Infrastructure in Your Area?

[Jeff Matthews]

The Aging Problem in Terms of Money

 

QUOTE

As the average life expectancy keeps growing worldwide, health care plans and pension funds are becoming increasingly overwhelmed by the demands from aging generations. According to a new study by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the costs of caring for the elderly will continue to rise at unsustainable rates.

The study report, which was published in the IMF’s “World Economic Outlook,” concludes that the increasing longevity of the world population will likely put economies at risk globally. “If everyone in 2050 lived just three years longer than now expected, in line with the average underestimation of longevity in the past, society would need extra resources equal to one to two percent of GDP per year,” it says in the study. These estimates only concern pensions, not health care costs, which are also bound to rise with longer life spans.

END 

 

What do you imagine the world's richest people are thinking when they read that report?  Where do you think society is going to look for those "extra resources" needed to pay for it? Is this a cause for action? What kind of action?

 

They most certainly are not thinking, "Kill them off!"  They are thinking, "I hope we don't wind up having to pay for this."

[Jim Naseum]

 

But what about more recently than the 17th century? Look no further than the financial crisis of 2008. With the global economy on the precipice of total disaster, what were the President and Congress doing aside from twiddling their fingers - - - nothing. The global economy was pulled from the jaws of destruction NOT by any president of any country, not by any congressman. It was the US FED acting with Treasury Sec Paulson (fresh from Goldman Sachs), and a few Wall Street titans who saved the economy. The political actors were essentially powerless, and only the world's bankers and financiers could solve the problem. Of note here, is that the actual process, the negotiations, the arguments, the proposals were completely invisible to the public. A process with absolutely no public accountability. In fact, the bankers would not even tell congress who was going to get the bailout money!   

 

That's not a "conspiracy theory", it's simply the unaccountable actions of the world's real power holders. Nothing I have presented here regarding the power of global banking is even remotely connected to the foolishness that is understood by the uninformed as conspiracy theory.  There are no aliens, UFOs, or secret handshakes, because wealth doesn't need any of that nonsense to operate with power. 

 

 

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. 

[Jim Naseum]

 

Now the question I have for you Larry, an MD/PhD from two of the most prestigious universities in the country, one from each coast, and having spent a career working with the world's greatest medical research center's on medical education, what is your opinion of the suggestion by the original poster that "they" have orchestrated a decrease in human life expectancy in the US in order to reduce the cost of SS and other pensions (through diet I believe is what he said above)?

 

Here is the actual quote: "The Social Security & Medicare system has been engineered to statistically drive the LE downward gradually. I would bet the unspoken target is 70 to 75 years max.

 

With real dollar reductions in benefits, coupled with the worst diet in the developed world, they should reach that goal very soon. Maybe five years."

 

Is that possible?

 

 

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?

[Jeff Matthews]

Food manufactures employ food scientists. These scientists know what good and bad nutrition is. They know how to read and understand scientific studies about food and nutrition. For example they all know the causes of diabetes and high cholesterol and heart disease. They design, that is to say, they engineer, food products with all the scientific rigor of making computer chips. The outcome - the product- is therefore predictable. It will have all the sugar, salt, fat, and chemical preservatives it was engineered to have.

 

So, what?  There are even some who would sell you toxic waste as food if they could get away with it.

 

But look at the macro-picture.  A big company is not going to kill off its consumers in mass.  They need these people as sources of profit.  The consumers, however, are going to demand their pizza, beer and Chee-tos.  So, somebody is going to provide it to them.

[Jim Naseum]

 

The Aging Problem in Terms of Money

 

QUOTE

As the average life expectancy keeps growing worldwide, health care plans and pension funds are becoming increasingly overwhelmed by the demands from aging generations. According to a new study by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the costs of caring for the elderly will continue to rise at unsustainable rates.

The study report, which was published in the IMF’s “World Economic Outlook,” concludes that the increasing longevity of the world population will likely put economies at risk globally. “If everyone in 2050 lived just three years longer than now expected, in line with the average underestimation of longevity in the past, society would need extra resources equal to one to two percent of GDP per year,” it says in the study. These estimates only concern pensions, not health care costs, which are also bound to rise with longer life spans.

END 

 

What do you imagine the world's richest people are thinking when they read that report?  Where do you think society is going to look for those "extra resources" needed to pay for it? Is this a cause for action? What kind of action?

 

They most certainly are not thinking, "Kill them off!"  They are thinking, "I hope we don't wind up having to pay for this."

 

 

They don't SAY, "let's kill them off." What they do is engineering them into a dead end - which statistically reduces LE. 

 

Use some logic. Everyone understands the marginal effects of reducing care, or increasing the cost. The marginal effect is some people die. When you engineer this direction, you are in fact engineering deaths at the margins.

[Jim Naseum]

 

Food manufactures employ food scientists. These scientists know what good and bad nutrition is. They know how to read and understand scientific studies about food and nutrition. For example they all know the causes of diabetes and high cholesterol and heart disease. They design, that is to say, they engineer, food products with all the scientific rigor of making computer chips. The outcome - the product- is therefore predictable. It will have all the sugar, salt, fat, and chemical preservatives it was engineered to have.

 

So, what?  There are even some who would sell you toxic waste as food if they could get away with it.

 

But look at the macro-picture.  A big company is not going to kill off its consumers in mass.  They need these people as sources of profit.  The consumers, however, are going to demand their pizza, beer and Chee-tos.  So, somebody is going to provide it to them.

 

 

What company can you name in the S&P 500 that has a plan longer than 5 years? Name one. Investors care only about the short term growth. Need proof? Look at how IBM is considered today by investors, versus FaceBook.

 

You HAVE to understand how financial engineering works. If a company could make a horrible food, that would sell in double digit growth for ten years, and kill off all the customers for that food, they would have a thousand backers over night. Because, once that "pillaging" was done, the investors simply move on to the next one, the next hot event. 

 

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. 

Edited February 1, 2016 by jo56steph74

[Travis In Austin]

"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.

Edited February 1, 2016 by dwilawyer

[Jim Naseum]

 

From Chip Berlet:

 

"Conspiracism tries to figure out how power is exercised in society, but ends up oversimplifying the complexites of modern society by blaming societal problems on manipulation by a handful of evil individuals.

 

This is not an analysis that accurately evaluates the systems, structures and institutions of modern society. As such, conspiracism is neither investigative reporting, which seeks to expose actual conspiracies through careful research; nor is it power structure research, which seeks to accurately analyze the distribution of power and privilege in a society. Sadly, some sincere people who seek social and economic justice are attracted to conspiracism. Overwhelmingly, however, conspiracism in the U.S. is the central historic narrative of right-wing populism.

 

The conspiracist blames societal or individual problems on what turns out to be a demonized scapegoat. Conspiracism is a narrative form of scapegoating that portrays an enemy as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good. Conspiracism assigns tiny cabals of evildoers a superhuman power to control events, frames social conflict as part of a transcendent struggle between Good and Evil, and makes leaps of logic, such as guilt by association, in analyzing evidence."

 

 

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. 

[Travis In Austin]

From Chip Berlet:

"Conspiracism tries to figure out how power is exercised in society, but ends up oversimplifying the complexites of modern society by blaming societal problems on manipulation by a handful of evil individuals.

This is not an analysis that accurately evaluates the systems, structures and institutions of modern society. As such, conspiracism is neither investigative reporting, which seeks to expose actual conspiracies through careful research; nor is it power structure research, which seeks to accurately analyze the distribution of power and privilege in a society. Sadly, some sincere people who seek social and economic justice are attracted to conspiracism. Overwhelmingly, however, conspiracism in the U.S. is the central historic narrative of right-wing populism.

The conspiracist blames societal or individual problems on what turns out to be a demonized scapegoat. Conspiracism is a narrative form of scapegoating that portrays an enemy as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good. Conspiracism assigns tiny cabals of evildoers a superhuman power to control events, frames social conflict as part of a transcendent struggle between Good and Evil, and makes leaps of logic, such as guilt by association, in analyzing evidence."

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.

[Jim Naseum]

Wall Street counts on the complete naivete of the American public regarding global financial engineering. 

 

People in the USA don't watch financial shows, they watch football. They don't read Barons, they read Sports Illustrated. They know how many baskets were made by every name brand player in the NBA and couldn't even name one activist investor prowling the S&P500. 

 

And that's just the way they want to keep it. 

[Travis In Austin]

But what about more recently than the 17th century? Look no further than the financial crisis of 2008. With the global economy on the precipice of total disaster, what were the President and Congress doing aside from twiddling their fingers - - - nothing. The global economy was pulled from the jaws of destruction NOT by any president of any country, not by any congressman. It was the US FED acting with Treasury Sec Paulson (fresh from Goldman Sachs), and a few Wall Street titans who saved the economy. The political actors were essentially powerless, and only the world's bankers and financiers could solve the problem. Of note here, is that the actual process, the negotiations, the arguments, the proposals were completely invisible to the public. A process with absolutely no public accountability. In fact, the bankers would not even tell congress who was going to get the bailout money!

That's not a "conspiracy theory", it's simply the unaccountable actions of the world's real power holders. Nothing I have presented here regarding the power of global banking is even remotely connected to the foolishness that is understood by the uninformed as conspiracy theory. There are no aliens, UFOs, or secret handshakes, because wealth doesn't need any of that nonsense to operate with power.

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.

[Jim Naseum]

 

 

 

From Chip Berlet:

"Conspiracism tries to figure out how power is exercised in society, but ends up oversimplifying the complexites of modern society by blaming societal problems on manipulation by a handful of evil individuals.

This is not an analysis that accurately evaluates the systems, structures and institutions of modern society. As such, conspiracism is neither investigative reporting, which seeks to expose actual conspiracies through careful research; nor is it power structure research, which seeks to accurately analyze the distribution of power and privilege in a society. Sadly, some sincere people who seek social and economic justice are attracted to conspiracism. Overwhelmingly, however, conspiracism in the U.S. is the central historic narrative of right-wing populism.

The conspiracist blames societal or individual problems on what turns out to be a demonized scapegoat. Conspiracism is a narrative form of scapegoating that portrays an enemy as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good. Conspiracism assigns tiny cabals of evildoers a superhuman power to control events, frames social conflict as part of a transcendent struggle between Good and Evil, and makes leaps of logic, such as guilt by association, in analyzing evidence."

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. 

[Jim Naseum]

"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.

 

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?

[Jim Naseum]

So, now who is going to continue to say that there are no bad intentions at work in the world? It's "just an accident" that our sugar consumption has skyrocketed and no one is responsible for that. 

 

Where are we here?

[Travis In Austin]

When all else fails, use logic.

Food manufacturing is a science, not black magic. Science means they're is predictability in the process and outcomes.

Food manufactures employ food scientists. These scientists know what good and bad nutrition is. They know how to read and understand scientific studies about food and nutrition. For example they all know the causes of diabetes and high cholesterol and heart disease. They design, that is to say, they engineer, food products with all the scientific rigor of making computer chips. The outcome - the product- is therefore predictable. It will have all the sugar, salt, fat, and chemical preservatives it was engineered to have.

Now, if you knowingly, and intentionally engineer a product that contributes more to disease than to good health, and these diseases are absolutely known to cause deaths, it's completely logical to conclude that you have engineered a product that contributes to death. E.g. there is a logical trail of causation from these foods, which are classified as 'bad diet', to the ultimate disease and death of people who consume them.

This is why the tobacco companies were referred to as the Merchants of Death.

Why would anyone do this? Because it is massively profitable and new customers come on board faster than the old ones..... Um... Disappear. As long as there is no legal barrier, the pure logic of economics prevails.

How is it possible that anyone here doesn't understand this economic truth?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

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?

[Jim Naseum]

 

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.

 

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"

[Travis In Austin]

So, now who is going to continue to say that there are no bad intentions at work in the world? It's "just an accident" that our sugar consumption has skyrocketed and no one is responsible for that.

Where are we here?

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.

[Jim Naseum]

 

When all else fails, use logic.

Food manufacturing is a science, not black magic. Science means they're is predictability in the process and outcomes.

Food manufactures employ food scientists. These scientists know what good and bad nutrition is. They know how to read and understand scientific studies about food and nutrition. For example they all know the causes of diabetes and high cholesterol and heart disease. They design, that is to say, they engineer, food products with all the scientific rigor of making computer chips. The outcome - the product- is therefore predictable. It will have all the sugar, salt, fat, and chemical preservatives it was engineered to have.

Now, if you knowingly, and intentionally engineer a product that contributes more to disease than to good health, and these diseases are absolutely known to cause deaths, it's completely logical to conclude that you have engineered a product that contributes to death. E.g. there is a logical trail of causation from these foods, which are classified as 'bad diet', to the ultimate disease and death of people who consume them.

This is why the tobacco companies were referred to as the Merchants of Death.

Why would anyone do this? Because it is massively profitable and new customers come on board faster than the old ones..... Um... Disappear. As long as there is no legal barrier, the pure logic of economics prevails.

How is it possible that anyone here doesn't understand this economic truth?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

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?

 

 

 

Intention. That's the issue. 

 

When I first asserted that food is engineered to shorten the LE, you wailed out your, "alien conspiracy" defense of nonsensical prattle. You were in fact denying the existence of the intention to make unhealthy food that is responsible for lowering the LE. 

 

Now, you agree that this is all by intention. Good. Progress is being made. 

As to the rest of your post here, it doesn't affect the intention question. 

[Jim Naseum]

 

So, now who is going to continue to say that there are no bad intentions at work in the world? It's "just an accident" that our sugar consumption has skyrocketed and no one is responsible for that.

Where are we here?

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.

Edited February 1, 2016 by jo56steph74

[Jim Naseum]

A Philip Morris internal document in 1992 states “the ability to attract new smokers and develop them into a young adult franchise is key to brand development” 

 

This is a good example of an intention that the public would never be aware of, and yet was not in any way related to space aliens. The people who implemented this marketing plan were humans, not aliens. Notice the repulsiveness of this intention. This is 1992, when the industry was reeling from lawsuits, when every one understood the toxic nature of cigarettes. My point here is that YOU THE PUBLIC had no way to know about this plan. This plan lies beyond public accountability. And, it's a great example of what goes on that you just are ignorant about. 

 

How about Coke? Is it conceivable then, that there might be internal memos at Coke of a similar nature? Plans that would seem revolting now that we all know the effects of too much sugar has on our children? 

 

Without the sort of expose which brings these things to light once in a while, can't you hear people shouting "Conspiracy Theory!" at anyone who might have suggested they were targeting kids at Phillip Morris? You believe everyone is righteous, and no bad intent is possible in the business world? Or as Matthews always says, 'Why would they kill their customers?" And yet, we know they do. No aliens needed in the explanation.