Infrastructure in Your Area?

[Jim Naseum]

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.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Explanation

The entitlements are being engineered through the effects of our longstanding policy of neoliberalism - explained earlier. Forced austerity on populations over time.

The poor diet of Americans is an undisputed fact, documented in hundreds of studies.

Quote

"More exercise is not cutting into the nation’s high obesity levels, and unwise diets are killing more people than about anything else—including smoking, drinking and drug use. Those are among the findings of a new study by the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington."

End quote.

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.

Reducing entitlement benefits, by failing to keep pace with ever rising costs of living, introduces health problems and reductions in livability (quality of life) at the margins. That's means it statistically reduces the LE.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Taz]

Lot of Deep opinions here.  Will not argue for are against.  But do feel we spend too much money by giving millions, or is it billions to other countries.  If we looked after our own 1st there would be more money in this country to spend on things our citizens need.

[Jim Naseum]

Lot of Deep opinions here.  Will not argue for are against.  But do feel we spend too much money by giving millions, or is it billions to other countries.  If we looked after our own 1st there would be more money in this country to spend on things our citizens need.

 

Good comment. Why do you suppose it works that way?

[Taz]

 

Lot of Deep opinions here.  Will not argue for are against.  But do feel we spend too much money by giving millions, or is it billions to other countries.  If we looked after our own 1st there would be more money in this country to spend on things our citizens need.

 

Good comment. Why do you suppose it works that way?

 

 

I think there are various reasons that this happens.  I don't pretend to know or understand it all. 

 

#1   In some cases I think money is given to countries in  hope that they will be our friends.  It's kinda like blackmail in that once we start giving them money we don't want to stop for fear that they will not like us.

 

#2   Lack of accountability for taxpayers money put out for building countries infrastructure. 

 

#3   Building steel mills for countries that then go on to undercut made in USA steel. 

I'm sure there are other foreign industries that have benefited from our forced donation.

Of course there are some valid out of country expenditures.

 

#4   Giving away military equip.

 

Just seems like we spend too much time, money, and Veterans taking care of the rest of the world when we can't take care of ourselves.

[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?

[Travis In Austin]

Poor diet is undisputed.

LE is down in only one segment, under 12 years of education, regardless of race. It is up in all other segments. Despite iur terrible diets, overall we are up, but 30th in the world.

They are unsure exactly why this is, but suspect there is more smoking and drug use with people with less than 12 years of ed.

In the leading causes of death in US are accidents, murder, and suicide. These are going to vary, but I would suspect that they impact that group at higher rates than others.

Plans to raise retirement age for SS is certainly regressive, impacting the poor disproportionately.

The LE rates are much lower in the south compared to rest of the country. This should be no surprise based on what the typical "Southern" diet is.

I have seen all the programs about fructose, replacing fat in processed foods with hidden sugar but packaged as healthy, less calories, non-fat. No question that has occurred and will continue as long as a market.

It wasn't engineered to decrease life expectancy, no more than cigarettes were. It is just a simple fact of life, eating primarily processed foods is going to have

Adverse health consequences that are going to lower LE. The medical studies are very solid on this.

The conclusion to be drawn is something else entirely. One conclusion is they wany to see more liw fat cheetos, Lays Chips, or non-fat cheese. The other could be that they are trying to lower LE. I think the latter is a stretch.

But is the South it doesn't really matter if it is processed or not. Smoked meat, even turkey, comes with tater salad, but you can't pass up on that jalapeño sausage. Fried chicken, chicken fried steak, with taters, mashed, with real butter. Breakfast, egg white omelet with biscuits and sausage gravey. Dr. Pepper and Mt. Dew, by the case. Tons of fresh fruit, in a cool whip concoction. Chi9s and queso, using velveta and canned jalapeños.

Of course things have evolved way up from there, but not usual to see that all over the south. Just watch that Dean lady, opps they yanked her, that Pioneer gal on Food from OK. Butter in everything, they don't bat an eye.

[Travis In Austin]

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 will ask Clarence and he will tell them what do, like getting Bill Gates to put stuff in his vacancies.

Not a problem, already taken care of.

[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

[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 will ask Clarence and he will tell them what do, like getting Bill Gates to put stuff in his vacancies.

Not a problem, already taken care of.

And that answer doesn't embarrass you? What's next, a cartoon? You're a lawyer, right?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[LarryC]

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 read a book about a famous lead paint study in Baltimore. Homes were given 3 different levels of abatement. 25 homes in each group. There was a major outcry from the 25 in the lowest group whose kids continued to get sick. There were accusations that the lowest group were human "guinea pigs." The medical research establishment got behind the researchers and said that is how research is done and noted that the protocols and selection were reviewed by an ethics committee at NIH.

Unfortunately, that overstates my credentials! I think the medical education and policy world is much too decentralized and much too devoted to the philosophical ideals of the field of medicine to believe and act on such an outrageous proposition as reducing life expectancy in the U.S.  I think that's ridiculous.

 

What I do read or sense as fact is that the decline in incomes is leading to a decline in LE.  I don't have citations for you.  The income declines have put the political establishment on the spot and frozen the will and initiative to constructively deal with infrastructure, the debt ceiling, the deficit (which is slowly declining), you name it.  It doesn't take an active plot or conspiracy to engineer a decline in LE from those dreary trends.

 

MHO.

[Jim Naseum]

Nothing in my statement about Medicare implies that the internal bureaucrats and technicians are doing the engineering of a lower LE. That's not my argument.

The "engineering" is accomplished by applying external pressure on the budgets, and the regulations. As with all government programs, the majority of policy direction comes from private interest groups riding herd over rule makers and legislators. (I assumed most people are familiar with how government works.)

Medicare costs rise with age from 65 to 94 before falling off. The numbers of octogenarians is rising fast in the US. Along with expensive diseases. The general population is growing more slowly.

Question: Where will all the extra money to pay for this come from? Where will the government cast its eye to fund this?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Fish]

This thread may be only loosely associated with infrastructure but still thought provoking........

[Jim Naseum]

This thread may be only loosely associated with infrastructure but still thought provoking........

 

Infrastructure is both hard and soft. It rightly includes public institutional programs like "Medicare." Yes, that's an expanded definition, but it is philosophically sound to connect all public benefit together. 

[Jim Naseum]

 

This is a quick look at how cost grows with age right up to the mid 90s. 

 

1. Science (Big Pharma, BigMedicine) is trying hard to push the LE up, because there is huge profits to be made in selling health care. People want to live longer. But someone is going to pay. Who? People in their 80s, taken as a whole, are non-productive in the economy. If the population behind them is growing slowly, where will the money come from for this public benefit?

2. Ultimately, it must come from taxes in one way or another. If the middle class is "taxed out" (certainly they think so), who's left to pay? Well, if you can't guess, I will spill the beans. The ultra rich are the ones who are ultimately under scrutiny for higher taxes. Just look at how the British aristocracy was taxed into oblivion between the world wars, to see how fast this can happen. Any wonder why so much money is held offshore in tax havens? Any wonder why trillions are held in "black safes" that no one can peer into?

 

Nothing I am saying here requires silly alien conspiracy theories to understand. People always act to protect themselves, protect their wealth. Why are aliens and talkshow hosts needed for a billionaire to realize he is in the sights of the tax man? THINK! 

[Jeff Matthews]

For any attempt at understanding US economic policy and political theory, one has to come to grips with NEOLIBERAL economics. 

 

QUOTE (bolding is mine)

 

At the national-level, neoliberal ideas have drastically changed how states operate. By heavily promoting market-based economies that highly value competition and efficiency, neoliberalism has moved countries closer to adopting social Darwinism. Under Thatcher and Reagan, for instance, Peters (2001) argues that neoliberalism directly led to the economic liberalization/rationalization of the state, the restructuring of state sectors, and the dismantling of the welfare state. As a consequence of these changes, the U.S. and the U.K. have seen things like the abolishment of subsidies and tariffs, the corporatization and privatization of state trading departments, a sustained attack on unions, and the individualization of health, welfare, and education. Although the idea that markets should fully dictate governments would have seemed ludicrous in prior decades (George 1999), Bourdieu (1999b) contends that neoliberalism as a form of national governance has become a doxa, or an unquestioned and simply accepted worldview. Harvey (2005) is thus not surprised that the ideas of capitalism have been infused into political, social, and cultural institutions at the state-level. By placing a mathematical quality on social life (Bourdieu 1999a), neoliberalism has encouraged formerly autonomous states to regress into penal states that value production, competition, and profit above all else, including social issues.

 

As can be seen from this brief description of neoliberalism and its repercussions, this ideology has led to many changes at the state-level, the international-level, and the individual-level. Such changes include the dismantling of the welfare state, the growing reality of global inequality, and the individualization of all actions. In spite of such negative outcomes, George (1999) argues that the hegemonic nature of neoliberalism makes it seem like the only possible economic and social order available. As a true doxa, neoliberalism has become an unquestioned reality as it now seems almost logical that the markets should be the allocators of resources, that competition should be the primary driver of innovation, and that societies should be composed of individuals primarily motivated by economic conditions (Coburn 2000). Against the onslaught of neoliberal ideals, some scholars such as Bourdieu and Harvey have argued that the populace must rise up and resist this ideology. With the effectiveness with which neoliberals have pushed forward their ideas, though, such an uprising seems unlikely at least in the near future.

end quote - Source: https://thesocietypages.org/sociologylens/2012/10/02/a-brief-examination-of-neoliberalism-and-its-consequences/

 

This policy has been in place in the USA since the mid 1970s and it has been the guiding policy no matter who is president or who runs congress. It is political party agnostic - because it is the economic policy of globalism. (Here's where all the people who don't know about this will begin to shout "Conspiracy theory!)

This is why the infrastructure is crumbling. This is why social benefits are being stripped and trimmed back. Because "people" - citizens - are not running the economy, and it simply matters not who you vote for, neoliberal economics will guide all important decisions. It trumps all other considerations in US economic policy, because it IS the policy.

 

All of this is true, but very dull and devoid of anything more meaningful than this summary:

 

"Laws reflect attitudes."

 

Surprise!

 

Or to put it even more eloquently in relation to the topic at hand (infrastructure):

 

"Budgets reflect priorities."

 

There's a novel concept!

 

Of course, our system reflects our values.  There will naturally be critics who will decry the fact that it does not reflect their values.  How unrevealing.  This is what they call, "politics."

 

If you get enough of these citizens, there can be a tipping point where democracy devolves into oligarchy.  But you have to have enough self-described "downtrodden" people to qualify it as "corruption."  Otherwise, it's just "politics."

 

So, do we have enough self-described "downtrodden?"  It doesn't seem that way.  It seems there are many, but not enough.

[Jeff Matthews]

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!

[Jeff Matthews]

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.

[Jeff Matthews]

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.

[Jeff Matthews]

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.)

[Travis In Austin]

I read a great book on Neo-Liberalism last fall I highly recommend. (It is an academic criticism so fair warning),

Undoing the Demos

Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution

By Wendy Brown

I got the ereader format but it does come in hardback or paperback.

It is published by MIT press, here is link to review, description:

https://mitpress.mit.edu/index.php?q=books/undoing-demos