I'm So Pessimistic About The Future

[Drareg]

It's "psychopathology" we should be looking for,any system will function better without them in it.
Rigid views set in since childhood or teens and now projecting it all over their environment,toxic like a disease.
They infiltrate everything and corrupt it,religions,political paradigms,economics etc

How to "diagnose" psychopathology in these times is difficult because the term is everywhere,we even have psychopaths writing books on psychopathology to cover themselves,psychiatry is full of them!

1- How do we prevent it?
2- How do we diagnose it?
3- What to do with them once found out?

These questions are very difficult and probably why we have no solutions, there must be thought hoops and loops they jump through,they are different with each individual,Islamic extremist to Western kid with childhood rejection etc, can we spot the form driving them,the suppressed "feeling" driving the outer expressions,language and surface beliefs are a distraction,the pathology and drives are the same underneath regardless of culture/Meanings ?
Is it serotonin,how much? With estrogen? Excessive methylation combined the latter 2? These chemicals influence an already poorly formed structure from childhood,meanings then are made the loop begins.
Is it similar to autism in some respects?Autism points to serotonin?

Asking questions about their meanings in life is somewhat redundant as they can lie,however trigger questions could work,that with blood tests?

We keep arguing about different systems on this forum,we get nowhere it seems, the system is a meaning yet all of these systems/meanings do nothing to address the development of psychopathology imo therefore they won't work.

 

[tankasnowgod]

If everything was left to the "free market" then the estrogen industry and seed oil industry would outcompete other "industries" due to public relations, marketing and advertising (which they do presently, but with the help of government agencies). The idea that the "free market" would adjust to what is morally and scientifically right is extremely naive.

Okay, how do you know this? Can you give me an example of a free market where the estrogen and seed oil industries "outcompete" their competitors with no government interference?

The US is not a good example for your case. Since the 1970's, the USDA has been demonizing saturated fat and cholesterol, while praising polyunsaturated seed oils (although they have slowly and quietly been dropping these guidelines).

On top of that, the government subsidizes many crops, but Corn, Soy and Wheat are the top three. I attached a chart that lists the amount of subsidies that the US Government gave to certain crops. It's from 2004, but look at how Soy was budgeted to explode in funding over the 2 years. Next, check out the chart that lists Seed Oil Consumption. Soybean Oil more than doubles the other 7 oils that are listed on the chart. Remember, most of that corn is used as livestock feed, and there isn't any "Wheat Oil" on the market.

So, the government praises the health benefits of polyunsaturated fats, and then makes the price of soybean oil artificially cheap by subsidizing it so heavily. And you think this is simply a result of marketing and advertising?

 

[Tarmander]

Okay, how do you know this? Can you give me an example of a free market where the estrogen and seed oil industries "outcompete" their competitors with no government interference?

The US is not a good example for your case. Since the 1970's, the USDA has been demonizing saturated fat and cholesterol, while praising polyunsaturated seed oils (although they have slowly and quietly been dropping these guidelines).

On top of that, the government subsidizes many crops, but Corn, Soy and Wheat are the top three. I attached a chart that lists the amount of subsidies that the US Government gave to certain crops. It's from 2004, but look at how Soy was budgeted to explode in funding over the 2 years. Next, check out the chart that lists Seed Oil Consumption. Soybean Oil more than doubles the other 7 oils that are listed on the chart. Remember, most of that corn is used as livestock feed, and there isn't any "Wheat Oil" on the market.

So, the government praises the health benefits of polyunsaturated fats, and then makes the price of soybean oil artificially cheap by subsidizing it so heavily. And you think this is simply a result of marketing and advertising?

+1

 

[jaguar43]

Okay, how do you know this? Can you give me an example of a free market where the estrogen and seed oil industries "outcompete" their competitors with no government interference?


The US is not a good example for your case. Since the 1970's, the USDA has been demonizing saturated fat and cholesterol, while praising polyunsaturated seed oils (although they have slowly and quietly been dropping these guidelines).

On top of that, the government subsidizes many crops, but Corn, Soy and Wheat are the top three. I attached a chart that lists the amount of subsidies that the US Government gave to certain crops. It's from 2004, but look at how Soy was budgeted to explode in funding over the 2 years. Next, check out the chart that lists Seed Oil Consumption. Soybean Oil more than doubles the other 7 oils that are listed on the chart. Remember, most of that corn is used as livestock feed, and there isn't any "Wheat Oil" on the market.

So, the government praises the health benefits of polyunsaturated fats, and then makes the price of soybean oil artificially cheap by subsidizing it so heavily. And you think this is simply a result of marketing and advertising?

The government agencies, regulations and subsidizes that you describe are capture by huge corporations and businesses. This is called regulatory capture in the legal and political world. If there were no businesses and corporations trying to make a profit then there wouldn't be any government subsidizes to begin with. Removing the government agencies or regulations wouldn't stop the estrogen and seed oil industry from selling their products, now would it ?But It wouldn't make it more difficult to sell and to promote their products.

 

[tankasnowgod]

The government agencies, regulations and subsidizes that you describe are capture by huge corporations and businesses. This is called regulatory capture in the legal and political world. If there were no businesses and corporations trying to make a profit then there wouldn't be any government subsidizes to begin with. Removing the government agencies or regulations wouldn't stop the estrogen and seed oil industry from selling their products, now would it ?But It wouldn't make it more difficult to sell and to promote their products.

Oh, yes it would! You don't even understand basic high school economics. Let's say it costs $95 to grow a unit of soybeans. You can then sell that unit on the market for $100, and make a $5 profit. Now let's say the government offers you a $10 subsidy on every unit of soybeans you sell. Guess what? If you lower your price to $92 per unit, you are now below your original cost, and making a $7 per unit profit. Lower costs and a higher profit? Gee, that sure as hell sounds less difficult to me!

You are right in saying that taking away the agencies wouldn't stop the estogen and seed oil industries from selling their product. Great! Let them compete with other producers. Right now, they have an unfair advantage. I am all about consumer choice. I just don't wanna be forced (as a taxpayer) to subsidize soybeans. But, that's the current state of things.

I'm still waiting for your free market example of where seed oils and estrogen would outcompete other options. I've had enough thought experiments. I gave you a real world example, now you need to counter with one.

By the way, since I'm arguing against government regulatory agencies, that would solve your "regulatory capture" problem, too. What would your solution be to this admitted problem?

 

[xiaohua]

It's "psychopathology" we should be looking for,any system will function better without them in it.
Rigid views set in since childhood or teens and now projecting it all over their environment,toxic like a disease.
They infiltrate everything and corrupt it,religions,political paradigms,economics etc

Yes! The low-IQ psychopaths are more likely to be in jail.... while the intelligent ones rise to the top of business, politics, 'philanthropic' organisations, etc because their ruthlessness and lust for power are a clear advantage. More people should be aware of the nature and modus operandi of psychopaths.

 

[jaguar43]

Oh, yes it would! You don't even understand basic high school economics. Let's say it costs $95 to grow a unit of soybeans. You can then sell that unit on the market for $100, and make a $5 profit. Now let's say the government offers you a $10 subsidy on every unit of soybeans you sell. Guess what? If you lower your price to $92 per unit, you are now below your original cost, and making a $7 per unit profit. Lower costs and a higher profit? Gee, that sure as hell sounds less difficult to me!

Oppose to what, just letting them do whatever they like. I don't agree with the subsidizes for soybeans or corporate welfare. But that would not change the nature of these industries. And it would not fix the root cause. Here is Ray Peat on the nature of regulation.

Although the so-called regulatory agencies have served the giant drug corporations well, by suppressing their competition and approving the most profitable drugs, in exchange for lucrative drug industry jobs offered to the officials* who do their jobs satisfactorily, the current trend in the US is to remove all constraints from the powerful corporations. Vice President Quail, with major family interests in the drug business, was put in charge of a commission to make it even easier for businesses to avoid the regulations, and similar favors are being done for the timber industry, the mass media, the banks, and the insurance industry. - Ray Peat

Ray Peat

Again, the issue isn't subsidizes for soybean, but rather, industries looking to expand their products regardless of route. The capitalistic system as a whole.

You are right in saying that taking away the agencies wouldn't stop the estogen and seed oil industries from selling their product. Great! Let them compete with other producers. Right now, they have an unfair advantage. I am all about consumer choice. I just don't wanna be forced (as a taxpayer) to subsidize soybeans. But, that's the current state of things.

Government legislation that benefits large corporations is only one part of the problem. Millions of dollars are used in advertising, marketing, and public relations campaigns to sell products and services. But for the free market advocates, this isn't necessarily a problem. Even if it leads to mass murder.

Advertising gets a bad name when it can't be distinguished from mass murder. At a certain point, we can't afford to waste our time making subtle distinctions between ignorance and malevolence. If we begin pointing out the lethal consequences of "stupid" or quasi-stupid commer- cial/governmental policies, the offenders will have the burden of proving that their actions are the result of irresponsible ignorance, rather than criminal duplicity. From the tobacco senators to the chemical/pharmaceutical/food/energy industries and their agents in the governmental agencies, those who do great harm must be held responsible. - Ray Peat

Estriol, DES, DDT.

As for the whole consumer choice argument. I suspect it's promotion was also used in a public relations campaign to remove any responsibility from wealthy corporations. How do consumers "choose" correctly when the availability of information is so low and narrow? Or in most cases, mislead to the point of mass manipulation? Ray Peat discussed how the pharmaceutical corporations changed the definition and meaning of estrogen in order to sell their estrogen products. By using generic and codified language they were able to change the whole direction of endocrinology in the U.S. It seems as though "consumer choice" is often another simplified idea with no relation to the realities faced in the U.S

I'm still waiting for your free market example of where seed oils and estrogen would outcompete other options. I've had enough thought experiments. I gave you a real world example, now you need to counter with one.

Your example of subsidizes for soybeans was in it self an example of free markets. When corporations are allowed to run wild( or to exist in a profit run system), they will go so far as to capture government agencies or politicians to sell their products. This is why capitalism doesn't work, with or without government. It's has to many contradictions. From selling horrible products to destroying thousands of peoples lives.

By the way, since I'm arguing against government regulatory agencies, that would solve your "regulatory capture" problem, too. What would your solution be to this admitted problem?

Probably some form of socialism.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Your example of subsidizes for soybeans was in it self an example of free markets.

Dead Wrong. The definition of free market is "an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses." Since we can even agree on the definition of words, I think this debate has to end here. Oh, and you still haven't provided a real world example.

 

[jaguar43]

Dead Wrong. The definition of free market is "an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses." Since we can even agree on the definition of words, I think this debate has to end here. Oh, and you still haven't provided a real world example.

That definition of the free market has no relation to reality. Just like the standard textbook definition of estrogen is so utterly wrong, so is your definition of The "free market" utterly wrong. The fact is that corporate welfare, subsidizes, regulatory capture are important parts of the free market. Corporations want to expand regardless of route. The capitalist needs government to create corporations, property law and finally legislation to expand and monopolize the markets. It's an interlocking system in which each part of it's development depends on each other. Here is a quote by Peat himself.

From the beginning of the U.S., there was some recognition that government should be concerned about the dangers of powerful corporations, but the existence of a corporation is an act of government, and regulation of business is always done with the best interests of business in mind. Historically, when a regulatory agency is formed, the regulated industry manages to control it.- Ray Peat

On culture, government, and social class

I do like how you could only find one thing that you were willing to argue against. I guess that means you have no disagreement with the rest of the post.

 

[DaveFoster]

Corporations ≠ businesses.

 

[AretnaP]

That definition of the free market has no relation to reality. Just like the standard textbook definition of estrogen is so utterly wrong, so is your definition of The "free market" utterly wrong. The fact is that corporate welfare, subsidizes, regulatory capture are important parts of the free market. Corporations want to expand regardless of route. The capitalist needs government to create corporations, property law and finally legislation to expand and monopolize the markets. It's an interlocking system in which each part of it's development depends on each other. Here is a quote by Peat himself.

From the beginning of the U.S., there was some recognition that government should be concerned about the dangers of powerful corporations, but the existence of a corporation is an act of government, and regulation of business is always done with the best interests of business in mind. Historically, when a regulatory agency is formed, the regulated industry manages to control it.- Ray Peat

On culture, government, and social class

I do like how you could only find one thing that you were willing to argue against. I guess that means you have no disagreement with the rest of the post.

The fact is that corporate welfare, subsidizes, regulatory capture are important parts of the free market. Corporations want to expand regardless of route. The capitalist needs government to create corporations, property law and finally legislation to expand and monopolize the markets. It's an interlocking system in which each part of it's development depends on each other.

This is legit. When there's capitalism there almost certainly WILL be a big government behind it. Corporations WANT the government to aid them, and use it whenever they can.

If you get a bunch of powerful people together who care about nothing except for money you shouldn't be surprised when things go bad. Unfortunately all attempts at economic systems besides capitalism have been even worse.

If there was a good way to rid the world of it we would be insane NOT to go with that plan, but it seems the world is stuck with the best of three bad options (capitalism, state capitalism (fascism), anarchy (true communism)).

 

[Drareg]

Yes! The low-IQ psychopaths are more likely to be in jail.... while the intelligent ones rise to the top of business, politics, 'philanthropic' organisations, etc because their ruthlessness and lust for power are a clear advantage. More people should be aware of the nature and modus operandi of psychopaths.

It's more the environment and circumstances so to speak that puts them in the jail,the socio economic status for example,an awful parent is just that,however an awful parent drinking all day with millions is better than an awful parent on food stamps and drinking all day.
Actually IQ tests are probably good for detecting psychopaths,the only thing they may be good for,the tests are rigid just like the psychopath.

 

[xiaohua]

True @Drareg. What do you mean by IQ tests being good for detecting psychopaths?

 

[chrismeyers]

This is like the oldest most moronic big government rationale in the world. Ohh if you dont regulate something, you cant influence its use. BULL SH-T. And in fact I will sit here and say not only may that be true but its a good thing. Free unrestrained capitalism is the ultimate way for average people to get anything they want. And I mean anything. If there is no market now for low PUFA products and thats what more and more people want, what happens? Product mixes start shifting to reflect demand. In the 10 years since I have been 100% organic, the availability and mass scale of organic products is absolutely stunning. Your entire theory is bunk. You dont get a central planner to plan what YOU think everybody wants. Because not everybody wants what you want. But if enough people want something, some guy will sell it to you. And if you have numbers itll become an industry

 

[energyandstruct]

I'm starting to lean towards market anarchism, a more left-wing take on deregulation than anarcho-capitalism, because of my experiences with illness. Having standards of competency for doctors and scientists is good but often the FDA regulates in a way that hurts patients. with chronic fatigue syndrome , low funding is the biggest obstacle, because the State requires so many hoops to be jumped through, and a lot of money, in order to fund drug trials. I feel like patients should be able to get any drugs even if they are in experimental phase, and have more experimental practitioners supervise their use. Market anarchism differs from anarcho-capitalism I think primarily around beliefs around property, monopolies, and the commons, e.g. that there should be some goods, such as natural resources, that are seen as owned by everyone. A lot of market anarchists believe capital can break free of capitalism--that is, that the money form and markets can revolutionize production in such a way that it breaks free of the specific social arrangement between producers, classes, and laborers known as capitalism.

 

[TreasureVibe]

You could say that the pharmaceutical industry is the one who would profit the largest with socialized healthcare. All what really needs to happen is that the pharmaceutical industry should be dismantled and scrutinized by the government by righteous people, then all is well.

 

[energyandstruct]

The discussion needs to go deeper than socialism vs free market. Neither communism or a free market have ever existed. There's a difference between a free market and capitalism. capitalism is the relationship between owners and laborers, a perhaps antiquated relationship. markets can free themselves from capitalism. We need to ask if corporations are a form of state to some extent--they act as sovereign, they have some of the infrastructure of state apparatuses, etc... look at facebook, and all these neoreactionary silicon valley types

 

[GAF]

Crop losses. Lack of food. Volcanic ash. Freezing cold. Mass migration. Getting your protein from eating insects. Hello.

 

[johnwester130]

how many people could even function when the majority of a population
are towards the autistic/alzheimers/cancer/obesity state of existing ??

 

[energyandstruct]

autistic people are great at certain things... just look at zuckerberg