Travis In Austin

Do you recalk the networks? I hope it is a network I get on my cable and you can on demand so I can catch up. Almost 40 years since I read it. Would line to take the easy route this time.

Nothing?

A voice of reason from the wilderness. You are right, it isn't little green men controling the bankers, and it isn't dark banking, and it isn't Coke, and it isn't manufactured food. Greed fuels a lot on our system. However, at the consumer level, a person who is above poverty level has choices. A choice in stores rather than one within walking distance or on a bus route, a store with better produce, a farmers market on Saturdays with organic produce, whatever. One thing I believe is that stores follow consumers preferences. The ones that survive and do well track preferences, look at trends, and stay up to date. Those that don't get swallowed. Very well said.

Crumbs is one word, I would venture a guess more aren going to see turds. I think they will see how far you have retreated and find you have lost credibility. As Jeff said, you tend to color things and way overstate them. They will see you cant even establish that the LE is declining, much less what the cause is. I think they will see you make a lot of unsubstantiated claims, and they are unwilling to take a blind leap onto whatever magic carpet ride you are on. Which is a darned shame, because buried in that rambling firehose approach you have are some real intriguing ideas that deserve being fleshed out. But have no fear, I will be here to fact check you on everything. Hopefully it wont require you to backtrack to the point that the number of bankers doesn't matter, and whether the Dark Bankers control 33 or 35T. Precision Courage

I live in the real world, dealing with real bond issues, on real infrastructure replacement, I compete for funds for equipment and systems on behalf of my officers on a city, county and state level in order to try and make them the best equioed equipped and safe as possible. I cannot deal in the theoretical, the model you have conjured up. I work with local governments on budgets so that I can hooefully negotiate a raise for my clients at the aporopriate time. I testify in favor, or against legislation in the state legislature on certain law enforcement issues. The players are all different, the path to a postive outcone change, . You, on the other hand, gather information, not sure from where, which you filter and reach whatever conclusions you reach, such as these: What's apparent to me is that your world view is limited to what everyone and anyone could see with their own eyes. In other words, how the world works superficially. There's a government, there are taxes, there are voters, and everything is accountable and in the open. And yet we can look at some simple examples of events which aren't what the public sees on the surface. 1. Legislation. It's not written by Congresspeople as you would read in your civics books, it is written by people hired by industry. When those plans for a piece of legislation are hatched in the offices of say Verizon, or CitiBank, you have zero visibility to that process, and neither do any scholars who might be in a position to write some sort of peer reviewed paper on the "undermining of democracy." What you get to see is a result, and nothing more. 2. Covert operations. When the US covert operators, both agents and private operators, smuggle guns, assassinate people, disrupt elections, commit sabotage, smuggle drugs, move billions of dollars around the globe invisibly, what do you get to see of that? The answer is nothing. You have no visibility of any kind into those operations, nor do any scholars, or researchers. At best here's what you might get: An aggressive journalist, willing to risk his life, might investigate and come up with some tidbits left on the trail of these operations. It will be uncorroborated, hard to verify, part truth and part fiction, but it will definitely point to unseeable actions that change the world. 3. Hidden wealth. There exist many trillions of dollars that are off the books of any bank, or public institutions. The amount is of course disputable, but is estimated to be 2 or 3 times the US GDP. This is wealth controlled by sovereigns, by private individuals and by certain kinds of off-book consortia. You can't study what can't be seen. What can be see is the ACTION of this wealth on global markets. Currency exchanges, commodity markets, central banks operations. And like assassinations and covert operations, the trail can be sniffed, some tidbits can be discovered, without ever seeing the whole picture. Now, you can deny that 1, 2, and 3 are real phenomena. That's the usual position of all who prefer to have a simple worldview uncluttered by forces they can't see. If so, no further discussion is needed or desired. But, if you can understand 1, 2 and 3, it is only economic common sense that in the world of wealth some assumptions can and should be made in order to understand how it seems to stay in the same hands: Assumptions: 1. The wealth was not found under a rock. It was accumulated by some strategy or another until it grew into fantastic proportions. 2. The owner of the wealth intends not only to keep it all, but to grow it all. 3. The reason it is held "in secret" and off the books (I'll assume you understand Bermuda, Switzerland, Cayman Islands), is that it is used in ways that would not be legal in various jurisdictions where transactions are being executed with these funds. 4. It is natural for all persons to do whatever it takes to defend their wealth against seizure, taxes, robbery. Agreed? If yes, there's more to say. If not, nothing else needs to be said, and you can hold your previous beliefs that everything is accounted for above board. How is policy made in the USA (as an example). The naive belief is that policy is made by the congressional and executive branches of government. Congress, WH, Pentagon, DOJ, FBI and so on down the line. But, that's not true precisely because we know some things out side of that. 1. We know that elected officials are bought by all kinds of wealthy influences. They want their say into policy. 2. We know that NGOs like CFR, Trilateral Commission, and umpteen think tanks have in their ranks, all the current and ex-government officials. And we know, all those NGOs have extensive public policy positions. 3. We know that all these NGOs are deeply funded, again by wealthy influences that want something for their money spent. Who are the largest funders? How do you know? But more importantly, the NGOs are themselves DIRECTED by a large cast of characters who represent the deepest pockets in the world. 4. The mix then of current officials, ex-officials, intelligence community, NGOs and their funders representatives, US business leaders, US media leaders make up what is called "The Washington-NY Establishment." Every activity from cocktail parties to institutional meetings, to binge, trips to office visits are where the ideas for policy are exchanged, debated, and eventually agreed upon. NONE of that is in the public record. NONE! None of that is lying on the surface for you and I to examine. You might as well say, "policy just appears." What you hear in the news is the tail end of a miles long process. What you hear is the politician announcing to CNN what this group has decided is the policy. Who has the most at stake here? The president of the USA, or a global trillionaire with no country, no loyalty to anything but the wealth? Certainly not the POTUS. Who will have the most influence throughout this vast network of global influencers? If you can't see the external, unseen source of influence, there's no reason to read on. Keep your old beliefs. If you can see how this might work, keep going. Let's see how it works on something like "infrastructure." Spending on infrastructure comes out of taxes, somewhere. Who are the budget hawks? Why is there so much pressure to keep budgets in balance, with no deficits and retain very low taxes? Can you see that the richest people want the lowest taxes? Can you see that the richest people get hurt the most by deficit spending? Can you see that there are 100s of institutions and NGOs and individual actors pressing every node in the government to reduce taxes and cut spending? Why would people bow to all this pressure? They want to be re-elected. They want prodigious postings. They want a piece of the pie for themselves. Summary The amount of private money swamps the budgets of countries. This moves the pressure and influence from officialdom to private parties who have the wealth. e.g. He who has the gold, makes the rules. There is no mechanism and no incentive for the nominal government to resist this pressure. This isn't a study for establishment scholars. The last thing they want is to undermine confidence in government. But that doesn't mean it isn't studied. No, I shall not do the homework for you. It's all out there." END QUOTE All I can tell you is what you have pictured as reality doesn't exist at the local and state level. We of course right bill proposals and submit them through a legislator. They taught us that in High School. Nobody who deals in politics, legislation, or lobbying isn't aware of that, everyone is the publuc policy arena is aware of it. At what point did you make this discovery? Public policy is well studied, Each one is different, each one evolves differently, dies off differently and is backed differently. Certainly public policy can be implemented in the manner you suggest, however, practical experience tells me that the more complex the issue, the more special interests, and the more complex to achieve a result. I perfer to have everyobe thinking like you, it would make my job a lot easier and the halls a lot less crowded.

So, why did Clarence put together an FDA and a Dept. of Consumer Product Safety? Aren't GM, RJ Reynolds and Kellogg's closer to Clarence than you and me? WTF? A bit of hyperbole, but the question is, "If bankers rule the world and want to kill everyone they can for a profit, how did we wind up with the FDA, the Consumer Safety Dept., etc.? Putting aside your wild restatement of the premise. But I get the humor. Those agencies arise from legitimate public politics. And to some extent, industry and bankers want these "basic institutions" to prevent the country from becoming Somalia. But in all cases, "industry" captures these regulators with their own personnel, and steer them in ways that won't harm the industry being regulated. This capture is commonly called "the revolving door" of Washington. These basic institutions do not stop industry, they more or less give an imprimatur of approval. "What could go wrong....we have the FDA watching!" The two pieces I cited extensively explain exactly how private capital is expected to run the economies of all developed countries and the government's job is to SUPPORT THEM in that goal. Essentially, it sounds like you believe these conspirators are benevolent dictators. That's not all so bad. From most religious doctrine, I would gather God is essentially seen as a benevolent dictator as well. But this isn't about a comparison of religions or a debate about any particular religious tenets. It's just an observation that life isn't bad just because somebody controls you or limits you in some ways. There are degrees of the control vs. freedom paradigm applicable to everyone... including the bankers.Benevolent? No. I'd, say they are misanthropic forces important to understand, and not trustworthy. I know it's not your thing to dig into history, to pursue that kind of knowledge, but it is mine. I am fascinated by history, and history can not be understood when you don't know how these forces work. For example, many people will wonder about why our infrastructure is failing...I don't wonder, I know why. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Good lord, let me guess, because we haven't maintained it?

There is no surprise or outlandishness at all in those basic capitalistic premises. None whatsoever. It's the way you color the facts with word and phrase choices which stirs the pot. To you. However, others think every such common premise is some "absurdity" to be subject to accusations of associating with aliens and blah blah blah. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Jo wrote: "No sir. The world bankers don't need anyone else! "Dark Banking" is the mainspring of the the global economy, and therefore all governments as well. $33T in completely invisible cash." Well, at least it got yiu to retreat fromn 2 dozen, and "dark banking" that act alone to having an unspecified number of capital bankers that have a nominal effect on economies. Now we just need to know how you reached the conclusion that manufactured food is causing a drop in Life expectancy in the US.

They don't have to get on and say those kinds of things. It is implicit in capitalism and free trade. To be completely precise, it is implicit in competition. Who isn't expected to know this? Apparently the other lawyer doesn't know it. I'm not sure you are actually following the long argument. I don't blame you. However, it is about the difference between intentional actions out of public scrutiny, and so-called "absurd conspiracy theories." The latter being the constant claim being made by DWIlaw ad a discredit to my assertions about how private capital (bankers, nominally) control economies. I've already document all that. So, what you have here is a tiny piece of my argument to the other lawyer. Everyone is controlling whatever turf they care to, and can, acquire. There are a lot of people in this world. When did it become about "the difference between intentional actions out of public scrutiny" and conspiracy theories? You have already documented what? That private capital bankers nominally control economies? Where did you document that? You sure do retreat in your descriptions of what your position is over tone. Two dozen world bankers, to "dark finance" to private capital bankerss with nominal control. That is actually mainstream, as evidenced by yiur Economist article. I actualky agree with that. Bill has been discussing that for a long time on his blog. The rate of return is greater with private, or semi-private sector projects, than with public sector projects. With risk being equal, private funds will go for rate of return.

I guess you never heard of the Jefferson County Alabama project with JP Morgan and Goldman-Sachs? http://www.businessinsider.com/the-incredible-story-of-the-jefferson-county-bankruptcy-one-of-the-greatest-financial-ripoffs-of-all-time-2011-10 Learn about public obligation bonds. It will help you get the basics of my argument. Which I now see was way over your head. Public Obligation Bonds http://finance.zacks.com/buy-general-obligation-bonds-9387.html It is all way over your head. You are going in circles IMF, 2 dozen world bankers, an Economist article on Global infrastructure. I deal with local infrastructure as it relates to fire fighters and police on an almost everyday basis, bond issues, elections on civil service, bond approval, etc. You keep switching from micro to macro issues, local to global, and in the process, have gotten you to the point where you are going back and giving explanations to your posts before anyone even responds to them. Now you have thrre seperate topics going and you are chasing your taol. It doesn't matter, no one is reading really reading it anyway. There are still a lot of gaps to fill, but you could take another run at that 33T, or was it 35, and what the significance of those dark funds might be to us in a neoliberalism society with a diminishing life expectancy.

Some times you eat the Bear, sometimes the Bear eats you.

Not is the US. Every Treasury auction they sell out. Just had a Parks, Library and Public Safety Bond vote here, passed 70/30, they are rated AAA, got an incredible rate. Orange County may have trouble issuing bonds, and the roads may suck there, and Detroit may have trouble raising money, and it may be that way in Europe. But our credit is still good. If our credit slips we could be in the same boat, but this article isn't talking about infrastructure in the US. Here it is a matter of priority, although we have private toll roads popping up all over the state. They came close to missing a payment, and the state would have been able to take over the entire toll system. We have another toll road popping in right now. Prisons are something we don't want the private sector involved in, for a lot of reasons that are not really relevant to this discussion at all.

That's not even an approximation of what I said. So, let's see what I did say. This is it in Post 13 QUOTE I have a different historical viewpoint on this. Most of the large public facility, like roads, bridges, railways and ports, were built to serve the industrial age when fortunes were made in steel, coal, autos, and heavy industry. It was essential to serve that economy, which really ended by the 1980 time frame. Today, heavy industry isn't where the "future lies." Facebook alone has nearly twice the market capitalization of Ford! The future lies in communications and biotechnology, which do not rely on trucking, roads, railroads and the like for building fortunes. The old structures are "good enough." Therefore, new infrastructure will have very few friends in powerful places, and that's exactly what we see out there. These high level policies about where to put capital, are made by "bankers" and I don't mean your local branch manager. I mean the two dozen global bankers in charge of 75% of the world's total wealth. For them, a new sewer plant will; have nearly zero return on investment (using the term generally, not specifically) and so they won't lean that way on their political servants. I would say, breakdowns will be nominally repaired to keep things sort of running, but you wont see broad, expansive bold projects like you did in the period 1900 to 1955. END OF POST Let's simplify. I am suggesting that public expenditures rely on the will of private capital, not governments. That's as simple as I can make it. If you are a literalist and think I meant that 12 men called bankers are huddled around your sewer plant deciding to replace it or not, you are not going to comprehend my argument and more than people who think Jonah spent a night in a whale. Let's see what the IMF has to say about this subject of controlling capital - going all the way back to 1999. IMF The developments that have taken place in the international economy since the 1970s*** reflect, of course, many factors. Fundamental among them is a profound evolution in views about the relative roles of government and market forces in the economic process. At the time of Bretton Woods, and for a quarter of a century thereafter, it was generally accepted that governments and their policies were predominant forces in the economy. Governments were expected to take responsibility for basic economic objectives and economic performance. The views held today as to the economic role of government and the limits of economic policy stand in stark contrast to those described above. First, the consensus is that the role of government is to allow and support, not to restrain or compete with, private initiative. Government's responsibilities for (and its contribution to) economic performance do not include direct management of the economy but, rather, involve maintaining a stable macroeconomic framework; supporting the economic infrastructure (human as well as physical capital); and developing an institutional infrastructure (which encompasses the establishment and safeguarding of appropriate legal, regulatory, and social frameworks; economic incentives; and a competitive, open, and liberal economy). ***Introduction of global neoliberalism.(MD) END In the modern era then (since neoliberalism became the economic policy of the developed world) PRIVATE initiative, not government, is in control of the economy. private initiative means, "private capital." Globalization then, can be summed up as the constant search throughout the world of the highest and best return on investment of capital, in spite of governmental desires. Now, that's not aliens talking. That's the IMF. What is crucial to understand about this point is that the public is not invited to the decision making of private capital and their government has been taken out of the equation. Hard to understand? I hope not. It doesn't mean that anecdotally you won't get your bridge fixed, for the same reason you might live beyond the LE. It means though that GENERALLY investment in all public benefit is in the decision making hands of people you can't see, can't question, don't vote for, probably never even heard of. The IMF is not a conspiracy organization. No aliens are involved. Thread-how is the local infrastructure in your area City Needs a sewer plant Bankers don't care IMF Cities can self finance for new sewer plant with a capital reserve fund. If they don't have enough time for that, here is what you are missing, they have the power to borrow money. They don't go to the bank, they certainly do not go to the IMF, they issue bonds. As do school districts, and water districts, and whole host of political subdivisions. If there are forum members in third-world countries, or a country being bailed out, like Greece, your statement might have some relevance. In the US, local infrastructure is not financed through bankers, of any kind. The US doesn't even finance through the FED or any world bank. Those are central banks. The US borrows money through TREASURY. If Congress wants a new submarine or aircraft carrier, or launch another war, or pay for cancer research, or whatever it is that a policy maker somewhere has gotten an appropriation for that requires borrowing, they call Treasury and there is an auction of BONDS. What you are talking about certainly applies to private investment, but it doesn't apply to local infrastructure. The IMF? Good Lord, if we need to be calling on the IMF to finance infrastructure, a sewer plant is going to be the least of our worries.

This is old news. Over 10 years. Age of onset of diabetes keeps dropping. As to the intent aspect, I am not so sure. I think sugar has been on upswing for a long, long time. It has been on the table of every restaurant I have ever been in. The content is right on the label. Coca-Cola and Pepsi have got to be the two worst offenders. They taste good, they sell. Too much is not good. So, you're not sure that the Coca-Cola company decides with intention how much sugar to put in a can of coke? You're not sure if the leaders of the company know that too much sugar is bad for your health? You're not sure that the leaders of that company are constantly searching for ways to increase the consumption of this product? Those are not hypothetical, since you indicated you aren't sure about intent. EDIT: I am not asking a moral question. I am not seeking to ask, "Is this right, or wrong behavior?" I am only seeking to answer the question of intention of those who produce it. Bump. This is the basic premise. If you can't answer this, how would you understand arguments that come after this? I am sure they are very aware of it. Likewise, I am sure they are aware that consumers are perfectly willing to buy their product. I don't see the number of brands of butter dropping, or the amount they carry. You can still buy lard, Crisco in a can. You can buy red meat. Morton's is still on the shelves. Does Morton's know that if people put too much of their salt in food it will lead to problems down the road, I am pretty sure they do. C&H Sugar, they sell it for table use, do they know that if their customers put to much in their coffee, year after year after year it could lead to problems, I am sure they do. Do they intend to make it, yep, Do they intend to sell it, yep. Would they like to sell even more of it, yep. Supply and demand. I am trying to think of an economic system anywhere and any time where they put the product out there, with safety and health the foremost concern, and then let demand catch up with it. That happens with some specific products, but not systems. But here is the real question, and a more important one. What does the mother who buy's her kids Coke intend? What does the father who drives 10 over the speed limit intend when he drives his kids to school? What does the school district intend when it receives subsidies from Coke to allow them to put their machines in their school, and their ads on the playing field? I know what Coke intends, they intend to move some serious product and out do their competitors.

You're talking about your own single life. I am arguing about the big picture across America. I thought I made that clear? Maybe not. Start with this And this... And this one.. And finish with this... The diet of America is CRAP. It is killing people before their time. It is purposeful, because that is where the profits lie. Why is that hard to understand? It is crap, that is why we are 30th. But LE is up for every segment other than less than 12 years of education. Japan is No 2, Moracco (Mediterranean) is No. 1. It is diet, but diet in the cultural sense. You eat what you have. By luck fish and vegetables is healthy. Fried catfish, cook whip, velveta cheese, Mountain Dew, and tater salad, not so much. But it is down over all, and down compared to ROW. Why would you bring up catfish? Are you unable to grasp the meaning of large scale statistics and data? Each time I point to what is obviously important data, you bring up some individual idea like eating fish, or you grew up in San Francisco? The LE is what it is. It's a large data set, and I am not arguing that some "individuals" (like you or me) might die sooner or later. I am arguing that while ROW is expanding its LE, ours has stopped expanding, and is now reversing course. You can either acknowledge that, or dispute it. But arguing that fish is healthy is a non-sequitur here. I agree, fish is healthy. This is also not a claim of right and wrong. It's simply an assertion that the intentionally manufactured foods that make up the statistical diet of the nation, is lowering the LE as a total statistic. And furthermore, lowering the relative LE of USA compared to the ROW. And further more, this assertion involves no aliens or other silly nonsense you continue to raise. It has nothing to do with talkradio hosts, conspiricists, or conspiracy theory. NOTHING. We can't get to all the other assertions about "bankers" by skipping over the underlying argument. A lot of really pretty graphs, that are telling us what we have know for a long, long time. Don't eat that crap. Where is the one showing LE is down overall? There isn't one, because it isn't. But that doesn't matter, we could be doing way better if we had a better diet, but whose data are you using for LE charts? CDC, WHO? Who is showing it is down overall? For third time. Now which of those fancy charts shows a link between manufactured food and LE in the US? Or who says that. Or is that just a "given."

Bingo, Chip! You didn't catch the bunk here? Berlet is just a political polemicist who focuses on destroying right wing extreme groups. Yes, there are tons of nuts on the right with alien oriented conspiracies. Everyone knows that, and it has nothing to do with "how history unfolds." It's drivel.The question is this: Does history unfold as a series of accidents, or a series of planned events? Why are there even two side to this? Because there is a historical position of the ruling classes to always act behind the curtains, lest the dweebs catch on, and run them into the guillotine. I thought he was pretty spot on. That points to a belief in the "accidental view of history." The view held by nearly all Americans. This comes about from a passive acquisition of history. The head of Goldman Sachs is never, EVER, going to appear on FOX News and say, "Here's my latest scam for screwing the American consumers. I'm going to______________" The prince of Saudi Arabia is never, EVER going to appear on Good Morning America, and describe his plans to destroy the oil business in Houston. And because of this lack of obvious transparency, all people get is a passive understanding provided to them by Good Morning America: "Oil Prices Continue to Slide on Weaker Demand." That's as much information as an American will conceivably digest. Tiny little sound bites that he hears in between football games. Never heard of the accidental view. I know real historians get facts, state them, and clearly indicate where they are making assumptions and conclusions based on facts. If they don't, their peers crush them, or worse. Americans pay no attention to history. If they did we wouldn't have many of the messes we have now.

Bingo, Chip! You didn't catch the bunk here? Berlet is just a political polemicist who focuses on destroying right wing extreme groups. Yes, there are tons of nuts on the right with alien oriented conspiracies. Everyone knows that, and it has nothing to do with "how history unfolds." It's drivel.The question is this: Does history unfold as a series of accidents, or a series of planned events? Why are there even two side to this? Because there is a historical position of the ruling classes to always act behind the curtains, lest the dweebs catch on, and run them into the guillotine. I thought he was pretty spot on. That points to a belief in the "accidental view of history." The view held by nearly all Americans. This comes about from a passive acquisition of history. The head of Goldman Sachs is never, EVER, going to appear on FOX News and say, "Here's my latest scam for screwing the American consumers. I'm going to______________" The prince of Saudi Arabia is never, EVER going to appear on Good Morning America, and describe his plans to destroy the oil business in Houston. And because of this lack of obvious transparency, all people get is a passive understanding provided to them by Good Morning America: "Oil Prices Continue to Slide on Weaker Demand." That's as much information as an American will conceivably digest. Tiny little sound bites that he hears in between football games. Never heard of the accidental view. I know real historians get facts, state them, and clearly indicate where they are making assumptions and conclusions based on facts. If they don't, their peers crush them, or worse. Americans pay no attention to history. If they did we wouldn't have many of the messes we have now.

You're talking about your own single life. I am arguing about the big picture across America. I thought I made that clear? Maybe not. Start with this And this... And this one.. And finish with this... The diet of America is CRAP. It is killing people before their time. It is purposeful, because that is where the profits lie. Why is that hard to understand? It is crap, that is why we are 30th. But LE is up for every segment other than less than 12 years of education. Japan is No 2, Moracco (Mediterranean) is No. 1. It is diet, but diet in the cultural sense. You eat what you have. By luck fish and vegetables is healthy. Fried catfish, cook whip, velveta cheese, Mountain Dew, and tater salad, not so much.

I'm not Larry, but that's directly on point to my comments. They don't want people to die. It's not like that. They just don't want to pay for people to live. Big difference, but a fine distinction. That's where Jo and you are becoming entangled. Who do you think is the "they" to whom you refer? I was not referring to bureaucrats inside the government, I was referring to the source of wealth outside the government. Secondly, you seem to take no account for all the neo-malthusians and population control advocates and the well documented misanthropy. Where's that in your understanding? When you say they don't want people to die, you are really unaware of those who want to halve the population? No I think Jo is entangled with himself. "Documented misanthorpy" and "population control" is more than a fine distinction.

"NO ONE cares about the long term survival of any company in America. NO ONE. It is all about pumping profits, stripping the assets, then moving on to the next kill. If you don't get that, you will not understand my food argument." Is that hyperbole or fact from your perspective?

Correct! They shovel the shite to the people... not to kill them, but to induce them to buy and consume more and more. This is the profit motive in action. There is nothing so wrong with that. There are laws which are designed to insure minimum standards (how well they work is another story); however, there are insufficient numbers of people concerned enough to allow Congress or any regulatory authority to take away or limit their pizza, beer and cigarettes. Not a big issue in the grand concept of good vs. evil. You could flip the struggle on its head and call it, "freedom vs. regulation." Then, of course, you get to ask, "Whose freedom and whose regulation?" Ahhhhh..... now isn't this the ultimate hypocrisy coming into revelation? Let's see if it doesn't boil down to 2 simple principles: 1. My regulation is good even if you think it's bad. 2. Your regulation is bad if I think it's bad. I am perfectly fine with the grand scheme. It is easy to spot the hypocrisy of its detractors. (Of course, I can be a pretty good hypocrite, too.) Regulations don't really matter to me in this context, and I am mostly agnostic about it. You will note that I have not offered a single argument that advances regulation of something. What I am getting at is understanding the forces in society in an effort to explain how history unfolds. I want to show that all large man-made phenomena arise from intention, not accident(1). GM didn't accidentally make defective key locks that killed people, they did that with intention. Yes, even after knowing the defect was deadly they refused to spend a few dollars to fix it. This works against all arguments that bad consequence are important to business. The only bad consequence that is important to business is if people don't buy the product. Be sure that the shareholders and executives of RJ Reynolds tobacco company enjoyed all those dividends just fine well after it was understood that smoking causes cancer. The makers of SugarSmacks are having no trouble enjoying their profits. So, it's fair to eliminate "negative consequences" as a serious operator in how things work. (1) those who constantly yell out "Conspiracy Theory! Aliens!" are trying to deny the existence of this intention, and act on the presumption that history is just accidental. "Shite happens" You have been in circles about this issue in just about all of your posts. It always comes back to, "why can't people and corporations do the right thing without regulation." Or is capitalism a moral society? We seem to always find ourselves back at the same spot with you. Here is the answer, God made us this way. I only yell out conspiracy theory when someone says local infrastructure is controlled by two dozen world bankers. You said it, not me. It is certainly a conspiracist view, one that that has been studied and analyzed. So you either really believe that, and thus subscribe to one of the many conspiracy theories that are out there. (It doesn't make you wrong, it could be true, but it is a conspiracy theory all the same); Or you could have mispoken, but that is doubtful, you echoed the view in a post immediately afterwards referring to the Dark 33T. Or you could have been exaggerating to make a point. Or you could have backed away because you know that you run the risk of losing credibility in making such an argument. Or some other reason. This much anyone can glean from a cursory review of this thread. 1. You said it, two dozen world bankers determine whether a town can get a new sewer plant. 2. I questioned it. 3. You have been avoiding it ever since. 4. I pointed out that there are some people who believe in the "world bankers" theory that also believe that they are controled by aliens. 5. What I also pointed out is that the conspiracy theory of world bankers is a treacherous path, it is embraced by the right-wing and left-with some very scary (is the word I used I believe) views, like antisemitism. The aliens was the most benign thing I could find. 6. None of it mattered, we are back to, is "our system moral." Was that thread, and the many others just like it, locked or something? 7. Intention vs. accident. It was explained in the excerpt form Chip, that is what conspiracism is, working backwards to explain what appears to be coincidental forces was really the result of of design and intent. The answer to all of this is unleash the lawyers. Repeal all tort reform and let them go at it. Corvair, DES, Pinto gas tank, cigarettes all exposed by lawyers. Food makers work with a profit motive. That is real. They intend to sell more. So there is intent. They intend to make it, sell it, and sell more of it. What you argue are the intended consequences of that profit motive don't always stand up. Did the owners of Chipotle intend to kill people? If you work backwards you can make the argument, but that is the problem with working backwards with history. There is a distinct difference between proving something from circumstantial evidence, and using a retrograde analysis. You have to start with what they knew at the time, AND be open minded enough to accept the possibility that people do stupid stuff, for the stupidest of reasons, without intending any consequences whatsoever.

This is old news. Over 10 years. Age of onset of diabetes keeps dropping. As to the intent aspect, I am not so sure. I think sugar has been on upswing for a long, long time. It has been on the table of every restaurant I have ever been in. The content is right on the label. Coca-Cola and Pepsi have got to be the two worst offenders. They taste good, they sell. Too much is not good.

There have been about a dozen documentry flims on the food design aspect that have been discussed on this forum. In addition, discussions about how supermarkets sell you, why things are where they are. If a person is in the processed food market I don't think they are going to care about why they like the taste. Your average Fire cheetos or Nacho Cheese Doritos party size buyer doesn't strike me as a label reader. But so what. There have always been companies selling processed food, and they have always used too much salt. When "low fat" became vogue they figured out ways to make that taste good, or so I have heard, we don't buy any of it. It isn't any secret that processed food is bad for you. Moms have know this for 30 years, they are the ones who won't let their kids eat in school cafeteria. Labeling has been around forever, as to ingredients. We were taught about it in grade school, Jr. High. The nutritional label more recently, because Moms wanted it. Nurtrition and food quality ebbs and flows, it is still a priority. What is the issue here? That you can buy stuff that is bad for you? That food companies are allowed to make it? supermarkets allowed to sell it? Is there any good news on diet, or all bad news? By the way, did you know that red dye used in fire Chetos, also used in another brand, Zekes or something, has been associated with trips to ER by people eating in large amounts, especially children? I also heard Chipotle, a company that prided itself on using local, fresh produce, was not able to get a handle on the problems with fresh food prep, and is shutting down?

Correct. They do some big stuff. They are not concerned about your roads and sewers. They simply lend money to those who are concerned about them... and they charge interest! They don't say, "We don't want sewers." They could care less. All they want is indebted servants. No, that's not it. You are eliminating 3/4 of the analysis and motivation of those with the money. You haven't even included "risk" in your too brief summary. And, no investments, loans or credit is possible outside the light of "risk." Investing in the public infrastructure (primarily or secondarily) is a BAD RISK, with few exceptions. Why pour money into roads and bridges when the real returns on investment are found in networks, communications and information technologies? What your analysis lacks is a sound understanding of where hot money flows and why. What are the hot investments, what are the poor ones? Without that, it's just a slithering mindless animal of no account. Did he just call you a snake? We have a bunch of new roads. New power plant. They are building a new Jr. College up the road, library is expanding, the Fire Department is getting an additoonal arson investigator, the Sheriff's Office (I am not kidding) just got a new hovercraft (I think with fed grant money), the police got a raise, not as much as they wanted, but one that was negoiated in a CB process, the City is figuring out a way to collect more from Uber drivers, Bond Issue passed last fall for library, parks and public safety. Jeff, I don't know how it works in Houston or Harris County, but I work in one of the most liberal cities in the country, and live in one of the most conservative county. Neither one is hampered from establishing their priorities and getting what they would like accomplished. Whole foods has exploded here, healthy, healthy. But the McDonalds are not going away either. In fact, new In and Outs, 5, and a Five guys. Both seem to be doing well, as is the organic salad bar place and the new wine and beer bar/bistro. Choice.

Bingo, Chip! You didn't catch the bunk here? Berlet is just a political polemicist who focuses on destroying right wing extreme groups. Yes, there are tons of nuts on the right with alien oriented conspiracies. Everyone knows that, and it has nothing to do with "how history unfolds." It's drivel. The question is this: Does history unfold as a series of accidents, or a series of planned events? Why are there even two side to this? Because there is a historical position of the ruling classes to always act behind the curtains, lest the dweebs catch on, and run them into the guillotine. I thought he was pretty spot on.

"The greatest culprit to the bad diet is manufactured food with excessive amounts of sugar, salt, and fat. Manufactured food is DESIGNED with precision. It is literally engineered. It is lowering the life expectancy." Not for educated people. The overal LE in the US keeps going up, the segment for those with less than a H.S. education keeps going down. LE is trailing in the South. Diet and poverty would be my guess. It was not too long ago that someone on the forum was posting recipes for something (not the eggrolls) and everything seemed to start with heating oil up in a fryer. Maybe it was because I grew up in San Francisco, everything was fresh, in a dozen little markets, we never ate anything processed, except pasta, if that is considered processed. It is a way different diet here, even without processed food. Heart disease No. 1 killer, and that is a combo of diet and genetics. So even with Family history diet can make a huge difference, and so can the miracles of modern medicine.