patrick.net

You gals are putting a lot of words in my mouth.

Oddly enough, you both went on to agree with me anyways.

The point is, without fixing ones diet, its more or less impossible to fix ones health.

Now, I'm certain we will disagree as to what proper nutrition looks like, but my position is still the same.

That more than half of all instances and occurances of adverse health can be resolved thru proper nutrtion.

What % of health care related events do you suppose are rooted in malnutrition?

Here's one to rile the posters:
Severe libido decline of tricyclics isn't a bug, it's a feature, meant to slow the procreation of the mentally unfit.

Robert Sproul says

edvard2 says

I'm still baffled that anyone living in modern society would suddenly proclaim that modern medicine is a big waste of time.

This Mayo study indicates that 40-60% of it is exactly that.

Best estimates for iatrogenic harm indicate that it can be much more tragic than just a waste of time. It may be the third leading cause of death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis#Incidence_and_importance

Obviously you didn't read the article and/or didn't comprehend the concept of latrogenesis. A wikipedia entry isn't a mayo study btw.

errc says

You gals are putting a lot of words in my mouth.

errc says

armed with proper knowledge of nutrition, one could likely avoid the doctor, dentist, and optimoligist, indefinitely

These aren't your words?

Robert Sproul says

This Mayo study indicates that 40-60% of it is exactly that.

Best estimates for iatrogenic harm indicate that it can be much more tragic than just a waste of time. It may be the third leading cause of death.

Again- you want to play armchair doctor, go for it. Be my guest. That doesn't mean you are right. I can't wait for the direction this topic will likely go. Next thing I am sure will come will be that it turns out we were wrong about oxygen all along. Turns out we actually breathe carbon dioxide.... I read it in a medical journal so it must be true and hence I am a genius now.

The housing market isn't local anymore, though.

Residents rent.

Old news, this is very obvious here in Southern California. However, homeowners will be in denial like they always are and chant that this runup is the "recovery" when it clearly is a speculative bubble.

errc says

You gals are putting a lot of words in my mouth.

Oddly enough, you both went on to agree with me anyways.

The point is, without fixing ones diet, its more or less impossible to fix ones health.

Now, I'm certain we will disagree as to what proper nutrition looks like, but my position is still the same.

That more than half of all instances and occurances of adverse health can be resolved thru proper nutrtion.

What % of health care related events do you suppose are rooted in malnutrition?

No.... but if it makes you feel better to think that way, go for it. Your position seems to be- and you have the opportunity to correct us if we're wrong- is that nutrition can prevent people from having to go to the doctor. I recall an earlier post where this same general commentary was being made and in that case too you seemed to be suggesting that people didn't actually really need medical care... was that correct or was I imagining things?

Now- addressing your comments about nutrition and health. Sure- diet plays a part in health and the increase or decrease in the need for medical care. But its not the one and only contributing factor. As was previously mentioned, a significant factor to future health issues are tied to environmental exposures to chemicals, radiation, and so on, none of which a diet will prevent that exposure.

Link appears to be dead now, even though you get the same URL if you search Google for "1 in 3 homes is unaffordable" -- Housing Wire must have changed the URL. Even Housing Wire's own search engine sends you do a dead link:

http://www.housingwire.com/search?q=homes+unaffordable

Vicente says

I used to work with a guy, who WOULD NOT DRIVE ON GEORGIA 400. He used to say "there is no GA 400 inside Atlanta". This was because of his ideology about not paying tolls to corrupt state entities, so he would drive way the hell out of his way and sacrifice time and gas to avoid a small toll. Crazy hostility, and doubly strange considering his often "Galt" speeches to the rest of us, occcurred while we were collecting state paychecks.

I've found that people who get government benefits, regardless of what they are -- paycheck from the government, VA benefits, FHA benefits, disability, pensions, etc. -- quite frequently rail against the government. They typically have a weird self-centered opinion that they "earned" their shit, whereas everyone else is a bunch of freeloaders.

Hence the morons with the "keep your government hands off my Medicare" signs I saw at rallies against the Affordable Care Act several years ago.

One could likely avoid,,,,

To clarify, I'm claiming that we could halve our "need" for health care services with proper nutrition. That over half of all the instances where someone thinks they need the doctor, could be solved simply with proper nutrition and diet.

The crap people consume really does wreak that much havoc on the body, the mind and mental health, included.

How many people attempt an elimination diet , prior to succumbing to the doctor and begging for drugs as remedy?

True, but the government will bail them out. Anything to save their own behinds and the banks who support them. I'm so sick of it all.

The president is pushing to raise the minimum wage, this should help the housing affordability.

corntrollio says

Link appears to be dead now

Just like the housing recovery.....................

Strategist says

ha ha - check this out.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2014/04/02/man-stages-burglary-avoid-work/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl26%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D460349

This one is even worse:

http://patrick.net/?p=1240616

The Los Angeles-class submarine was damaged at the hands of a shipyard worker who set a fire in May 2012 while the submarine was undergoing a 20-month overhaul.

It took 12 hours and the efforts of more than 100 firefighters to save the vessel. The fire severely damaged living quarters, the command and control center and a torpedo room, but it did not reach the nuclear propulsion components at the sub's rear. Seven people were hurt dousing the flames.

I'm hoping those 17 years are spent in and out of a wedding dress.

Rin says

What are you drinking?

Bud, Miller, Sam Adams, Guinness, etc. All taste bad to me. Beer is bitter and it does a lousy job of covering the taste of alcohol. The only reason beer is popular in America is because American culture was based on English culture, and it's too damn cold in England to grow grapes. As a result, beer became popular in England and the founding fathers and English settlers brought beer culture to America.

In the Middle Ages during an unusual warm period, England could grow grapes and they promptly started producing wine instead of ale, much to the chagrin of France. Wine does a far better job of masking the alcoholic taste.

Again, as with all opinions, there is no right or wrong. I'm sure some people have become so accustom to drinking beer that they actually enjoy that piss. Same for sardines.

As long as lenders don't get too soft, this isn't a problem.

errc says

To clarify, I'm claiming that we could halve our "need" for health care services with proper nutrition. That over half of all the instances where someone thinks they need the doctor, could be solved simply with proper nutrition and diet.

The crap people consume really does wreak that much havoc on the body, the mind and mental health, included.

How many people attempt an elimination diet , prior to succumbing to the doctor and begging for drugs as remedy?

Ok, understood. But this is simply your opinion, which is fine. That said, could the need for healthcare be halved by proper nutrition? That's a sort of pie-in-the-sky statement. There are some ethnic groups in third world countries who actually have crappy diets ( lot of fat via dairy and meat) who have longer life expectancies than the US for example)

But as far as "begging for drugs", I think that's a rather generalized statement. If a person is sick, has a medical abnormality, is in need of a procedure or whatnot, then they should go see a doctor. Does that mean they're begging for drugs? Most people have no clue about medications, which is why you see a doctor to begin with. The doctor will make a call- most of the time a call that doesn't require medication. But if there is a medication that serves to correct whatever ailment that person has then there's nothing wrong with prescribing to that. More often then not a doctor would likely recommend something like lifestyle changes- like avoiding stress, eating better, quitting smoking and whatnot. But sometimes medication is a useful tool just as other forms of treatment.

spydah_hh says

like I said if you continue to call our economy a capitalist economy you clearly don't know what capitalism is.

Honey, you're debating nomenclature, not economic systems.

1. The economic system we use today is referred to as "capitalism" by 99+% of the population of this planet as well as the press and economic professors. Sure, you might strongly hold the opinion that we should use a different word for our economic system and that capitalism should refer to something else, but that doesn't make my statement wrong, nor does it mean I used non-standard diction.

2. Fine. I don't give a rat's ass. Let's call America's economic system Americanism and let you define capitalism as what America did in the 1800s. I don't give a flying fuck as it's immaterial. All my statements are still 100% correct using your nomenclature.

So let's use YOUR nomenclature. Happy? Got a diction boner? Enjoy it. It doesn't change this conversation.

What you call Americanism still sucks and still is the empirical end result of every capitalist economy. There is not a single capitalist society in the world today as every capitalist economy has turned into either Americanism or Chinaism, neither of which meets your definition of capitalism.

The only conclusion one can reasonable reach from the overwhelming historical record is that capitalism is unstable and immediately deteriorates into Americanism upon the creation of corporations. This means that you can never sustain capitalism if any corporations exist in the economic system. Try running a modern, global economy without corporations. Capitalism, by your definition, died as a result of not being able to scale to national, nonetheless, global trade.

I don't care what you call the economic system of 19th century America or the economic system of 21st century America. They both suck. They are both obsolete. Neither is sustainable. And the first inevitably collapsed into the second everywhere on this planet.

People who look only to the past for solutions to today's problems are limited to what primitive man could accomplish. Look to the future and to the infinite number of possible economic models for fixing our economy. There are new things under the sun. They are created every day.

In contrast, the 19th century sucked ass. Child labor and death, old people in destitute, and people ruthlessly exploiting each other. Today is better than that century. Good riddance to it.

P.S.

Just because a person doesn't use your nomenclature, doesn't make him ignorant of a subject. That's just being pompous. There is no reason you've given why your nomenclature is superior to the industry's standard terms.

rooemoore says

As long as lenders don't get to soft [sic], this isn't a problem.

That's what she said.

Analyzer says

The president is pushing to raise the minimum wage, this should help the
housing affordability.

Seriously????

A lot of fat via meat is by no means a crappy diet. Animal fats and proteins are actually the basis for the most healthful of dietary input

Not so long ago, that was the cornerstone of the human diet. We sorta got away from that and added all the bad carbohydrates (grains,breads, cereals, and all the sugars). Adding all that crap to our diets has led to massive increase in the "need" for all this "health" "care"

exfatguy says

Housing IS inflation

Of similar sentiments. For most of us, housing cost (mortgage or rent) is the biggest burden.

mmmarvel says

Analyzer says

The president is pushing to raise the minimum wage, this should help the

housing affordability.

Seriously????

Analyzer says

The president is pushing to raise the minimum wage, this should help the housing affordability.

Not going to pass in a deleveraging economy....minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage....

What is the definition of a minimum wage?

Bubbabear says

Not going to pass in a deleveraging economy....minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage....

True, but you have to admit that many of the jobs that did provide for a decent life are long gone. It's not like people love flipping burgers for 8 bucks an hour so much that they don't want the $20 an hour job tightening bolts.

Bottom line - it's the fucking robots.

This is more of a false flag than a bubble. Or maybe a Ponzi scheme.

errc says

Not so long ago, that was the cornerstone of the human diet. We sorta got away from that and added all the bad carbohydrates (grains,breads, cereals, and all the sugars). Adding all that crap to our diets has led to massive increase in the "need" for all this "health" "care"

Nothing wrong with grains, bread, and carbohydrates either. Grain is one of the most ancient of foods. But I digress, we're now
picking over the crumbs at this point. I get your points about a healthy diet and agree that a better diet can lead to better health.

But I also don't exactly buy that this alone is a remedy for what ailments and future diseases happen to a person in their lives. Like anything else its about common sense. If you get sick... go to the doctor. Its that simple.

Dan says....
The only conclusion one can reasonable reach from the overwhelming historical record is that capitalism is unstable and immediately deteriorates into Americanism upon the creation of corporations. This means that you can never sustain capitalism if any corporations exist in the economic system. Try running a modern, global economy without corporations. Capitalism, by your definition, died as a result of not being able to scale to national, nonetheless, global trade.

I don't care what you call the economic system of 19th century America or the economic system of 21st century America. They both suck. They are both obsolete. Neither is sustainable. And the first inevitably collapsed into the second everywhere on this planet.

Strategist.....
Which is the best system?

rooemoore says

Bubbabear says

Not going to pass in a deleveraging economy....minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage....

True, but you have to admit that many of the jobs that did provide for a decent life are long gone. It's not like people love flipping burgers for 8 bucks an hour so much that they don't want the $20 an hour job tightening bolts.

Bottom line - it's the fucking robots.

Every machine is a robot. If we got rid of all machines we end up in the Stone Age.

rooemoore says

Bottom line - it's the fucking robots.

If it was the robots we would have seen a fantastic productivity boom in manufacturing.

It's not the robots, it's the fucking Chinese slave labor.

edvard2 says

agree that a better diet can lead to better health.

I think you underestimate the effect of the average American diet of highly processed (nutrient depleted), high sodium, over-sweetened or artificially sweetened, "food".
Americans die of self inflicted lifestyle diseases (heart disease, diabetes, stroke, cancers) brought about by the induced overconsumption of these products. Diseases that they fruitlessly try to manage with pharmaceutical solutions.
70% of Americans are overweight for fucks sake.
1 in 10 deaths may be related to just the overconsumption of salt.

edvard2 says

If you get sick... go to the doctor. Its that simple.

And he will tell you to lose weight, eat a balanced diet, and get some exercise……..and then prescribe some toxic statin/beta blocker cocktail, or maybe even some grotesque bariatric surgery, when you don't.

Strategist says

Which is the best system?

I don't believe in a universal "best" economic system. There are trade-offs in the universe. The most one can say is that an economic system is an optimal solution, i.e. no solution is better, for a particular problem or a heuristic that encompasses multiple problems. The choice of heuristic is a value judgement.

Nonetheless, we can objectively measure inefficiencies and identify problems in an economic system. Neither 19th century capitalism nor 21st century capitalism is designed to maximize benefits to most or all people. Both systems were design explicitly to maximize benefits to a small ruling class at the expense of everyone else. Any system designed by the few for the few at the expense of the many is going to be a lousy system for the many. This statement is almost a truism.

How about in the Indian Ocean, in a dinghy?

Strategist says

Every machine is a robot. If we got rid of all machines we end up in the Stone Age.

Classic strawman. Who said get rid of all machines? My point is that machines are evolving to the point that they can replace most jobs. I am not a Luddite, but there is a tipping point when technology can replace too many workers and that technology is owned by too few.

Heraclitusstudent says

If it was the robots we would have seen a fantastic productivity boom in manufacturing.

It's not the robots, it's the fucking Chinese slave labor.

Chinese slave labor ain't as cheap as it used to be.

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2013/06/das.htm

Which logically leads to this:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/google-teams-with-foxconn-to-build-robots-that-replace-human-workers/

Robots are great, especially if you own them.

Dan8267 says

The only reason beer is popular in America is because American culture was based on English culture, and it's too damn cold in England to grow grapes. As a result, beer became popular in England and the founding fathers and English settlers brought beer culture to America.

In the Middle Ages during an unusual warm period, England could grow grapes and they promptly started producing wine instead of ale, much to the chagrin of France. Wine does a far better job of masking the alcoholic taste.

Not correct. Although beer was produces in the colonies, hard apple cider was the drink of choice for most colonists.

http://drinks.seriouseats.com/2011/02/the-cider-press-the-lost-american-beverage.html

In1767, the average Massachusetts resident drank 35 gallons of cider. (That includes children, who sipped a slightly weaker version called ciderkin.)...

John Adams drank a tankard of cider nearly every morning of his life:

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/drink/2009/09/what_would_john_adams_drink.html

Those weren't eatin' apples John Chapman was planting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Appleseed

No beer didn't become popular here until the early to mid 19th century and the settlement of the midwest by Germans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_in_the_United_States

http://mason.gmu.edu/~drwillia/cider.html

Also English wineries? Lots of them in the middle aqes and they are now making a comeback:

http://www.english-wine.com/history.html

Iosef V HydroCabron says

This is more of a false flag than a bubble. Or maybe a Ponzi scheme.

Sam1000 says

Old news, this is very obvious here in Southern California. However, homeowners will be in denial like they always are and chant that this runup is the "recovery" when it clearly is a speculative bubble.

This is the return to "normal" following a bull trap whose time was extended by fed policy.

Strategist says....

Every machine is a robot. If we got rid of all machines we end up in the Stone Age.

Roemoor says....
Classic strawman. Who said get rid of all machines? My point is that machines are evolving to the point that they can replace most jobs. I am not a Luddite, but there is a tipping point when technology can replace too many workers and that technology is owned by too few.

Strategist says......
More than a hundred years ago most people worked in farms. Tractors and other farm equipment would have replaced most jobs when they were introduced. This made it possible to free up workers in farms who went on to other occupations. This is how our standard of living increases.
History is merely repeating itself, and once again our standard of living will go up because we have more sophisticated robots doing our menial work.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Which is the best system?

I don't believe in a universal "best" economic system. There are trade-offs in the universe. The most one can say is that an economic system is an optimal solution, i.e. no solution is better, for a particular problem or a heuristic that encompasses multiple problems. The choice of heuristic is a value judgement.

Nonetheless, we can objectively measure inefficiencies and identify problems in an economic system. Neither 19th century capitalism nor 21st century capitalism is designed to maximize benefits to most or all people. Both systems were design explicitly to maximize benefits to a small ruling class at the expense of everyone else. Any system designed by the few for the few at the expense of the many is going to be a lousy system for the many. This statement is almost a truism.

How would society determine the best combination to create the most efficient society? It can only be through democracy. Power concentrated on too few people is what leads to maximum inefficiencies. Which is why dictators, royalty, religious societies and communism have never shown much progress.
H

Strategist says

History is merely repeating itself, and once again our standard of living will go up because we have more sophisticated robots doing our menial work.

By "sophisticated robots" you mean robots that are smarter, stronger, faster, more durable without the human baggage that employers loath? Just because something held true before doesn't mean it will in the future. There are such things as "game changers". Robots/software will soon be able to replace much more than just "menial" jobs. IBM's Watson beat the top 2 Jeopardy champions several years ago. Since then, Watson's AI has grown exponentially. Watson is a software program than can be duplicated pretty easily. This is light years different than the industrial revolution.

You may be right that it will work out well for everyone, but that will require serious government intervention. Robots will have to pay their share of taxes.