Infrastructure in Your Area?

[oldtimer]

I don't think it is that simple Jeff.  People did not demand Doritos. Doritos showed up and then people bought and consumed them.  What if fast food never happened?  Would we see protests in the streets demanding McDonalds?

[Jim Naseum]

 

Questions Why would anyone doubt that the world's largest bankers act to drive the world's economies? Do you know what the FED does? The CBs in Europe? Do you know about bailouts of governments? Companies? What do you think happens to you when they raise and lower interest rates? (Do you even have a portfolio?)

 

 

Good question.  These bankers loan money and earn interest.  Their plan is to continue loaning money and earning more interest.  Surely, you can see that this is what they plan to do. Without banking, they are done and out.

 

Their plan is to engineer a system which maximizes their interest income.  That means, ipso facto, the borrowers have to have the ability to repay.  The lender does not want to see debtors fail and default.

 

 

That's not my question. Yes, the loan money. But they do SO MUCH MORE than that in the global economy. 

 

Let me try again with a more specific question:

 

hypothesis: Bankers are the parties most responsible for the overall economy in the USA. That means, the unemployment rate, the cost of living, the wages people earn, the interest they pay, the ability to get credit and so on. Short hand: Bankers drive the US economy. 

 

Q: do you believe that is likely, unlikely, absurd, a conspiracy theory, or just business as usual?

[Arrow#422]

 

 

 

Maybe this whole discussion can be boiled down to HOW individuals, or even groups, work within or even manipulate these established systems to their financial benefit.  Then, the unforeseen results due to these actions, and the conspiracies behind their implementation are really the result of good old-fashioned human greed - .

Which people and which systems?? 

 

And again, when you say conspiracy above here, do you mean the act of planning an unlawful act?

 

I'm just trying to understand your comments. Good to see them!

 

A conspiracy doesn't "have" to be an unlawful act, but rather one that is harmful.  

Acts can be harmful, yet lawful.  

Acts can also be unknowingly harmful at the time they are committed as the results of all acts cannot be entirely known in advance.

I prefer the synonyms "ploy, scheme, plan, & ploy" as to show the intent at the time the act is committed.

 con·spir·a·cy

[kənˈspirəsē]

 

NOUN

1. a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful:

   "a conspiracy to destroy the government"

   synonyms: plot · scheme · plan · machination · ploy · trick · ruse · 

   [more]

    

   • the action of plotting or conspiring:
     "they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"
     synonyms: plotting · collusion · intrigue · connivance · 

     [more]

      

Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press · Translation by Bing Translator

 

 Which meaning were you using when you used the word? That's what I am trying to get at.

 

I get the inkling you're trying to paint me into a corner.

 

To answer your question, I was using "conspiracy" as in its synonym "plan".

 

In simple terms, ANY act to advance ones financial position (or preserve a position in declining conditions) will most likely have an adverse result on someone else, or another group, or some entity.  Hypothetically, if I use my intellect to analyze such a condition, calculate a net result that would benefit me, formulate a PLAN, act upon it, and either knowingly or even unknowingly cause harm no matter how minuscule, a conspiracy - by definition - has occurred.

[Jim Naseum]

Dear Frito-Lay, 

 

My friends and I would so much love to eat heavily greased and salted eggplant slices. We'd like them in many flavors, like HoneySuckle, Dill Pickle, Fish, and Creamy Cucumber. Add as many wild artificial colors as you can! And we want them to last 6 months after the bag is opened. Please call them EggieBoobles! We will buy them all, we promise!

 

Your Truly

 

Connie Sumer

[Arrow#422]

 

 

Questions Why would anyone doubt that the world's largest bankers act to drive the world's economies? Do you know what the FED does? The CBs in Europe? Do you know about bailouts of governments? Companies? What do you think happens to you when they raise and lower interest rates? (Do you even have a portfolio?)

 

 

Good question.  These bankers loan money and earn interest.  Their plan is to continue loaning money and earning more interest.  Surely, you can see that this is what they plan to do. Without banking, they are done and out.

 

Their plan is to engineer a system which maximizes their interest income.  That means, ipso facto, the borrowers have to have the ability to repay.  The lender does not want to see debtors fail and default.

 

 

That's not my question. Yes, the loan money. But they do SO MUCH MORE than that in the global economy. 

 

Let me try again with a more specific question:

 

hypothesis: Bankers are the parties most responsible for the overall economy in the USA. That means, the unemployment rate, the cost of living, the wages people earn, the interest they pay, the ability to get credit and so on. Short hand: Bankers drive the US economy. 

 

Q: do you believe that is likely, unlikely, absurd, a conspiracy theory, or just business as usual?

 

I believe that it is likely that this is just business as usual because a conspiracy theory seems quite unlikely.

[Jim Naseum]

 

 

 

 

Maybe this whole discussion can be boiled down to HOW individuals, or even groups, work within or even manipulate these established systems to their financial benefit.  Then, the unforeseen results due to these actions, and the conspiracies behind their implementation are really the result of good old-fashioned human greed - .

Which people and which systems?? 

 

And again, when you say conspiracy above here, do you mean the act of planning an unlawful act?

 

I'm just trying to understand your comments. Good to see them!

 

A conspiracy doesn't "have" to be an unlawful act, but rather one that is harmful.  

Acts can be harmful, yet lawful.  

Acts can also be unknowingly harmful at the time they are committed as the results of all acts cannot be entirely known in advance.

I prefer the synonyms "ploy, scheme, plan, & ploy" as to show the intent at the time the act is committed.

 con·spir·a·cy

[kənˈspirəsē]

 

NOUN

1. a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful:

   "a conspiracy to destroy the government"

   synonyms: plot · scheme · plan · machination · ploy · trick · ruse · 

   [more]

    

   • the action of plotting or conspiring:
     "they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"
     synonyms: plotting · collusion · intrigue · connivance · 

     [more]

      

Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press · Translation by Bing Translator

 

 Which meaning were you using when you used the word? That's what I am trying to get at.

 

I get the inkling you're trying to paint me into a corner.

 

To answer your question, I was using "conspiracy" as in its synonym "plan".

 

In simple terms, ANY act to advance ones financial position (or preserve a position in declining conditions) will most likely have an adverse result on someone else, or another group, or some entity.  Hypothetically, if I use my intellect to analyze such a condition, calculate a net result that would benefit me, formulate a PLAN, act upon it, and either knowingly or even unknowingly cause harm no matter how minuscule, a conspiracy - by definition - has occurred.

 

First of all, getting clarity is not painting one in the corner!

 

Ok, so you meant "plan" with no criminal intent. I can just restate it then like this:

 

"Maybe this whole discussion can be boiled down to HOW individuals, or even groups, work within or even manipulate these established systems to their financial benefit.  Then, the unforeseen results due to these actions, and the PLANS behind their implementation are really the result of good old-fashioned human greed - "

 

Well, yes, everyone works for their own benefit, and greed is behind most financial activities and plans. I have no argument against that. 

 

So, when I say to you: "The Food industry intentionally engineers food that is one of the causes of obesity and disease and early death," do you agree or disagree?

[Jim Naseum]

 

 

 

Questions Why would anyone doubt that the world's largest bankers act to drive the world's economies? Do you know what the FED does? The CBs in Europe? Do you know about bailouts of governments? Companies? What do you think happens to you when they raise and lower interest rates? (Do you even have a portfolio?)

 

 

Good question.  These bankers loan money and earn interest.  Their plan is to continue loaning money and earning more interest.  Surely, you can see that this is what they plan to do. Without banking, they are done and out.

 

Their plan is to engineer a system which maximizes their interest income.  That means, ipso facto, the borrowers have to have the ability to repay.  The lender does not want to see debtors fail and default.

 

 

That's not my question. Yes, the loan money. But they do SO MUCH MORE than that in the global economy. 

 

Let me try again with a more specific question:

 

hypothesis: Bankers are the parties most responsible for the overall economy in the USA. That means, the unemployment rate, the cost of living, the wages people earn, the interest they pay, the ability to get credit and so on. Short hand: Bankers drive the US economy. 

 

Q: do you believe that is likely, unlikely, absurd, a conspiracy theory, or just business as usual?

 

I believe that it is likely that this is just business as usual because a conspiracy theory seems quite unlikely.

 

To which I would just add, "...and also unnecessary."

[Arrow#422]

Restated - I believe that it is likely that this is just business as usual because a conspiracy theory seems quite unlikely - to ever be proven or reprimanded. 

Edited February 2, 2016 by Arrow#422

[Jim Naseum]

Restated - I believe that it is likely that this is just business as usual because a conspiracy theory seems quite unlikely - to ever be proven or reprimanded. 

 

Well, there's also that angle - the fact that actual conspiracies DO occur quite frequently. And, it's hard to get them investigated until after all the evidence has been destroyed, lost or buried. 

 

Just in the past 5 years, I would say there have been several coups, several assassinations of state leaders, and all of those are surely conspiracies. DUH. Of course when US leaders are assassinated it's never a conspiracy! Only when it is a foreign leader!

[oldtimer]

Conspiracy is a common human strategy.  The word gets a bad name from constant repetition in connotation with far-fetched theories. 

[Jim Naseum]

Maybe this whole discussion can be boiled down to HOW individuals, or even groups, work within or even manipulate these established systems to their financial benefit. Then, the unforeseen results due to these actions, and the conspiracies behind their implementation are really the result of good old-fashioned human greed - .

Which people and which systems??

And again, when you say conspiracy above here, do you mean the act of planning an unlawful act?

I'm just trying to understand your comments. Good to see them!

A conspiracy doesn't "have" to be an unlawful act, but rather one that is harmful.

Acts can be harmful, yet lawful.

Acts can also be unknowingly harmful at the time they are committed as the results of all acts cannot be entirely known in advance.

I prefer the synonyms "ploy, scheme, plan, & ploy" as to show the intent at the time the act is committed.

con·spir·a·cy

[kənˈspirəsē]

NOUN

• a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful: "a conspiracy to destroy the government"

  synonyms: plot · scheme · plan · machination · ploy · trick · ruse ·

  [more]

• the action of plotting or conspiring:

  "they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"

  synonyms: plotting · collusion · intrigue · connivance ·

  [more]

Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press · Translation by Bing Translator

Which meaning were you using when you used the word? That's what I am trying to get at.

I get the inkling you're trying to paint me into a corner.

To answer your question, I was using "conspiracy" as in its synonym "plan".

In simple terms, ANY act to advance ones financial position (or preserve a position in declining conditions) will most likely have an adverse result on someone else, or another group, or some entity. Hypothetically, if I use my intellect to analyze such a condition, calculate a net result that would benefit me, formulate a PLAN, act upon it, and either knowingly or even unknowingly cause harm no matter how minuscule, a conspiracy - by definition - has occurred.

Not to get picky but you can't conspire with your self.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[oldtimer]

By definition.

[Jeff Matthews]

I don't think it is that simple Jeff.  People did not demand Doritos. Doritos showed up and then people bought and consumed them.  What if fast food never happened?  Would we see protests in the streets demanding McDonalds?

 

I didn't use "demand" as an expressed saying or gesture.  I used demand as a "desire for something."  Just because we don't have mass-produced hover-cars doesn't mean there is not a demand for them.  I am including latent demand.

[Jim Naseum]

Of course the answer is demand. The economic meaning of demand.

Just look at the process of how new food items are introduced. They arise from the marketing department. "Gee, if people like our Ritz crackers so much, and we know they buy a lot of cheddar cheese too, how about we try putting the cheese right into the cracker?"

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Travis In Austin]

Barclays settles dark pool suit.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0V90UE

[Jim Naseum]

Life Expectancy

Is complicated! First of all, the number stated is a reference to a new borne at the time the computation is made. So, if the LE today is 80, it means someone born today can expect to live to be 80.

The number is a computation based on current death rates for each age. What's important to know is that the computed figure is widely different by gender, race, education, geography, and health status. For example, a white male, non smoker, with college degree and low BMI, will have a higher LE, than a female, non white, high school grad, who smokes, and has a high BMI.

What is not figured into the number is the current health of living people. So, if you look around and see that the current health of a big segment of the population is very bad and getting worse, you can see that the death rate for that group will rise, eventually skewing the LE downward. That's the condition we see today.

The NIH is seeing a very large jump in obesity in millennials- a very large change. They are issuing warnings saying in short, of you don't make some serious changes, you will have a shorter life than your parents -- which has never happened in our history!

So, actual LE can only reflect current death rates. If 20M people right now had a fatal disease, that wouldn't move the LE at all. But, after they all die, it would be reflected in the lowering of the LE. So, LE is a rearview mirror only. That's not very intuitive.

Hypothesis: The current bad health of millennials due to obesity will eventually lead to a generation living shorter lives than their parents. A historical first in the USA. And, it will cause the LE to point downward.

The obesity trend is not yet reversing, and the food industry continues on its path of producing unhealthy food.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

Barclays settles dark pool suit.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0V90UE

 

 

I just want to clarify that my assertions about "dark wealth" has nothing to do with these "dark pools" which are very common. In other words, my "$33T/$35T" is not related to "dark pools" a common investment source.

 

Carry on. I just didn't want to see any confusion pop up.

[Travis In Austin]

Barclays settles dark pool suit.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0V90UE

I just want to clarify that my assertions about "dark wealth" has nothing to do with these "dark pools" which are very common. In other words, my "$33T/$35T" is not related to "dark pools" a common investment source.

Carry on. I just didn't want to see any confusion pop up.

Glad you did, it wasn't my point, only the same bank in the LIBOR scandal was caught again.

[Travis In Austin]

Life Expectancy

Is complicated! First of all, the number stated is a reference to a new borne at the time the computation is made. So, if the LE today is 80, it means someone born today can expect to live to be 80.

The number is a computation based on current death rates for each age. What's important to know is that the computed figure is widely different by gender, race, education, geography, and health status. For example, a white male, non smoker, with college degree and low BMI, will have a higher LE, than a female, non white, high school grad, who smokes, and has a high BMI.

What is not figured into the number is the current health of living people. So, if you look around and see that the current health of a big segment of the population is very bad and getting worse, you can see that the death rate for that group will rise, eventually skewing the LE downward. That's the condition we see today.

The NIH is seeing a very large jump in obesity in millennials- a very large change. They are issuing warnings saying in short, of you don't make some serious changes, you will have a shorter life than your parents -- which has never happened in our history!

So, actual LE can only reflect current death rates. If 20M people right now had a fatal disease, that wouldn't move the LE at all. But, after they all die, it would be reflected in the lowering of the LE. So, LE is a rearview mirror only. That's not very intuitive.

Hypothesis: The current bad health of millennials due to obesity will eventually lead to a generation living shorter lives than their parents. A historical first in the USA. And, it will cause the LE to point downward.

The obesity trend is not yet reversing, and the food industry continues on its path of producing unhealthy food.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

I agree with all of that, it does look at today. It combines too many factors and lags way far behind what is already known about what may be healthy, and harmful. It also looks at age segments, like what is LE for people at age 65, which is currently about 20.

There are hugh lags in the South, and Hawaii being the best. They can sometimes attribute specific things to the reason for LE being lower, like the murder rate when down and accounted for a certain percentage. (You can also get a bump in LE from decreasing the death rate, fewer suicides, murders, accidents etc.)

What cannot be done from LE tables is link any particular behavior, diet, or cause. They are broken down into general catagories, heart disease, alzhimer's, respiratory, etc.

Your hypothesis is probably correct, however, it may not result in shorter overall LE. The reason for this is, I think, is that we have not reached the peak LE we can expect from the assault on tobacco.

What I think we are seeing in the LE is the after effects of smoking (which never would have have been disfavored if any "group" could "control" the US economy. (The group could be bankers, special interests, the money elites, corporations/ceos, it doesn't matter). Groups most definitely exert influence over outcomes, but the wild card in the US is the court system. The lawsuits brought down big tobacco, because the political system was too ineffective to do so. Now in other countries financial interests can have much greater control, allow kids to smoke, etc.

I don't rember when cigarette smoking peaked in US. Late 70s about 40% of adults and that dropoed to 25 percent of adults by 2000s and has remained flat since then. That 15% that didn't start smoking is going to keep factoring into LE and cause a rise, if the 25 percent who still smoke starts falling again that is going to kick up LE.

I'm afraid the poison (my personal exaggeration) they put in processed food will not see an impact on LE for 30 or 40 years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-life-expectancy-continues-to-climb/2014/12/05/9edb2ffe-4fc2-11e4-8c24-487e92bc997b_story.html

[Travis In Austin]

This article, citing CDC, said there has been a 3 year stall, but says the reasons can vary.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_56684965e4b080eddf565098