mheslep said:Turns out that no it doesn't. While guaranteed preventative health care would reduce instances of catastrophic illness, the cost of the X additional preventative treatments is still greater than the cost of the Y fewer treatments of catastrophic illness.
D H said:That is a bit disingenuous. Just because the developed world has pretty much eliminating starvation does not mean that the developed worlds have solved the food problem. One key reason that the poor in developed nations have a much higher tendency to obesity is because a low-quality, fat-inducing diet is much cheaper than is a high quality diet. The poor in the US can eat, but not well. Eating well is a luxury that the poor cannot afford.
DH is correct, it is a well known fact in America that low calorie diets are much more expensive than high calorie diets.FlexGunship said:I'm not sure about every demographic, but in my neighborhood feeding a family on frozen spinach ($1.19), fresh corn ($0.33 per ear), a can of beans ($1.69), and some boneless chicken ($1.99/lb) is STILL cheaper than trying to feed a family from McDonald's.
Blaming obesity on the cost of food seems disingenuous. Perhaps you could argue that it's more difficult to get and and takes longer to prepare but that's really just blaming the obese for their obesity (something you are trying to avoid).
Besides, I don't know of any research that says that weight gain is linked to anything other than excessive calorie intake. There are lots of fancy diets and nutritional plans, but if you eat fewer calories than you use, you will lose weight.
continued...Healthy eating really does cost more.
That’s what University of Washington researchers found when they compared the prices of 370 foods sold at supermarkets in the Seattle area. Calorie for calorie, junk foods not only cost less than fruits and vegetables, but junk food prices also are less likely to rise as a result of inflation. The findings, reported in the current issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, may help explain why the highest rates of obesity are seen among people in lower-income groups.
Evo said:DH is correct, it is a well known fact in America that low calorie diets are much more expensive than high calorie diets.
Calorie for calorie, junk foods not only cost less than fruits and vegetables, but junk food prices also are less likely to rise as a result of inflation.
[...]or “it’s more affordable to feed a family of four at McDonald’s than to cook a healthy meal for them at home.”
This is just plain wrong. In fact it isn’t cheaper to eat highly processed food: a typical order for a family of four — for example, two Big Macs, a cheeseburger, six chicken McNuggets, two medium and two small fries, and two medium and two small sodas — costs, at the McDonald’s a hundred steps from where I write, about $28. (Judicious ordering of “Happy Meals” can reduce that to about $23 — and you get a few apple slices in addition to the fries!)
In general, despite extensive government subsidies, hyperprocessed food remains more expensive than food cooked at home. You can serve a roasted chicken with vegetables along with a simple salad and milk for about $14, and feed four or even six people. If that’s too much money, substitute a meal of rice and canned beans with bacon, green peppers and onions; it’s easily enough for four people and costs about $9.
In the last century in particular, history is littered with demigods falsely arguing that another ethnic group or another class was responsible for their woes in life (Rousseau, Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Milošević, Colonel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9oneste_Bagosora" ).gravenewworld said:...If you think that the income gap in this country isn't a problem, think again. History is littered with revolution after revolution when the poor rise up against a plutocracy and demand a more level playing field. We are on the verge of it happening again.
Who says they're eating at McDonald's? The truly poor are eating the cheapest things they can buy which are the fattier cuts of meat, beans, noodles, rice, no fruits, fish, or vegetables.FlexGunship said:Bolding is mine.
Isn't the whole point to get fewer calories while still maintaining baseline nutirion? It's well known that corn has fewer calories (about 80 per ear) than a Twinkie (about a 160). But no one would suggest that a Twinkie is nutritionally equivalent to two ears of corn!
A low calorie diet is still cheaper as long as you don't try to use low calorie foods in a high calorie diet. I found a blog that disagrees with your blog, Evo: (http://www.thepacifican.com/new/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3316&Itemid=100016).
Furthermore, your evidence is a NYTime blog post, but the NYTimes ITSELF disagrees: (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/is-junk-food-really-cheaper.html).
Evo said:Who says they're eating at McDonald's? The truly poor are eating the cheapest things they can buy which are the fattier cuts of meat, beans, noodles, rice, no fruits, fish, or vegetables.
Foods with high energy density, meaning they pack the most calories per gram, included candy, pastries, baked goods and snacks.
You're right, it is not a fact; it was the conclusion of a several groups (e.g. CBO) looking at the issue during the run up to the passage of the 2010 US health care law, and undisputed so far as I know by any reputable work.FlexGunship said:Well, that's not necessarily a fact. However, either conclusion doesn't seem to be "obviously true."
mheslep said:You're right, it is not a fact; it was the conclusion of a several groups (e.g. CBO) looking at the issue during the run up to the passage of the 2010 US health care law, and undisputed so far as I know by any reputable work.
D H said:That is a bit disingenuous. Just because the developed world has pretty much eliminating starvation does not mean that the developed worlds have solved the food problem. One key reason that the poor in developed nations have a much higher tendency to obesity is because a low-quality, fat-inducing diet is much cheaper than is a high quality diet. The poor in the US can eat, but not well. Eating well is a luxury that the poor cannot afford.
Well, first we have to decide what fundamental change is. In my opinion fundamental change happens all the time in law, politics, economics, technology and through social movements. Another name we might give to such events is "black swan's".russ_watters said:Well thanks, but you didn't really agree with that much of what I said: I was arguing specifically against both the need and wisdom of "fundamental change".
Well, what do you consider dynamiting the system? Did the New-Deal dynamite the system of Laissez-faire capitalism in favor of a system of state/corporate capitalism? If we went back to small government and system that gave large corporations less of an advantage would this be dynamiting the system, gradual change or something in-between?When economic downturns happen, some people will have the knee-jerk reaction that it means the system requires "fundamental change". It doesn't. The economy is cylical and downturns happen. Some are worse than others, and this one is pretty bad. And while it has some specific causes, most do and those particular causes (credit default swaps, unreasonably low interest rates, poorly-conceived lending rules) can be fixed without dynamiting the entire system. People just need to relax a little and focus on the real problems.
Do you expect demand to be driven by the people at the top or the people at the bottom. It is true that the people at the top can create demand but the assets the people at the top hold in a large part derive their wealth based on the products they sell the people at the bottom.Now while I argued that a sufficiently advanced economy can afford to take a little off the top to help those at the bottom, the middle of a downturn is precisely the WORST time for such change, as the economy is less able to withstand a reduction in growth in bad times than in good times. Unfortunately, though, major changes require political capital and political capital is at its greatest during hard times. This is why hard times are dangerous, and we've seen examples throughout history of countries failing because when times got tough they made ill-conceived, fundamental changes.
At the same time, this thread is focused on one particular symptom as evidence that the system needs "fundamental change", when the symptom isn't even relevant to the supposed disease. None of what ails us now as a result of the recession is caused by an uneven wealth distribution.
In fact, the OP's link shows that the wealth of the uber-rich grew substantially in the early to mid-90s, then crashed in 2000 with the stock market, then started back up again a couple of years later. The 90's, being the liberal heyday, this shows clearly that liberals are interpreting the data backwards: The vast growth in upper level incomes in the 90's, due to stock market growth and the internet boom caused spectatularly low unemployment and budget surplusses due to more capital gains income from the upper level earners and less welfare/unemployment payouts to the lower level earners.
That is -- if income inequality is the symptom and not the disease. Liberals fall victim (partially due to politicians pounding it into them) to the idea that wealth is a zero sum game and 'the rich get richer while the poor get poorer', so wealth inequality is a measure of poverty. That's false. Income inequality certainly has risen in the past 20 or 30 years, but poverty? Nope. So the income inequality issue really is either a misunderstanding of what inequality means or is jealousy over how much faster the rich are getting richer than the poor: The rich are too rich, so we must take their wealth. Sorry, but that's no way to run an economy. Certainly no reason to scuttle the system we have.
John Creighto said:The refusal of main stream media and politicians to address these imbalances and contradictions means that the people who do address these issues will gain political power. Currently the only somewhat main stream politician addressing the fact that the poor don't have the money to stimulate the economy and the relationship between wealth inequalities and major economic downturns is Robert Reich. My guess is Reich favors a large public sector and unless people who favor smaller government are willing to address these issues it is likely that we are headed in the direction of large governments.
That "blog' I cited was about "this" peer reviewed published paper.FlexGunship said:I'm not sure that any of those things you mentioned were included in the blog post you linked to. I got a distinctly different impression.
That quote is from the blog you cited. I don't think they included meat, beans, noodles, or rice in the "junk food" category. I'm not sure they were attempting to create "meals" from the sample foods they gathered.
The economics of obesity: dietary energy density and energy cost.
Drewnowski A, Darmon N.
SourceNutritional Sciences Program, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
adamdrew@u.washington.edu
Abstract
Highest rates of obesity and diabetes in the United States are found among the lower-income groups. The observed links between obesity and socioeconomic position may be related to dietary energy density and energy cost. Refined grains, added sugars, and added fats are among the lowest-cost sources of dietary energy. They are inexpensive, good tasting, and convenient. In contrast, the more nutrient-dense lean meats, fish, fresh vegetables, and fruit generally cost more.
WhoWee said:A somewhat Main Stream politician label doesn't quite fit him - does it? Robert Reich said this about the stimulus - and why it shouldn't benefit white construction workers.
Then he was concerned about the TEA Party - because they wanted to end the Fed?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304173704575578200086257706.html
Now one of the goals of the Occupiers is ending the Fed and he supports them?
Total Net Worth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7%
1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.5%
1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.2%
1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1%
1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6%
2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.6%
2004 34.3% 50.3% 15.3%
2007 34.6% 50.5% 15.0%Not my stats, the OP's stats.MarcoD said:Given your stats, I would only want to know what happened afterwards, and can't care about the rest of the argument.
Jimmy Snyder said:Not my stats, the OP's stats.
Jimmy Snyder said:Not my stats, the OP's stats.
Here are my stats:MarcoD said:Ah, I just noticed it when you posted it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth"wiki said:A PBS report by Solman on Aug. 16, 2011 now found that financial gains over the last decade in the United States have been mostly made at the "tippy-top" of the economic food chain as more people fall out of the middle class. The top 20 percent of Americans now holds 84 percent of U.S. wealth
No argument calling for "fundamental change", based on the last two years worth of statistics can be taken seriously. The changes that are largely responsible for the mess we are in today were so small as to go largely unnoticed when they were passed.MarcoD said:Sorry, but no statistics which stops at 2007 can be taken seriously. The financial bust was in 2008, and the effects are still developing.
Given your stats, I would only want to know what happened afterwards, and can't care about the rest of the argument. [ I didn't even notice that you were making a case for the poor. ]
Then perhaps it's just a terminology issue. A "fundamental" principle is a basic, founding principle. By definition, these are rare and big.John Creighto said:Well, first we have to decide what fundamental change is. In my opinion fundamental change happens all the time in law, politics, economics, technology and through social movements. Another name we might give to such events is "black swan's".
The new deal was pretty big, yeah -- and it was 80 years ago. That's not "all the time".Well, what do you consider dynamiting the system? Did the New-Deal dynamite the system of Laissez-faire capitalism in favor of a system of state/corporate capitalism? If we went back to small government and system that gave large corporations less of an advantage would this be dynamiting the system, gradual change or something in-between?
That's not true. We've done a pretty good job preventing another 1929 for the past 80 years.All efforts to try to stabilize a system of market imbalances in the end lead to greater instabilities in the long run. The longer we try to keep the market from self correcting the greater the crash and the greater the likely hood of a knee jerk reaction that will take us in the wrong direction.
Just because it was said 110 years ago, doesn't make it right or precient. Most of the poor in the US own air conditioners, cars, TVs, dish washers, etc. They most certainly can buy the products being produced.If it is okay to inject a little bit of history in this discussion let me state this again:
"What economists call over-production is but a production that is above the purchasing power of the worker, who is reduced to poverty by capital and State. Now, this sort of over-production remains fatally characteristic of the present capitalist production, because workers cannot buy with their salaries what they have produced and at the same time copiously nourish the swarm of idlers who live upon their work.
http://www.panarchy.org/kropotkin/1896.eng.html
This was written in 1898 by Piotr Kropotkin
Yes, that's what I said. It means that rather than cutting an advancing upper class off at the knee, if we let them advance, they'll bail out everyone else.If you read the book, "The Dollar Crisis" it essentially said that the only progress Clinton made on the debt was due to capital gains taxes".
I'll grant that there was cheap money, but underlying the expansion at the time was a very real new industrial revolution. It was real advancement. Yes, it became overvalued in the end, but it did have significant real value.In other word the mild progress that Clinton made on the debt was simply a result of a bubble fueled by cheap money which essentially leads to a growth in debt.
It hasn't: It has increased over a long term (that is: inflation adjusted incomes), measuring peak-to-peak across cycles. I suppose you'll argue that our measure of inflation is flawed and inflation is happening faster, but I think that's wrong too: the fact that the standard of living of the poor is continuing to advance is evience that our measure of inflation and definition of poverty are moving uphill.I'll address this last paragraph in another thread but I don't believe that the buying power of the bottom have of the income distribution has remained constant.
DaleSpam said:So MarcoD, John Creighto, and Lapidus, have all three of you given up on producing a rational argument definding the "justice and fairness" of the forcible redistribution of wealth?
If so, then I would strongly encourage you to avoid such indefensible terminology when discussing it in the future. Talk about practicalities, avoiding impending disasters, etc., but not about justice and fairness. You want redistribution of wealth despite the fact that it is not just nor fair.
arildno said:Clearly, for MarcoD, it is reality and nature that is the biggest sinner.
Because people are born with different capabilities, the "playing field" is never "equal".
Thus, it would be ideal that during pregnancies, each foetus was artificially injected its own hormone concoction in order to counteract evil, differentiating Nature, so that when they are born, they are EXACTLY equal in all respects...
What about accumulated wealth due to different capabilities?MarcoD said:And yet another Morton's Fork? I already stated that redistribution of wealth is about leveling the playing field such that people get equal opportunities.
Here I provide you with one of your easy reasons: Since people are not equal and 'reality' and 'nature' must have its course, we'll disband the police. The strong survive, it has always been that way.
If you can't think, it doesn't make sense to discuss anything.
arildno said:What about accumulated wealth due to different capabilities?
Clearly, these have to be siphoned off as soon as they are made, in order to maintain the level playing field?
