it is not the sugar I consider bad in of itself per se - its the overall diet over a long period of time. Humans seem to be designed for a balanced diet, and diets that focus too much on many things - including fats, proteins, sugars... over a long period of time seem to be unhealthy.

Though I would say its worth noting that I would end Govt subsidy of corn/corn sugar in a heartbeat. First because its silly to subsidize it, and secondly said subsidies almost certainly help drive the over consumption of sugar to a significant degree.

Artificially making less healthy food less costly than other foods seems to me to be completely silly.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/10/13 02:39 PM
Originally Posted By: Arkh
Originally Posted By: Derid

Besides, when it comes to things like sugar - it is clear that it is not particularly bad for you.


It is. And the corn based one you get in the US because of taxes on cane sugar import is even worse.
Processed sugar = type 2 diabetes.



The body doesn't know the difference between the 2 types of sugars and processes them the same way.

The AMA does acknowledge that, because "HFCS and sucrose are so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose."
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/10/13 05:46 PM
Originally Posted By: Derid
Well then how should it work?


Conceptually - government should be in business of informing citizens and punishing any kind of misbehavior in this area. This is regulation, and goes against typical "small government" libertarian views.

USDA is a good example of this concept.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/10/13 06:23 PM
You do not want to get me started on the USDA and their gestapo tactics to support Big Agra. Cronyism at its worst.
Posted By: Derid Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/10/13 07:43 PM
Originally Posted By: Kaotic
You do not want to get me started on the USDA and their gestapo tactics to support Big Agra. Cronyism at its worst.


Nail. Head.

Originally Posted By: sinij
Conceptually - government should be in business of informing citizens and punishing any kind of misbehavior in this area. This is regulation, and goes against typical "small government" libertarian views.

USDA is a good example of this concept.


Its not that libertarianism precludes punishment of misbehavior.

The question is what metrics and due process are involved in determining "misbehavior".

If you create a tasty soda, and some people decide to drink a case a day for 40 years (extreme example, talking about concept not the example) - is it your fault for making them sick or their fault for having a retarded diet?
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/11/13 01:50 AM
You like to rally against regulatory capture and cite is as prime evidence against "big government". You are absolutely right - it is huge problem.

My understanding of libertarianism is that insider trading isn't condoned.

Now what do you suggest we do about information capture than happens in the absence of regulation? Free Market can't function if large number of actors are at substantial information disadvantage. With enough effort you can convince large number of people that Black is White and make money doing so. This is like insider trading, but on much larger scale.
Posted By: Derid Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/11/13 11:05 PM

If you can convince people that Black is White, does that not by its very nature preclude govt intervention? Markets, like modern progressive governance are democratic.

I think you are implying a false distinction here, by seeming to assert that Govts remain unswayed by this type of activity where markets do not.

Once you enshrine pre-emptive powers in govt hands, this type of media assault simply ends with calling Black as Black and White as White illegal. See how you arent allowed to claim on the packaging of certain meats that you "dont" use certain chemicals/feed/techniques for one example.

As much as anything, I see moral hazard where Govt assures people something is safe for example - but it really isnt. People offload responsibility for making good decisions and vetting products to Govt, which inherently turns it into a political battle subject to powerful influences.

Where as a Consumer Reports type organization can turn a profit by being independent and relying on their customers - and as long as the Govt fulfills its proper role and protects Consumer Reports from undue threat - legal or physical - there is no problem.

If there is information that is pertinent to uses of a product, then there is a market for that information.

Of course this is talking in the area of what I would call "soft" regulation, covering things like generally safe foods (whether you think eating too much is unhealthy or not, and it probably is, corn sugar is still generally safe. ) Things like Nuclear Power and such obviously need a higher degree of oversight.

Yes there are ways to tell the difference between the types.

Thats not to say that no regulation has ever had a net positive, or that total deregulation of anything and everything is some sort of utopia.

But again, we are back to the fundamental question of how and who should decide what goes and what does not.

What the Govt has basically done, especially in certain sectors is create a virtual monopoly on the information brokerage... or should we say the trust brokerage. If the Govt says something is safe, then the product can be sold and torts become extremely difficult if not impossible. Not only does it allow power politics to interfere with proper dissemination of the knowledge you are talking about - it artificially shrinks the market for dissenting information, as fewer people are willing to invest in trusted 3rd parties to provide unbiased evaluations. It leads people to trust where they should not, in many cases.

If you know something is dangerous, and do not report it that should be a felony that is enforced. The same as if you know a guy robbed a bank and dont report it.

People have to make decisions without total knowledge. I do not think there is a way around this.

I do not see how any means of organizing society or economic can change this. As P T Barnum once said, there is a sucker born every minute. While certain abuses and misbehavior can certainly be punished after the fact, I fail to see how anyone could reasonably expect to ever write enough laws or regulation to prevent the predators from finding new ways to fleece the sheep.

The only improvement I can see, is educating people... in effect creating fewer sheep.
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/12/13 12:59 PM
Originally Posted By: Derid

I think you are implying a false distinction here, by seeming to assert that Govts remain unswayed by this type of activity where markets do not.


There is huge difference between "lets make money by lying" and "maybe black is white" - that difference is intentions. Government doesn't start out with malicious intent. Another difference - representative government has mechanisms in place where you can enact political change. Corporations - not so much.

You want to present markets as democratic, but they are not representative democracy. Some people get 1billion votes, others get none. Plus they have no protections associated with a Republic - markets will exploit minorities if it is profitable.

Quote:
But again, we are back to the fundamental question of how and who should decide what goes and what does not.


My utopia is when these decisions are done empirically based on data, and frequently re-evaluated to see if new data changes anything.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/12/13 01:17 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
There is huge difference between "lets make money by lying" and "maybe black is white" - that difference is intentions. Government doesn't start out with malicious intent.
This is perhaps the biggest fundamental difference between us. You believe that intentions matter. I believe that results matter.

You are also making the assertion that government is altruistic and most of the rest of us recognize that this is just plain wrong. Government is composed of people and and all their flaws. All government really is is a massive machine of force used by a few to force their views on the many. You're right that our representative government has mechanisms in place for the citizenry to enact change, but that requires the citizenry to stay informed, and, by in large, ours doesn't.
Posted By: Derid Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/12/13 04:03 PM
Originally Posted By: sini


There is huge difference between "lets make money by lying" and "maybe black is white" - that difference is intentions. Government doesn't start out with malicious intent. Another difference - representative government has mechanisms in place where you can enact political change. Corporations - not so much.



My point was that if the media campaign is successful, Govt itself being representative will also be buying into the idea that Black is White. Iraq is one high profile example. Aspartame is another. The media/legal assault against Amish farmers in Ohio I mentioned previously is another.

Quote:


You want to present markets as democratic, but they are not representative democracy. Some people get 1billion votes, others get none. Plus they have no protections associated with a Republic - markets will exploit minorities if it is profitable.



You are correct, some people have more votes than others. But it is still an individual choice regarding how to cast their votes. Products that do not get voted on still fail.

Sure, if word gets out that productX might not be healthy long term - some billionaire could still spend a fortune and keep that product viable... but so what. Thats his problem.



Quote:


My utopia is when these decisions are done empirically based on data, and frequently re-evaluated to see if new data changes anything.


Why do you wish to apply govt force to this though? That is my issue. Jefferson once said that when people are wrong, you should not take away their power but rather inform their discretion. I think this applies here.

You are never going to be able to perform optimization on the problems humanity faces because you will never ever have all the pertinent info.

As we all know, in the absence of all the data it is quite easy to confound and mislead. Sometimes our models are just plain wrong. The way you frame your approach sounds simple, but actual implementation is anything but.

And it still has not delineated where individual responsibility starts and ends. Lets take corn sugar for example. Ok , if people over eat it especially over a long period of time those people may experience various health issues. But is this really the fault of the corn sugar?

I fear the effects on society of people being told that they do not need to take responsibility for themselves far more than I fear the effects of corn.

People need the ability to run their own lives and make decisions for themselves. That they might not behave the way you would or would wish them to is not cause to abrogate their rights or protect them from themselves. And that is without even addressing the issue of when Govt is wrong.

Honestly it sounds to me like you might enjoy doing research and reporting for the public good. I think that would be a noble endeavor. That type of activity does make an impact. Look what happened to Olestra for example. It is quite possible to inform people and improve society without resorting to force. I think this is the proper path.
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/12/13 04:34 PM
Originally Posted By: Derid

Why do you wish to apply govt force to this though?


Because I see Government as lesser evil. As a whole, govt is not out to intentionally screw anybody. Yes, it happens anyways.

Quote:
And it still has not delineated where individual responsibility starts and ends. Lets take corn sugar for example. Ok , if people over eat it especially over a long period of time those people may experience various health issues. But is this really the fault of the corn sugar?


This is not as simple question as you might imagine.

Humans are not neutral, unbiased or even always acting in owns best self-interest. Evolution dragged in a lot of baggage, as such your fundamental assumption of rational self-interested player is flawed. Combine this with flawed assumption of perfect information and you "free market" palace is built on sand.

Now to corn sugar example. Humans are hard-wired to prefer sweetness. Sweeter is universally valued as better. High fructose corn sweetener taste less sweet than alternatives, as such it takes significantly more calories to get to the same sweetness level. Is this the fault of corn sweetener producer? No, blame is so distributed between all players that it is easy to make individual case of innocence.

Still, you have a systemic problem where people get trained to eat sweet things and then pumped with sugar until our healthcare system collapses from treating diabetes and obesity.
Posted By: Derid Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/12/13 04:52 PM
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
—C. S. Lewis
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/12/13 04:55 PM
Ideology and pragmatism don't intersect.

-Sini
Posted By: Derid Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/12/13 05:28 PM

I dont consider that to be an "ideology" but rather Lewis made an insightful observation.

Honestly I consider the type of society you would construct, as I understand it, as the most terrifying of all dystopian outcomes.

Basically I consider your views to be one and a same with religion. The other side of the coin, and to be sure your eyes will never meet - indeed always facing in opposite directions. But the body is one and the same. The body of thought that the conviction of your own righteousness allows one to stand above all others and demand obedience through force, for the good of the subjects.

It is a society devoid of human dignity, an embodiment of the darkest facets of our nature.
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/12/13 05:58 PM
Derid, instead of ideological trolling, address below:

Quote:
Humans are not neutral, unbiased or even always acting in owns best self-interest. Evolution dragged in a lot of baggage, as such your fundamental assumption of rational self-interested player is flawed. Combine this with flawed assumption of perfect information and you "free market" palace is built on sand.

Now to corn sugar example. Humans are hard-wired to prefer sweetness. Sweeter is universally valued as better. High fructose corn sweetener taste less sweet than alternatives, as such it takes significantly more calories to get to the same sweetness level. Is this the fault of corn sweetener producer? No, blame is so distributed between all players that it is easy to make individual case of innocence.

Still, you have a systemic problem where people get trained to eat sweet things and then pumped with sugar until our healthcare system collapses from treating diabetes and obesity.
Posted By: Derid Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/12/13 06:33 PM

Its not ideological trolling. I think a society where people are told they are and are treated in effect as imbeciles, is not a society worth having. Have you fully fleshed out your solution or considered for the enormous social, psychological and practical downsides? So far you have something you consider to be a problem, and a very vague solution.

Maybe if you clarified your proposed solution I would understand it better. Right now all I see is a very lopsided, top-down society with very little individual autonomy.

You edited in that above quote to a prior post - but my response is unchanged. Inform people, so that their behavior may change. There is no need to use force.

If people in end decide that they like eating sweets, regardless of whether or not you approve - then you should respect their decision to do so as they should respect your decisions regarding your own life and diet.

Humans are sovereign individuals, not groups or herds. The way Govt interacts with the populace should reflect that.
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/12/13 08:24 PM
You think someone decides to get obese, diabetic, and die early?

Humans are social animals, we evolved in packs and tribes and our ability to build societies is a result of this. Individualism to a degree that you espouse is nothing short of anarchy.
Posted By: Derid Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/12/13 11:03 PM

Not hardly, it is the current status quo and has been for centuries. I hardly consider this anarchy.

Though the way I understand you plans, is more akin to the drug war than anything. Spending lots of effort and lots of money, infringing on civil and personal liberty... mostly to keep people from "harming themselves". Sure, in some regards there are addicts whose problems spill over to affect others. But the solution has still been far worse than the problem.

And yes, people choose to engage in unhealthy behavior all the time knowing full well the implications.
Posted By: Arkh Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/12/13 11:50 PM
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2879#comic
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 01:39 PM
So Derid, you wouldn't object if I add crack into drinking water and then when people get addicted charge everyone 10k/month in utilities? After all, if they don't want to get addicted they wouldn't drink tap water.
Posted By: Stubs Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 02:05 PM
Sini, that's a ridiculous extreme and you know it. However, please test your theory, as doing so will land you some VIP treatment in one of your favorite BIG GOVERNMENT resort locations. Just don't drop the soap.
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 02:11 PM
Stubs, but that would be evil guberment enacting violence on business transactions! /sarcasm

Can you explain the difference between

addicting people to sugar via normal consumption patterns and then profiting from selling them more

AND

addicting people to crack via normal consumption patterns and then profiting from selling them more
Posted By: Derid Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 02:25 PM

False equivalence, unless you really think that without the current state of the "War on Drugs" that adding crack to the water supply would somehow have flown. Which you dont.

I asked you to go into more detail, but from the info you have thus far dispersed... you are proposing a New War on Drugs. Using the same justifications.

You have established there is a "problem". OK.

What you have not established, is that your solution would not be worse.
Posted By: Stubs Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 02:52 PM
Crack is illegal, sugar isn't, so there's that. Not that it matters to you liberals, the only thing you know is your own delusional reality. In which it is apparently ok to dump crack into the water supply.

Its a choice dude. How hard is that for you to grasp. I know Burger King burgers are worse then A burger I grilled at home, you know what I was in a hurry tonight and so I made the choice to grab a whopper and fries.

I choose to buy ORIGINAL JELLO pudding and jello, not that gross sugar and/or fat free stuff. Its only bad for you if it is all you eat or drink. To much of anything is bad for you.

STOP TRYING TO TELL ME WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT DO FOR/TO/WITH MYSELF. You people are crossing lines, and one day you're going to go to far and there's going to be problems that talking alone won't fix.
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 02:57 PM
Originally Posted By: Stubs
Crack is illegal, sugar isn't


This distinction exist solely because of Government regulation. Such distinction is also against libertarian ideas.

Quote:
STOP TRYING TO TELL ME WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT DO FOR/TO/WITH MYSELF.


You accept crack as illegal, but with high fructose syrup you going all "pry from my cold dead hands"? I hope you can see inconsistency?
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 03:00 PM
Originally Posted By: Derid
Originally Posted By: sini

Can you explain the difference between

addicting people to sugar via normal consumption patterns and then profiting from selling them more

AND

addicting people to crack via normal consumption patterns and then profiting from selling them more



False equivalence


I do not accept your assessment, because you failed to demonstrate it as such.
Posted By: Stubs Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 03:20 PM
I actually don't accept crack as illegal, im just pointing out the difference you asked for. I think we should make it all legal, tax it and use the money saved from the "war on drugs" and the extra taxes to open some rehab centers to help the people who want to get better. The rest of the added savings and/or revenue can help with the deficit.

However, today, crack is illegal and sugar is not. So if you did contaminate the water, you'd likely and up in jail. If not Guantanamo as a terrorist.

Sugar is a necessity for your body, just like other nutrients. I won't dispute that we intake to much, but you can't just ban sugar altogether. Bloomberg is trying something here in NYC, with Soda. So far a Judge shot him down but he is appealing. To be honest I have had very dark thoughts about the mayor since he started this soda ban. You don't have the right to force you views on me, no matter what. End of story.
Posted By: Derid Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 03:38 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Derid
Originally Posted By: sini

Can you explain the difference between

addicting people to sugar via normal consumption patterns and then profiting from selling them more

AND

addicting people to crack via normal consumption patterns and then profiting from selling them more



False equivalence


I do not accept your assessment, because you failed to demonstrate it as such.


Whos dodging now?
Posted By: Derid Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 04:12 PM

In all seriousness, instead of descending into all sorts of rhetoric why dont you explain how your proposal is different than the Drug War.

Drug War proponents used empirical data to show that drugs can have a negative macro effect. However, at this point only hard core right wing neocons still really think it was a good idea. And all the govt agencies and private prisons that receive funding in its prosecution, of course.

How is your solution different? Or is it actually not?
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 04:16 PM
If you sell product for consumption that on the spot kills people that consume it, should you be held responsible? What if you put warning label on it?

If you sell product for consumption that gives people that consume it cancer, should you be held responsible? What if you put warning label on it?

If you sell product for consumption that gives people that consume it diabetes, should you be held responsible? What if you put warning label on it?
Posted By: Derid Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 04:34 PM

You havent addressed the question or how you would accomplish your goals.

Your post just now asks rhetorical questions. They are much to vague. There is a lot of gray area there.

Plus in the context of this discussion, you seem to be using "gives" in place of "increases the risk of over an extremely long period of time, particularly in cases of gross over consumption". Which is not the same as "gives"

You have however, as noted, gotten some agreement on the presence of a "problem" as such. What you have yet to address is the solution. The existence of "a" problem does not thereby justify any conceivable solution.
Posted By: Stubs Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 04:40 PM
1. Yes, unless there's a label that says Ingestion/Use will result in immediate death. If someone still buys and uses it, well they're a fucking moron we are better off without.

2. Yes, unless there is a label. Then if you use this product and get sick and die, its YOURE OWN FAULT!

3. Yes, unless there's a label. Then it's each individuals.choice to consume.

You can't take away choice from people Sini. You can't force your views on them. You could be 100% logically correct, and if I want to still drink a soda, you had no right to stop me. NONE.
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 04:56 PM
Stubs, what happens when your right to grow obese from drinking gallons of soda infringes on my right not to pay for your healthcare costs through taxes?

Also what about my right to not pay for subsidies to corn so you could gorge yourself to death on cheap high fructose corn syrup?
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 05:03 PM
Originally Posted By: Derid

You havent addressed the question or how you would accomplish your goals.


My answer have not satisfied you before, and set you off on a ideological grandstanding ...

Empirically.

Is X produces greater good? If I can reasonably measure, add up all costs then it should be possible to determine if it should be encouraged or discouraged.

This isn't a novel concept - we have plenty of sin taxes already. Only they are often misapplied on ideological or religious grounds.

Think of liberalism, throw away all dogma and "shoulds" and replace it with "Does it really work" and you can see where I am coming from.

What are effects and costs of subsidizing high fructose corn syrup? Should we end this subsidy and even add tax after balancing the book on it?
Posted By: Stubs Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 05:16 PM
Well, it doesn't. Healthcare shouldn't be funded by taxes, so thank Obama for that, unless you mean Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare is seniors and disability I believe so that isn't what you mean. That leaves Medicaid.

Now, if you mean Medicaid then before you attack people with diabetes(who aren't all diabetic because they're fat and love sugar btw)and obesity, you need to address the issue of illegal aliens getting their hospital visits paid for because they work off book and send the money back to their origin country. I pay my taxes, my parents paid theirs, their parents paid and so on, back 200 years. If anyone is entitled to healthcare help, its me.

You're grasping at straws trying to find ways to infringe on the rights of others because you believe your way is the only way. Its wrong.
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 05:42 PM
Stubs I am genuinely amazed at your ability to string together all this right wing swamp fever and never worry about staying consistent.

Here is chain of events: Agriculture subsidies distort price of corn, making high fructose corn syrup(HFCS) a disproportionally cheap sweetener. Public is hard-wired to prefer sweet, but HFCS is least sweet alternative, resulting in substantial extra calories at the same sweetness level as alternatives. This results in extra calories consumed from nearly all prepared food, as a result obesity levels of general population is getting worse and medical costs going up for everyone involved.

How we pay for medical costs is irrelevant, 100% private insurance distributing costs to you by increasing premium or Obamacare directly taxing you - your costs will still go up even if you are not obese. These are systemic costs.

This has nothing to do with illegal aliens using hospitals, Agenda 21 and UN, or any other boogeyman you can invent.

Posted By: Derid Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 05:48 PM

Empirically is not an application method here, its an ideology. Because first of all, we would have to agree on greater good. There is not an objective standard for this. I can already tell that we will not agree on what is good, and what is not - let alone a universal method for weighting degrees of goodness for comparison even when we do agree something is good.

Second of all empiricism has its own faults which I am sure you are aware of. These faults are exacerbated the more complex the system being subject to study.

It sounds more like what you are really advocating is a form of rationalism.

Now if we are to talk about ending sugar subsidies.. that is something we can agree on. This is a large part of the reason I object to your lambasting of the free market here. Sugar is heavily subsidized, distorting the market by underpricing sugar artificially. Which is both bad for the economy, and in this case may be detrimental to health by making sugar much more calorie efficient per dollar than it should be.

You used a case of known govt interventionism to attack market economics, which does not follow.

My core objection to your form of empiricism, is the injection of politics into daily living. This is fait accompli when the govt starts getting involved, turning the actions of everyday living into political actions. Turning anything anyone could ever scape up even a superficial case against into a political topic.

While I do not have a blanket objection to some forms of rationalism per se - I think it of prime importance that these types of scenarios are accounted for and avoided. The methods and metrics are more important than the concept itself here, else where does it start and where does it end?
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 05:50 PM
As such, "you can pry HFCS out of my cold dead hands" is false dichotomy problem (e.g Pro or Against problem).

It isn't about your individual choice to eat what you want - choice to avoid HFCS doesn't exist. You would be hard-pressed to find any non-HFCS prepared food. I obsessively read food labels, I know what I am talking about here.

The choice is to a) stop subsidies or b) regulate use or consumption of HFCS. a) is clearly better solution, but not very politically feasible.
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 06:09 PM
Originally Posted By: Derid

Empirically is not an application method here, its an ideology. Because first of all, we would have to agree on greater good. There is not an objective standard for this.


This is valid criticism, but it can be equally applied to any other form of governance. Still, this criticism is overly general - I hope you would agree that economical policy or questions of taxation produce very quantifiable "greater good".

Quote:
Second of all empiricism has its own faults which I am sure you are aware of. These faults are exacerbated the more complex the system being subject to study.


Can you demonstrate that current alternatives of dogma and guessing are any better? With empiricism there is a feedback process that would produce better results, does such process exist in the current system?

Quote:
You used a case of known govt interventionism to attack market economics, which does not follow.


No, I use this to highlight the case of private enterprise intentionally engaging in a disinformation campaign to preserve profitable status quo. The fact that the status quo is a result of government intervention is only coincidental.
Posted By: Derid Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 06:21 PM

If b is really more feasible than a... isnt that a wake up call, that just maybe you are focusing on the wrong problem?

If we want to talk about greater good here and all.

The govt spends so much of our energy on wrong things, the greater good could quickly be served by ending those things that are obviously wrong first. This would then make it easier to objectively identify areas where govt intervention was actually needed. Just as in this sugar case. We might well find, that by ending sugar subsidies and returning to real market pricing of sugar that over consumption drastically decreases , killing multiple birds with one stone. As opposed to spending yet more of societies resources on policing and regulating sugar, which without addressing the core political and philosophical issues of the subsidies might even result in yet greater subsidies as the sugar makers complain it is even harder to turn a profit.

This line of thinking is also a large part of the reason that I favor more local govt intervention when intervention is called for. Having different areas under the same societal umbrella try different methods presents much more viable control groups. It is much easier to see if a policy is effective and does not create drastic unintended consequences when you are comparing say Ohio and PA - as opposed to comparing a national policy to pure theorycraft or even the rest of the world.

Not is not to say perfection is achieved, but the picture becomes clearer.
Posted By: Derid Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 06:35 PM
Originally Posted By: sini


This is valid criticism, but it can be equally applied to any other form of governance. Still, this criticism is overly general - I hope you would agree that economical policy or questions of taxation produce very quantifiable "greater good".


Thats because the objectives in those fields have already been outlined and agreed upon , whereas "greater good" as a term itself remains vague. Economics and taxation revolve around quantifiable flows of currency. "Good" is an abstract term, whereas currency reflects an abstract concept of wealth - it is the fact that the concept of currency has been created and refined that allows us to thereby get a reliable measure of wealth. No "currency" has yet been created for the abstract concept of "good".

Quote:


Can you demonstrate that current alternatives of dogma and guessing are any better? With empiricism there is a feedback process that would produce better results, does such process exist in the current system?


In theory the current system should already work that way.

When proposing drastic change, I think the burden is on the proposition to relay why the new paradigm would be different and better. Often times pointing out faults in the current system is enough to garner support, and a point I repeatedly try to make is that I find this to be mistaken thinking.

Quote:

No, I use this to highlight the case of private enterprise intentionally engaging in a disinformation campaign to preserve profitable status quo. The fact that the status quo is a result of government intervention is only coincidental.


I think you got the cart before the horse here. The fact that government has been empowered to fiddle with economics in this matter is problem. This incentives people to work on making govt act in a non rational manner in of itself for private gain - this has been shown in all governmental systems tried thus far.

The fact that money is what people are twisting govt to obtain in this case is what is coincidental.
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 07:04 PM
Originally Posted By: Derid

Quote:


Can you demonstrate that current alternatives of dogma and guessing are any better? With empiricism there is a feedback process that would produce better results, does such process exist in the current system?


In theory the current system should already work that way.


I disagree.

Current system has very short memory. Do you think if our voter base had significant representation of people that lived through 30s, we would have had reckless deregulation that caused 07 crash?

Current system tends to be populist and knee-jerk reactive - change is not enacted based on evidence, instead it is enacted based on emotion, often as via manufactured crisis. This will get only worse, because now it became possible to reach individual voter through media.

Current system prone to dogmatism and epistemic closure.
Posted By: Derid Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 07:54 PM

As I said - in theory. Ignoring your supporting economic assertions for the moment because I find them largely incorrect, I will agree with you on the concept that our current govt provides suboptimal results in many cases.

I have already expounded on my view of why I think this is the case, which is largely due to the mathematical social distance between the people and govt as measured in degrees of separation, ratio of representation, and too much conflux of issue management into to small of a political space. As well as my prescriptions for remedy.

Your theory is understandable, but thus far I am unable to devise a method of concrete implementation that would actually arrive at the goal you seek. Even if the vision has some appeal - I see no way to make it a reality that actually works as you envision.

If someone were to outline a method by which it could work in practice, I would keep an open mind.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 08:54 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
It isn't about your individual choice to eat what you want - choice to avoid HFCS doesn't exist. You would be hard-pressed to find any non-HFCS prepared food. I obsessively read food labels, I know what I am talking about here.
You're doing it wrong. Don't buy the pre-prepared crap they sell you in the grocery store. Buy fresh (or as close as you can get) fruits, vegetables and meats and cook your own food. There is absolutely zero HFCS in the food in my house. And contrary to your assertion, no one is forcing me to buy any or addicting me to it.

Originally Posted By: sini
The choice is to a) stop subsidies or b) regulate use or consumption of HFCS. a) is clearly better solution, but not very politically feasible.
You argue for more government while pointing out that political realities make effective/efficient government unlikely at best.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/13/13 11:08 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
Stubs I am genuinely amazed at your ability to string together all this right wing swamp fever and never worry about staying consistent.

Here is chain of events: Agriculture subsidies distort price of corn, making high fructose corn syrup(HFCS) a disproportionally cheap sweetener. Public is hard-wired to prefer sweet, but HFCS is least sweet alternative, resulting in substantial extra calories at the same sweetness level as alternatives. This results in extra calories consumed from nearly all prepared food, as a result obesity levels of general population is getting worse and medical costs going up for everyone involved.

How we pay for medical costs is irrelevant, 100% private insurance distributing costs to you by increasing premium or Obamacare directly taxing you - your costs will still go up even if you are not obese. These are systemic costs.

This has nothing to do with illegal aliens using hospitals, Agenda 21 and UN, or any other boogeyman you can invent.



You seem to forget its not a tax that Obamacare is charging you its a fee. You should reread your liberal manual before posting each time so you don't make a mistake.
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/14/13 05:19 AM
Originally Posted By: Kaotic
You're doing it wrong. Don't buy the pre-prepared crap they sell you in the grocery store.


I do that already, but I can't assume I am anywhere near the norm. Again, due to my socioeconomic situation I can't take what *I* do and extrapolate to averages.
Posted By: Stubs Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/14/13 11:52 AM
Meh. I dont know what 21 and UN are. I know what I've seen firsthand, so dont be telling me it's not happening. As for consistency, im posting on a phone from work when I have downtime. Its hard to go start to finish on one thought without being interrupted :(
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/14/13 01:05 PM
Originally Posted By: Stubs
I know what I've seen firsthand, so dont be telling me it's not happening.


Did you actually seen firsthand illegal aliens using emergency rooms for healthcare? I am sure it happens, but I see it as a red herring issue.

Since we are talking about healthcare, a) uninsured citizens, b) uninsured green card holders, c) illegal aliens all relying on emergency rooms for health care is a problem. If I had to guess a >>> b+c.

Yes, not all diabetes are result of "lifestyle choices" and this is exactly why we can't apply "tax the consequences" approach. Otherwise problem would be simple - slap labels on food, then if you get fat and diabetic gorging yourself on junk food you pay more into healthcare to compensate society for having to deal with your mess... but it can't work that way.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/14/13 02:08 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Kaotic
You're doing it wrong. Don't buy the pre-prepared crap they sell you in the grocery store.


I do that already, but I can't assume I am anywhere near the norm. Again, due to my socioeconomic situation I can't take what *I* do and extrapolate to averages.
So, you just assume that everyone else is too stupid to do this? You're just smarter than everyone else, so you should tell them how to live?
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/14/13 02:10 PM
50% of people are below average intelligence.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/14/13 02:12 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
50% of people are below average intelligence.
Does that give you the authority, via the force of government, to tell them what to do? I believe it does not and that belief is the fundamental foundation of our nation.
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/14/13 02:14 PM
Idiocracy comes to mind.

Human society does establish the norms of behavior that discriminate against outliers. We don't allow sexual deviants molest our children, we don't permit overly-aggressive people assault physically weaker individuals, we don't allow stealing, cheating and number of other ills in our society.

Your absolutist stance is unjustifiable in the light of what we already do.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/14/13 02:25 PM
So, your argument is: "if the stupids are allowed to breed, they will overtake the rest of us."?

You've just described examples of preventing people from doing harm to other people, not themselves. There is a HUGE distinction there that I assume you're ignoring because it doesn't fit your paradigm.
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/14/13 02:34 PM
Idiocracy's argument (not mine) is that if stupid people are out-breeding intelligent people, over time this will select for stupidity. Thankfully, there isn't allele for intelligence, rather it is secondary effect and expression of number of genes.

Best current explanation is that there are hundreds of genes that regulate various functions that also affect intelligence. When all of them are expressed, you get Einstein, when all but 1 expressed you just get very smart people. To get to Tea Party Fox-watching mouth-breather level you have to go fairly deep into opposite territory and it is equally unlikely to happen.

As such, our genetics strongly select for normal distribution of intelligence and selective pressures on individual alleles are unlikely to move the median.
Posted By: Kaotic Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/14/13 02:42 PM
Point dodged.
Posted By: Derid Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/14/13 03:24 PM

Actually there have been recent scientific arguments that humans are getting dumber because we are no longer selecting for intelligence.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012...ng-their-smarts

Of course I am not certain this is correct, rather I think we are seeing a divergence into various subgroups. But still, worth noting.
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/14/13 05:43 PM
FUD.

Read this as your starting point:

http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/the-genetics-of-stupidity/
Posted By: Stubs Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/14/13 05:45 PM
At the ER a week ago, actually. I was waiting there for my girlfriend to be seen, she broke her tailbone. So were sitting around right next to the registration desks, and im eavesdropping. There was a bunch of people around, the place was pretty crowded for a monday night. There were several families applying for Emergency Medicaid and a few that already had actual Medicaid. All of them were almost non-english speaking people with kids for translators accept 2 of the ones that already had medicaid. They used a hospital employee that spoke spanish.
Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/14/13 05:54 PM
@ Stubs, so you assumed they were illegal immigrants because they didn't speak English?
Posted By: Stubs Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/14/13 07:07 PM
Yes sir I did. Well that and the "no have" responses/gestures to a request for SSN. Although to be fair one family might have had greencards cause they pulled out something card like that definetly wasn't an SS card.

Posted By: Sini Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/14/13 08:02 PM
I lived in Texas for a while, and it wasn't uncommon to see older folk speak only Spanish. Some of them were Nth generation Texans and US citizens.
Posted By: Helemoto Re: Free Markets hard at work - 03/14/13 09:23 PM
Originally Posted By: sini
I lived in Texas for a while, and it wasn't uncommon to see older folk speak only Spanish. Some of them were Nth generation Texans and US citizens.


So we assume that with your vastly superior intellect, you speak Spanish and talked with the people to know how many Nth generation they were.

Most of the people I know who are 2nd generation can barley even speak enough Spanish to talk to their parents. They don't even try because there is no
real advantage to speaking Spanish in a English speaking country. Their words not mine.
© The KGB Oracle