Infrastructure in Your Area?

[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.

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.

[Travis In Austin]

"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?

[Travis In Austin]

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?

No I think Jo is entangled with himself. "Documented misanthorpy" and "population control" is more than a fine distinction.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

[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"

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.

 

 

Well, each time we get close to closure, you won't respond to the argument, but rather throw up a new laundry list of irrelevant statements. 

Here's what you are now saying to muddy the water: "It always comes back to, "why can't people and corporations do the right thing without regulation."" 

 

You seem to have totally dismissed, or refuse to read, the argument. I haven't said a word about "regulation" - not a word. Nor, have I made an argument about what is right and what is wrong. So, at this point, I have to ask, what the heck are you reading?

 

Why not stick to the argument as it was presented, without constantly creating new straw man arguments? Go back about an hour, and answer my three simple questions about CocaCola company. 

 

I know you and Matthews love discussion about law and regulation, but it is of no importance in my argument, which is about the forces of history. maybe you simply can't comprehend it?

 

And once more, you are back to your "alien fantasies and conspiricism". You seem positively incapable of comprehending the difference between an "alien conspiracy" and the intentional actions of people that are out of your sight. If you didn't see it, or weren't aware of it, doesn't mean it involves aliens.  I even provided the simple examples of Philipp Morris and Coca Cola so that you can understand the issue. Of course, you continually skip the challenge only to circle back to your alien argument of some right wing polemicist. 

 

I haven't returned to some of the previous assertions for two reasons: Your rebuttals are generally just silly nonsense. And, you refuse to deal with the FIRST assertion. So, why go back and deal with 2, 3, 4, 5, when you can't even rebut #1? Get it?

[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.

 

Bump. 

 

This is the basic premise. If you can't answer this, how would you understand arguments that come after this?

[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?

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.

[Jim Naseum]

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.

 

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. 

[Jim Naseum]

The Economist Magazine are Not Aliens, or Conspiracy Theorists - What do they say about infrastructure financing?

 

Mar. 2014

 

"AS INVESTMENT opportunities go, lending money to a consortium building three prisons in rural France does not have the cachet of backing the latest Silicon Valley IPO. A new subway line in Seoul or energy pipelines in Texas will not set many pulses racing, either. Unglamorous as they may be, such investments are vital for economic growth. Yet financing infrastructure is falling out of favour with banks. Can other investors plug the gap?

 

...

Banks are not only wary of making long-term loans, they are also reluctant to take as much risk as before. Whereas they used to be happy to lend 90% of the construction cost of a large project, such as a toll road in America, that figure is down to something like 70% now. This forces the backers to come up with more of their own cash. In the same way that housebuilding slows when banks cut the supply of cheap mortgages, infrastructure construction dries up when financing gets tighter.

 

...

All this is contributing to a widening gap between the amount that is being invested in infrastructure and the amount that ought to be. It will cost $57 trillion to build and maintain the world’s roads, power plants, pipelines and the like between now and 2030, reckon consultants at McKinsey (see chart). That is more than the value of today’s infrastructure. By one estimate, infrastructure spending currently amounts to $2.7 trillion a year (about 4% of global output), yet $3.7 trillion is needed.

 

...

That is creating a need, and opportunity, for new entrants. Long-term investors such as insurers and pension funds are eager to plough money into infrastructure, as are endowments and sovereign-wealth funds. These financial titans have over $50 trillion to invest. Nobody is suggesting that their entire pile should be used to fill the $57 trillion hole. But only 0.8% of their assets are invested in infrastructure projects. That seems too low, given the natural match between the long-term liabilities of such investors and the long-term cash flows that come from these projects.

...

Sovereign-wealth funds and others after the raciest returns are keen on owning infrastructure assets rather than just lending to them. Private-equity firms have raised $250 billion to spend on infrastructure, up from $9 billion a decade ago, says Preqin, a data provider. Blackstone, a buy-out firm, is among those that financed a $900m hydroelectric dam in Uganda that provides half the country’s electricity. Bringing in private investors has benefits beyond shifting debt off public balance-sheets (a wheeze behind many of Britain’s less-than-stellar public-finance initiatives). The three prisons in France will be built by a contractor that will bear the risk of cost overruns, for example. Unlike lackadaisical local authorities, the companies involved will be deeply bothered if the prisons open late, as payments will kick in only once they are available. If operating them is dearer than expected, investors will suffer. Private-sector rigour can thus bring down the cost of public services.

...

The transition from banks to other investors is, however, not seamless. Projects that are ideally suited for banks often don’t appeal to the new moneymen. Insurers and pension funds often dislike “greenfield” projects. Beyond construction delays and cost overruns, they worry assets will not prove as profitable as advertised. Much of their focus is on putting together straightforward deals—for roads and other well-understood kit—in predictable places such as Europe. Investing in 30-year projects further afield is too risky for most.

...

The main concern from investors is a shortage of suitable projects. In Europe, a wealth of capital is chasing a dearth of deals. For governments digging for growth, smarter planning could result in a lot more of the infrastructure they crave."

END

-----------------------------

Well, there you go. Public capital is insufficient to replace the failing infrastructure, and private capital is risk averse, and wants to be in on the sexiest deals, not the boring stuff. If you can't attract these private capital investors to your project, you just might never get it done. Once more, it is clear as a bell that spending on public works is the decision space of private, not public capital. In other words, the deciders are more and more, "BANKERS!" 

[Mallette]

you are not going to comprehend my argument and more than people who think Jonah spent a night in a whale.

 

Pretty tiny minority.  Many DO believe, however, that he spent the night in the stomach of dag gadol, "a great fish."  Could have happened...or not.  Moral remains the same. 

 

Dave

[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.

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." 

[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.

 

 

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.   

[Travis In Austin]

 

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.

 

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.

[Travis In Austin]

The Economist Magazine are Not Aliens, or Conspiracy Theorists - What do they say about infrastructure financing?

 

Mar. 2014

 

"AS INVESTMENT opportunities go, lending money to a consortium building three prisons in rural France does not have the cachet of backing the latest Silicon Valley IPO. A new subway line in Seoul or energy pipelines in Texas will not set many pulses racing, either. Unglamorous as they may be, such investments are vital for economic growth. Yet financing infrastructure is falling out of favour with banks. Can other investors plug the gap?

 

...

Banks are not only wary of making long-term loans, they are also reluctant to take as much risk as before. Whereas they used to be happy to lend 90% of the construction cost of a large project, such as a toll road in America, that figure is down to something like 70% now. This forces the backers to come up with more of their own cash. In the same way that housebuilding slows when banks cut the supply of cheap mortgages, infrastructure construction dries up when financing gets tighter.

 

...

All this is contributing to a widening gap between the amount that is being invested in infrastructure and the amount that ought to be. It will cost $57 trillion to build and maintain the world’s roads, power plants, pipelines and the like between now and 2030, reckon consultants at McKinsey (see chart). That is more than the value of today’s infrastructure. By one estimate, infrastructure spending currently amounts to $2.7 trillion a year (about 4% of global output), yet $3.7 trillion is needed.

 

...

That is creating a need, and opportunity, for new entrants. Long-term investors such as insurers and pension funds are eager to plough money into infrastructure, as are endowments and sovereign-wealth funds. These financial titans have over $50 trillion to invest. Nobody is suggesting that their entire pile should be used to fill the $57 trillion hole. But only 0.8% of their assets are invested in infrastructure projects. That seems too low, given the natural match between the long-term liabilities of such investors and the long-term cash flows that come from these projects.

...

Sovereign-wealth funds and others after the raciest returns are keen on owning infrastructure assets rather than just lending to them. Private-equity firms have raised $250 billion to spend on infrastructure, up from $9 billion a decade ago, says Preqin, a data provider. Blackstone, a buy-out firm, is among those that financed a $900m hydroelectric dam in Uganda that provides half the country’s electricity. Bringing in private investors has benefits beyond shifting debt off public balance-sheets (a wheeze behind many of Britain’s less-than-stellar public-finance initiatives). The three prisons in France will be built by a contractor that will bear the risk of cost overruns, for example. Unlike lackadaisical local authorities, the companies involved will be deeply bothered if the prisons open late, as payments will kick in only once they are available. If operating them is dearer than expected, investors will suffer. Private-sector rigour can thus bring down the cost of public services.

...

The transition from banks to other investors is, however, not seamless. Projects that are ideally suited for banks often don’t appeal to the new moneymen. Insurers and pension funds often dislike “greenfield” projects. Beyond construction delays and cost overruns, they worry assets will not prove as profitable as advertised. Much of their focus is on putting together straightforward deals—for roads and other well-understood kit—in predictable places such as Europe. Investing in 30-year projects further afield is too risky for most.

...

The main concern from investors is a shortage of suitable projects. In Europe, a wealth of capital is chasing a dearth of deals. For governments digging for growth, smarter planning could result in a lot more of the infrastructure they crave."

END

-----------------------------

Well, there you go. Public capital is insufficient to replace the failing infrastructure, and private capital is risk averse, and wants to be in on the sexiest deals, not the boring stuff. If you can't attract these private capital investors to your project, you just might never get it done. Once more, it is clear as a bell that spending on public works is the decision space of private, not public capital. In other words, the deciders are more and more, "BANKERS!" 

 

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.

[oscarsear]

Wondered how long afore this thread devolved into some curious culverts of political conspiracy.  Seems as though one of us really wants to indict industry with malignant purposes with earnest desires to require that the federal gov't should define 'correct' and demand and enforce same.  As has been pointed out.........  those of us with wisdom are less subject to being manipulated into life limiting diets and lifestyles.  Is this (better and longer) survival of the smartest?  Then there is that other horrific can-O-worms residing on the other side of aging, actually being born.  We have this liberal mindset defending the notion that healthy pregnancies be terminated at will.  The result?  The result is that poor black women are terminating pregnancies en masse.  If the goal of the policy was population control of the poor black populace (as is the result) the outcry would be deafening.  So what is the real intent if the outcome is so lopsided?  

 

We have a country that runs on profits and industry quite focused on fine tuning profiteering and, yes, at any ethical expense.  Are the feds failing at key regulations?  Lots of arguments there, some valid, others less so.  Bottom line: Become educated enough to know right from wrong and choose what's best for yourself - which could well include profiteering by allowing less intelligent, easily-led others to harm themselves.  

 

The caveats apply........  same as forever.  The dumb cave guy froze to death or got eaten by the bear and the smart one became the vaunted tribal elder.  

[Jim Naseum]

The Economist Magazine are Not Aliens, or Conspiracy Theorists - What do they say about infrastructure financing?

Mar. 2014

"AS INVESTMENT opportunities go, lending money to a consortium building three prisons in rural France does not have the cachet of backing the latest Silicon Valley IPO. A new subway line in Seoul or energy pipelines in Texas will not set many pulses racing, either. Unglamorous as they may be, such investments are vital for economic growth. Yet financing infrastructure is falling out of favour with banks. Can other investors plug the gap?

...

Banks are not only wary of making long-term loans, they are also reluctant to take as much risk as before. Whereas they used to be happy to lend 90% of the construction cost of a large project, such as a toll road in America, that figure is down to something like 70% now. This forces the backers to come up with more of their own cash. In the same way that housebuilding slows when banks cut the supply of cheap mortgages, infrastructure construction dries up when financing gets tighter.

...

All this is contributing to a widening gap between the amount that is being invested in infrastructure and the amount that ought to be. It will cost $57 trillion to build and maintain the world’s roads, power plants, pipelines and the like between now and 2030, reckon consultants at McKinsey (see chart). That is more than the value of today’s infrastructure. By one estimate, infrastructure spending currently amounts to $2.7 trillion a year (about 4% of global output), yet $3.7 trillion is needed.

...

That is creating a need, and opportunity, for new entrants. Long-term investors such as insurers and pension funds are eager to plough money into infrastructure, as are endowments and sovereign-wealth funds. These financial titans have over $50 trillion to invest. Nobody is suggesting that their entire pile should be used to fill the $57 trillion hole. But only 0.8% of their assets are invested in infrastructure projects. That seems too low, given the natural match between the long-term liabilities of such investors and the long-term cash flows that come from these projects.

...

Sovereign-wealth funds and others after the raciest returns are keen on owning infrastructure assets rather than just lending to them. Private-equity firms have raised $250 billion to spend on infrastructure, up from $9 billion a decade ago, says Preqin, a data provider. Blackstone, a buy-out firm, is among those that financed a $900m hydroelectric dam in Uganda that provides half the country’s electricity. Bringing in private investors has benefits beyond shifting debt off public balance-sheets (a wheeze behind many of Britain’s less-than-stellar public-finance initiatives). The three prisons in France will be built by a contractor that will bear the risk of cost overruns, for example. Unlike lackadaisical local authorities, the companies involved will be deeply bothered if the prisons open late, as payments will kick in only once they are available. If operating them is dearer than expected, investors will suffer. Private-sector rigour can thus bring down the cost of public services.

...

The transition from banks to other investors is, however, not seamless. Projects that are ideally suited for banks often don’t appeal to the new moneymen. Insurers and pension funds often dislike “greenfield” projects. Beyond construction delays and cost overruns, they worry assets will not prove as profitable as advertised. Much of their focus is on putting together straightforward deals—for roads and other well-understood kit—in predictable places such as Europe. Investing in 30-year projects further afield is too risky for most.

...

The main concern from investors is a shortage of suitable projects. In Europe, a wealth of capital is chasing a dearth of deals. For governments digging for growth, smarter planning could result in a lot more of the infrastructure they crave."

END

-----------------------------

Well, there you go. Public capital is insufficient to replace the failing infrastructure, and private capital is risk averse, and wants to be in on the sexiest deals, not the boring stuff. If you can't attract these private capital investors to your project, you just might never get it done. Once more, it is clear as a bell that spending on public works is the decision space of private, not public capital. In other words, the deciders are more and more, "BANKERS!"

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.

I have amply demonstrated the credibility of my argument about bankers and public infrastructure. That's over.

1. Treasury bonds having nothing to do with the discussion about financing infrastructure. You are off in the weeds now.

2. Again, you are trying to negate the whole of the story by citing your local exceptions in your area. Read the material more closely to see the big picture.

3. The primary evidence of the whole problem should be clear enough: the whole infrastructure is crumbling, and NO investment capital is pouring in to fix it. And won't if the conditions remain as is. That's actually all that needs to be said.

This part of my argument has been substantiated fully now by credible sources of economics operations and theory. You can choose to reject it, but you can no longer claim it is some ABSURD argument, or that it had something to do with aliens, or that it is a conspiracy theory. You were simply wrong, and very uninformed on top of it.

Next?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jeff Matthews]

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.

 

 

Most people believe there is a significant difference between malfeasance and non-feasance.

[Jeff Matthews]

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

 

Or perhaps, it counts on the masses' disinterest.