Holiday Audio-Video Stuff

      79 Comments on Holiday Audio-Video Stuff

Happy Memorial Day. I spent the first two days of the three-day weekend catching up on some sideline programming projects, so I’m taking today off (mostly) and posting some audio/video clips.

While on the low-carb cruise, I was interviewed by Howard and Georgene Harkness of N=1 Health. You can listen to that podcast here.

Below I’ve posted the final four segments of the UCTV series The Skinny on Obesity, featuring Dr. Robert Lustig.

You probably won’t be surprised that I disagree with the idea of regulating sugar.  Yes, obesity and diabetes are major problems, but the key to solving those problems is education.  Most people simply don’t realize how bad sugar is for their health.  They’re still being told dietary fat is the problem — by a government that subsidizes and promotes wheat (which may be as bad for us as sugar) and subsidizes corn, which makes high-fructose corn syrup dirt cheap.

The rate of smoking among adults is half of what it was back in the 1950s, and that’s because people learned how bad smoking is for their health. We need the same kind of push to educate people about the metabolic damage caused by sugar. Once people refuse to buy delivery vehicles for sugar, the food manufacturers will stop putting it in everything. They don’t tell us what to eat. We tell them what to sell us by our choices at the grocery store. That’s how markets work. That’s why New Coke, Taco Bell’s Border Lites and the McLean Burger were all flops, despite huge advertising campaigns.

I chuckled when one of the experts interviewed in the final segment talked about taxing the foods we subsidize — a government fix for the actions of government.  How about if we just stop subsidizing corn, wheat and other lousy food and see how that works first?


If you enjoy my posts, please consider a small donation to the Fat Head Kids GoFundMe campaign.
Share

79 thoughts on “Holiday Audio-Video Stuff

  1. Walter B

    Why would the celebrities lead the charge and increase the competition? There is no money in telling people to eat real food, but there is in hawking fake food. I remember some ex basketball player (Barkerly?) advertising Weight Watchers and getting caught on camera bad mouthing them.

    Reply
  2. Carolyn Gillham

    Too bad we can’t get a high profile celeb to challenge people to cut out starches and sugars and focus on protein, non-starchy veggies, nuts, seeds, and fruit like berries and citrus for a month. (Yes, I am on The Smarter Science of Slim) People will feel so good and see some amazing healthy results that they will want to stick to this way of eating. My husband admitted that the he thought I would only stick to this for a month or so. Like all the other diets I have been on. I asked him why would I give up on a program that gives me energy, better sleep, blood-sugar regulation, and fat loss without hunger and moodiness? His response: maybe there is something to this and then he ate some Greek yogurt with some blueberries and cherries.

    There are celebrities who eat low-carb, but they don’t seem anxious to lead the charge.

    Reply
  3. Kay

    Wow, just read the Meme Roth post and all I can say is sorry, I didn’t find out about you until April 2011….you probably have a lot of gems like that in your archive.
    You Rock! 🙂

    Thank you.

    Reply
  4. Erik

    If there is an “Obesity Epidemic” in America, a lot of it is probably due to the fact that Americans don’t smoke as much as they did 50 years ago. Smoking is negatively associated with weight gain, more than any food. The #1 reason a lot of people don’t want to quit smoking is that they don’t want to gain weight.

    A while back, there was a study published in the New England Journal Of Medicine. One of those large observational studies based on self-reported data that you love so much. The headline was that reduced consumption of soda / red meat and increased consumption of whole grains would help you lose weight.

    If you dig deeper into the study, it turns out they buried the lead. Former smokers who remained ex-smokers gained 4 times as much weight as soda drinkers. Former smokers who started smoking again lost 5 times as much weight as people who switched to ‘healthy whole grains’.

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296/suppl_file/nejmoa1014296_appendix.pdf

    So there’s your Law Of Unintended Consequences right there. Even eliminating a bleeding obvious health danger like cigarettes results in some negative health consequences.

    As for a sugar tax, people already spend $5, $7, $10 for a soda at a ball park, or at an amusement park or at a rock concert. In some places in the USA, the tax on cigarettes is $6 a pack or more, and people still smoke.

    And anyway, it won’t stop food manufacturers from adding sugar to anything. Tax refined sugar and they’ll add unrefined sugar. “New Coke – now sweetened with Turbinado / Pure Cane Juice / White Grape Juice, etc”. Or maybe they’ll sell unsweetened Coke and let you add your own sugar.

    Plus, at what point does the Government stop being a taxing authority and start being a corporate partner? The Government makes more profit off a pack of cigarettes than the cigarette manufacturers. They make more profit off a gallon of gas than the oil companies. Now they’re fixing to make more profit from the sale of unhealthy food than the manufacturers of the food. Maybe 20 years from now, it will be our patriotic duty to purchase full-sugar Coca Cola, because the money is used to fund schools and daycare and hospitals. I can see it now. “Drink Coke. It’s for the Children.”

    All good points … but of course I’d never encourage people to take up smoking to lose weight. I believe the difference between smokers and non-smokers is about 8 pounds on average. Give me a little belly and let me keep my lungs.

    Reply
  5. Walter B

    Why would the celebrities lead the charge and increase the competition? There is no money in telling people to eat real food, but there is in hawking fake food. I remember some ex basketball player (Barkerly?) advertising Weight Watchers and getting caught on camera bad mouthing them.

    Reply
  6. Bong Kim

    “Take government out of the equation, and all you have left is voluntary exchanges.”

    This is a myth. I know that you are a computer programmer and running a popular internet website and that you must know better.

    For example, how much do you pay for your internet connection? I pay less than $20/month for unlimited 100Mbps up/down at my home (I’m not in the States).

    Just tell me when you are going to get 100Mbps at your home? Do you think it’s possible to get such service in your lifetime at all?

    This is the result of “voluntary exchange” that you are so in love with. The reality is that you do not have a choice other than accepting the bad deal the big money forces you. This is why people in the States pay much more for much less. In other words, the big money controls the market not you as you like to believe.

    If you’d like to learn how other countries have much better and cheaper internet connection services or much better and cheaper health care systems for that matter, you first need to see the facts first without tinting by your ideology. This sounds quite like what you’ve been preaching all the time about human diets, doesn’t it?

    If I pay $100/month for internet, that’s a voluntary exchange, genius. No one is forcing me to subscribe to Comcast’s internet service. I decided I’d rather have the internet service than the $100 per month. I could tell Comcast no thanks and keep the $100 instead. (Actually, I get high-speed internet, two phone lines with free long distance in the U.S. and Canada, and cable TV with most of the premium channels for $140 per month. I happily took that voluntary exchange.) I could also go with ATT or satellite. I chose Comcast because I liked their deal the best.

    Our health-care system hasn’t been a free-market system for decades. In areas of health care in which there is a free market (elective procedures), costs have dropped. Getting your eyes fixed used to cost several thousand dollars. Now you can get it done for under $1,000 in many areas. That’s what a voluntary buyer-seller relationship accomplishes. What we have instead for most of our health-care system are a few insurance companies in most states, prohibited by government from competing across state lines. State legislators then tag on all kinds of mandatory coverages to please the lobbyists who wanted them. So I’m not allowed, for example, to buy a cheaper policy that doesn’t cover psychiatric care or infertility treatments — neither of which I would buy if I were allowed to make a totally voluntary exchange with an insurer headquartered in, say, Omaha. Some states even require mandatory coverage for hair treatments. (You know, because people are always dying from baldness.)

    Our health care is expensive because our government made it expensive. Now a whole population of idiots wants government to step in and fix the problem created by government.

    Reply
  7. Bong Kim

    “Take government out of the equation, and all you have left is voluntary exchanges.”

    This is a myth. I know that you are a computer programmer and running a popular internet website and that you must know better.

    For example, how much do you pay for your internet connection? I pay less than $20/month for unlimited 100Mbps up/down at my home (I’m not in the States).

    Just tell me when you are going to get 100Mbps at your home? Do you think it’s possible to get such service in your lifetime at all?

    This is the result of “voluntary exchange” that you are so in love with. The reality is that you do not have a choice other than accepting the bad deal the big money forces you. This is why people in the States pay much more for much less. In other words, the big money controls the market not you as you like to believe.

    If you’d like to learn how other countries have much better and cheaper internet connection services or much better and cheaper health care systems for that matter, you first need to see the facts first without tinting by your ideology. This sounds quite like what you’ve been preaching all the time about human diets, doesn’t it?

    If I pay $100/month for internet, that’s a voluntary exchange, genius. No one is forcing me to subscribe to Comcast’s internet service. I decided I’d rather have the internet service than the $100 per month. I could tell Comcast no thanks and keep the $100 instead. (Actually, I get high-speed internet, two phone lines with free long distance in the U.S. and Canada, and cable TV with most of the premium channels for $140 per month. I happily took that voluntary exchange.) I could also go with ATT or satellite. I chose Comcast because I liked their deal the best.

    Our health-care system hasn’t been a free-market system for decades. In areas of health care in which there is a free market (elective procedures), costs have dropped. Getting your eyes fixed used to cost several thousand dollars. Now you can get it done for under $1,000 in many areas. That’s what a voluntary buyer-seller relationship accomplishes. What we have instead for most of our health-care system are a few insurance companies in most states, prohibited by government from competing across state lines. State legislators then tag on all kinds of mandatory coverages to please the lobbyists who wanted them. So I’m not allowed, for example, to buy a cheaper policy that doesn’t cover psychiatric care or infertility treatments — neither of which I would buy if I were allowed to make a totally voluntary exchange with an insurer headquartered in, say, Omaha. Some states even require mandatory coverage for hair treatments. (You know, because people are always dying from baldness.)

    Our health care is expensive because our government made it expensive. Now a whole population of idiots wants government to step in and fix the problem created by government.

    Reply
  8. Marilyn

    @Older Brother: Of that $100 billion, food stamps are expected to account for $80 billion this year.

    Reply
  9. Marilyn

    @Older Brother: Of that $100 billion, food stamps are expected to account for $80 billion this year.

    Reply
  10. Erik

    I don’t advocate smoking, either. I’m saying there are unintended consequences to everything. If the only thing people care about is reducing weight, they can do it will all sorts of horribly unhealthy lifestyle changes – taking up smoking, shooting heroin, developing anorexia, ingesting dangerous diet pills, replacing dietary fat with sugar, you name it.

    Karen Carpenter managed to stay thin. Whitney Houston managed her weight pretty well. Anna Nichole Smith lost lots of weight. Such healthy people.

    Reply
  11. Underground

    Don’t worry, Bloomberg is going to save NY city by banning extra large sugary drinks.

    See tonight’s post.

    Reply
  12. Erik

    I don’t advocate smoking, either. I’m saying there are unintended consequences to everything. If the only thing people care about is reducing weight, they can do it will all sorts of horribly unhealthy lifestyle changes – taking up smoking, shooting heroin, developing anorexia, ingesting dangerous diet pills, replacing dietary fat with sugar, you name it.

    Karen Carpenter managed to stay thin. Whitney Houston managed her weight pretty well. Anna Nichole Smith lost lots of weight. Such healthy people.

    Reply
  13. Underground

    Don’t worry, Bloomberg is going to save NY city by banning extra large sugary drinks.

    See tonight’s post.

    Reply
  14. Bong Kim

    “Our health care is expensive because our government made it expensive.”

    You already have an efficient health care system run by your government, Veterans Health Administration. Check the cost effectiveness comparisons to other private health cares you buy through “voluntary exchanges”.

    And it is not “voluntary exchanges” when you do not have a choice. You’d better understand why your country has anti-monopoly laws. Without regulations the big money usually becomes monopoly and exploits consumers. Your internet service market is controlled by one or two big companies and that’s why you have to pay much more for much less. It is not “voluntary exchanges”, it is a rip-off.

    “Voluntary exchanges” do not offer you efficient health cares nor cheaper and faster internet services. These are just two counter examples to your theory. If you have to ignore facts, you’d better question your theory first.

    You’re an economic illiterate. Most monopolies in the U.S. occur through crony capitalism: businesses being granted monopolistic power by government. Happens all the time. When I lived in Chicago there was one cable company with no competition — the city council outlawed competition. That means the problem was government, not the free market. Even then, I still had the choice to forgo cable.

    Most other supposed monopolies weren’t. Kodak was called a monopoly. So was IBM. Both ended up getting their asses kicked by competition. Standard Oil, the big supposed monopoly of the 1900s, became a “monopoly” by reducing the cost of fuel by 90% — they did not, as legend has it, sell at a loss to wipe out competition. They found ways to make fuel cheaper and ended up with nearly all of the market because they offered better prices — you know, voluntary exchanges and all that.

    Yes, it’s a voluntary exchange even if you aren’t happy with the price, goofball. Freedom doesn’t mean people have to sell you what you want at the price you think they should. It means you have the power to say no thanks. If you don’t say no thanks, then you decided you’d rather have the product or service than keep your money. So you made a voluntary exchange.

    So, you live outside the U.S. but you know all about the wonders of our V.A. health system, eh? Gee, I’ll bet Michael Moore told you all about it.

    Our V.A. health care is often a horror show:

    http://pensacola.injuryboard.com/medical-malpractice/va-gives-veteran-bad-care-one-horror-story.aspx?googleid=202956

    Much of the supposed efficiency comes from “stick ’em and send ’em home” treatment. The supposed efficiency of Medicare is based on the administrative cost as a percent of treatment cost. Since Medicare patients are far older and sicker than the population as a whole, they require much more expensive treatments on average. So here’s how that awesome government efficiency is calculated: I go to the doctor for a $200 checkup. It costs the insurance company $50 to process the claim. The administrative cost is 25%. Meanwhile, my grandmother requires a $10,000 surgery. It costs Medicare $100 to process the paperwork. The administrative cost is 1%. Wow, is Medicare ever efficient! Look at that low administrative percentage!

    Medicare does not spend less on administration per event. They spend more. (Seriously, do you think insurance companies — supposedly the most greedy bastards on earth — are walking away from bigger profits by simply refusing to adopt the awesome efficiency of the U.S. government?)

    Reply
  15. Bong Kim

    “Our health care is expensive because our government made it expensive.”

    You already have an efficient health care system run by your government, Veterans Health Administration. Check the cost effectiveness comparisons to other private health cares you buy through “voluntary exchanges”.

    And it is not “voluntary exchanges” when you do not have a choice. You’d better understand why your country has anti-monopoly laws. Without regulations the big money usually becomes monopoly and exploits consumers. Your internet service market is controlled by one or two big companies and that’s why you have to pay much more for much less. It is not “voluntary exchanges”, it is a rip-off.

    “Voluntary exchanges” do not offer you efficient health cares nor cheaper and faster internet services. These are just two counter examples to your theory. If you have to ignore facts, you’d better question your theory first.

    You’re an economic illiterate. Most monopolies in the U.S. occur through crony capitalism: businesses being granted monopolistic power by government. Happens all the time. When I lived in Chicago there was one cable company with no competition — the city council outlawed competition. That means the problem was government, not the free market. Even then, I still had the choice to forgo cable.

    Most other supposed monopolies weren’t. Kodak was called a monopoly. So was IBM. Both ended up getting their asses kicked by competition. Standard Oil, the big supposed monopoly of the 1900s, became a “monopoly” by reducing the cost of fuel by 90% — they did not, as legend has it, sell at a loss to wipe out competition. They found ways to make fuel cheaper and ended up with nearly all of the market because they offered better prices — you know, voluntary exchanges and all that.

    Yes, it’s a voluntary exchange even if you aren’t happy with the price, goofball. Freedom doesn’t mean people have to sell you what you want at the price you think they should. It means you have the power to say no thanks. If you don’t say no thanks, then you decided you’d rather have the product or service than keep your money. So you made a voluntary exchange.

    So, you live outside the U.S. but you know all about the wonders of our V.A. health system, eh? Gee, I’ll bet Michael Moore told you all about it.

    Our V.A. health care is often a horror show:

    http://pensacola.injuryboard.com/medical-malpractice/va-gives-veteran-bad-care-one-horror-story.aspx?googleid=202956

    Much of the supposed efficiency comes from “stick ’em and send ’em home” treatment. The supposed efficiency of Medicare is based on the administrative cost as a percent of treatment cost. Since Medicare patients are far older and sicker than the population as a whole, they require much more expensive treatments on average. So here’s how that awesome government efficiency is calculated: I go to the doctor for a $200 checkup. It costs the insurance company $50 to process the claim. The administrative cost is 25%. Meanwhile, my grandmother requires a $10,000 surgery. It costs Medicare $100 to process the paperwork. The administrative cost is 1%. Wow, is Medicare ever efficient! Look at that low administrative percentage!

    Medicare does not spend less on administration per event. They spend more. (Seriously, do you think insurance companies — supposedly the most greedy bastards on earth — are walking away from bigger profits by simply refusing to adopt the awesome efficiency of the U.S. government?)

    Reply
  16. Paul

    In Ep 6. I find it interesting that they are talking about stress causing obesity. I have to ask that in life there is always stress. Going back thousands of years there has always been stress. To say that stress causes obesity doesn’t sound right. To control stress will not help control obesity.

    Only by personally controlling what we eat and recognizing how much sugar and carb is being presented to us over other options that are actually healthier. Recognizing what is truly healthy and what isn’t.

    Knowledge is way more powerful than any sugar or carb’s company marketing program.
    Educate everyone on truly healthy choices is the only viable solution.

    Cortisol, a stress hormone, does trigger fat accumulation in many people.

    Reply
  17. Paul

    In Ep 6. I find it interesting that they are talking about stress causing obesity. I have to ask that in life there is always stress. Going back thousands of years there has always been stress. To say that stress causes obesity doesn’t sound right. To control stress will not help control obesity.

    Only by personally controlling what we eat and recognizing how much sugar and carb is being presented to us over other options that are actually healthier. Recognizing what is truly healthy and what isn’t.

    Knowledge is way more powerful than any sugar or carb’s company marketing program.
    Educate everyone on truly healthy choices is the only viable solution.

    Cortisol, a stress hormone, does trigger fat accumulation in many people.

    Reply
  18. Bong Kim

    “You’re an economic illiterate. Most monopolies in the U.S. occur through crony capitalism: businesses being granted monopolistic power by government.”

    In the case of internet services, the big companies in the U.S. merged together to control the market. If you keep ignoring facts, you’d better to question your theory. The facts are there, and you just refuse to see them as they are because of your ideology.

    And you offer one horror story to debunk the cost effectiveness of Veterans Health Administration? Hmm… that’s quite a weak position, isn’t it? I know a person who eats lots of carbs and low fats and healthy. So is your human diet theory totally wrong? And you are a diet illiterate, aren’t you? If you have to defend by an anecdote instead of statistical data by a third party, you just have to start to question your theory.

    Say what? I’m not able to choose between Comcast, ATT or satellite for internet service? Comcast merged with ATT? And you know this from afar? Man, you must be omniscient. I would think that kind of merger would show in the newspapers.

    I already explained the supposed “efficiency” of government health care: People who are on Medicare or end up in VA hospitals require far more expensive care on average, so the administrative cost as a percent of the cost of the procedures is automatically lower. The administrative cost per procedure in our government system is higher, not lower. Only an economic illiterate would believe that private insurance companies could lower their administrative costs (thus boosting profits by millions) but just aren’t interested in adopting the awesomely efficient administrative practices of the federal government.

    Reply
  19. Bong Kim

    “You’re an economic illiterate. Most monopolies in the U.S. occur through crony capitalism: businesses being granted monopolistic power by government.”

    In the case of internet services, the big companies in the U.S. merged together to control the market. If you keep ignoring facts, you’d better to question your theory. The facts are there, and you just refuse to see them as they are because of your ideology.

    And you offer one horror story to debunk the cost effectiveness of Veterans Health Administration? Hmm… that’s quite a weak position, isn’t it? I know a person who eats lots of carbs and low fats and healthy. So is your human diet theory totally wrong? And you are a diet illiterate, aren’t you? If you have to defend by an anecdote instead of statistical data by a third party, you just have to start to question your theory.

    Say what? I’m not able to choose between Comcast, ATT or satellite for internet service? Comcast merged with ATT? And you know this from afar? Man, you must be omniscient. I would think that kind of merger would show in the newspapers.

    I already explained the supposed “efficiency” of government health care: People who are on Medicare or end up in VA hospitals require far more expensive care on average, so the administrative cost as a percent of the cost of the procedures is automatically lower. The administrative cost per procedure in our government system is higher, not lower. Only an economic illiterate would believe that private insurance companies could lower their administrative costs (thus boosting profits by millions) but just aren’t interested in adopting the awesomely efficient administrative practices of the federal government.

    Reply
  20. Bong Kim

    Speaking of an economic illiterate, please read the following column which is very easy to understand, and tell me who is illiterate.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/opinion/krugman-vouchers-for-veterans-and-other-bad-ideas.html

    Regarding internet services, it’s very funny that you have to include a satellite service to pretend that you have a competition there. I feel your pain. I have a choice of 100Mbps up/down FTTH from 3 different companies in addition to ADSL(phone line) from 2 companies and a local cable TV company. That’s why it’s much cheaper and faster here.

    Don’t you really know why you don’t have such a healthy competition there? It is because the big companies merged and lobbied in order to control market and because your government has failed to do what it should do. It is not allowed for companies here to have a monopoly right to a phone line or a FTTH line, for example. It is regulations by the government that keep the competition healthy.

    When we had a monopoly in phone service in the U.S., genius, it was enforced by GOVERNMENT. It was illegal to compete with ATT. “Illegal,” in case you don’t understand the word, means prohibited by GOVERNMENT. It was our GOVERNMENT that prevented healthy competition.

    “Big companies merged and lobbied to control the market” … do you understand what “lobbied” means, genius? That means they asked the GOVERNMENT to limit competition. They asked the GOVERNMENT to prevent people from making voluntary exchanges. If you think GOVERNMENT squashing of competition somehow proves an free-market system based on voluntary exchanges doesn’t work, you’re a bigger idiot than I already supposed.

    Ahh, I see … your government created these fabulous internet speeds and made them cheap. And here I thought private enterprise was involved somehow. You know what we should do … we should create a country where government provides all the services. That would have to be a fabulous place to live … all those modern technologies delivered by government, everything affordable for everyone. If only we could give that system a shot in a few countries for, say, 70 years or so to see how it works …

    Comcast offers 105 Mbps service, by the way.

    Seriously, you believe quoting left-wing flack like Paul Krugman proves something? In case you haven’t noticed, he writes an OPINION column. He’s nothing more than a cheerleader for socialism and socialist politicians. So you’re not only an economic illiterate, you apparently can’t spot the difference between facts and opinions.

    This the same Paul Krugman who 1) believes the economic cure for a country already massively in debt is to borrow and spend more money, and 2) recently wrote a column claiming we actually have low inflation in spite of our government massively increasing the money supply — which is news to anyone who actually buys gas and food, not to mention an economic impossibility. In other words, he’s a dolt.

    You’re very much like my leftist pal Paul, whom I’ve been debating on my other blog. He also seems to think if socialist cheerleader-boy Krugman expresses an opinion, it must be the truth. Since this isn’t an economics blog and you’ve no doubt already bored this audience to death, if you’d like to continue putting your ignorance of economics on display in public, do it on my other blog. I’ll happily reply to you there.

    Reply
  21. Bong Kim

    Speaking of an economic illiterate, please read the following column which is very easy to understand, and tell me who is illiterate.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/opinion/krugman-vouchers-for-veterans-and-other-bad-ideas.html

    Regarding internet services, it’s very funny that you have to include a satellite service to pretend that you have a competition there. I feel your pain. I have a choice of 100Mbps up/down FTTH from 3 different companies in addition to ADSL(phone line) from 2 companies and a local cable TV company. That’s why it’s much cheaper and faster here.

    Don’t you really know why you don’t have such a healthy competition there? It is because the big companies merged and lobbied in order to control market and because your government has failed to do what it should do. It is not allowed for companies here to have a monopoly right to a phone line or a FTTH line, for example. It is regulations by the government that keep the competition healthy.

    When we had a monopoly in phone service in the U.S., genius, it was enforced by GOVERNMENT. It was illegal to compete with ATT. “Illegal,” in case you don’t understand the word, means prohibited by GOVERNMENT. It was our GOVERNMENT that prevented healthy competition.

    “Big companies merged and lobbied to control the market” … do you understand what “lobbied” means, genius? That means they asked the GOVERNMENT to limit competition. They asked the GOVERNMENT to prevent people from making voluntary exchanges. If you think GOVERNMENT squashing of competition somehow proves an free-market system based on voluntary exchanges doesn’t work, you’re a bigger idiot than I already supposed.

    Ahh, I see … your government created these fabulous internet speeds and made them cheap. And here I thought private enterprise was involved somehow. You know what we should do … we should create a country where government provides all the services. That would have to be a fabulous place to live … all those modern technologies delivered by government, everything affordable for everyone. If only we could give that system a shot in a few countries for, say, 70 years or so to see how it works …

    Comcast offers 105 Mbps service, by the way.

    Seriously, you believe quoting left-wing flack like Paul Krugman proves something? In case you haven’t noticed, he writes an OPINION column. He’s nothing more than a cheerleader for socialism and socialist politicians. So you’re not only an economic illiterate, you apparently can’t spot the difference between facts and opinions.

    This the same Paul Krugman who 1) believes the economic cure for a country already massively in debt is to borrow and spend more money, and 2) recently wrote a column claiming we actually have low inflation in spite of our government massively increasing the money supply — which is news to anyone who actually buys gas and food, not to mention an economic impossibility. In other words, he’s a dolt.

    You’re very much like my leftist pal Paul, whom I’ve been debating on my other blog. He also seems to think if socialist cheerleader-boy Krugman expresses an opinion, it must be the truth. Since this isn’t an economics blog and you’ve no doubt already bored this audience to death, if you’d like to continue putting your ignorance of economics on display in public, do it on my other blog. I’ll happily reply to you there.

    Reply
  22. Buckeyefn31

    Bong Kim is a complete statist. He/She probably believes that without Government there wouldn’t be any roads or electricity or tv. Heck he/she probably even believes Government is responsible for the Sun and the Air. In dealing with people like Bong Kim I turn to Thomas Paine, “‘To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”

    Amen.

    Reply
  23. Buckeyefn31

    Bong Kim is a complete statist. He/She probably believes that without Government there wouldn’t be any roads or electricity or tv. Heck he/she probably even believes Government is responsible for the Sun and the Air. In dealing with people like Bong Kim I turn to Thomas Paine, “‘To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”

    Amen.

    Reply
  24. Daniel09

    They did technically ban positive advertisements for tobacco, so that probably helped in preventing some tobacco use. It’s fairly clear to me that the abuse of alcohol can at least be somewhat related to the fact that it seems like a third of all commercials are for alcohol.

    Still, government shouldn’t have to actively intervene with peoples’ food. The fact that we even have a FDA which isn’t working for people is proof that government action in health is exactly the opposite of what we need. It’s good for weeding out snake oils, but it obviously doesn’t work when it comes to general nutrition. I mean, if I ate the way I’m supposed to eat, it would cost me an arm and a leg, and I don’t even know how to keep that kind of food in the house without updating it every few days with fresh goods. No way anyone could possibly live like that naturally. The magic of the low-carb lifestyle is that it is a lifestyle that can be lived in the wild, technically, if you live in a decent sized society that can maintain livestock. This is evidenced by tribes in Africa and South America.

    Reply
  25. Dale

    I agree with you about education being the key, but governments tend to do things that bring in money before the consider spending it.

    Or maybe I’m just being overly cynical.

    In Australia our government taxes cigarettes, alcohol, and now a tax on carbon pollution, all designed to make things more expensive so we’ll be less likely to buy or use them. I can see the same thing happening with sugar, provided something is done about it of course.

    Then there is education through the community, though to be honest I’m getting tired of the rolling of eyes and the “not more crap you’ve gotten from the Internet” look.

    Maybe I’ll have a little more luck once all of the excess weight is gone.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.