Low Toxin Diet Grant Genereux's Theory Of Vitamin A Toxicity

[gaze]

The things you mentioned are the result of the gov't being involved. In a free market society you wouldn't have huge CAFOs and big Ag that are subsidized. Also it is the gov't that allows for big corporations that poison the environment. I am new to voluntaryist/anarcho-capitalism, but they have an answer to all the problems you brought up. Communism almost always causes food shortage. I'd rather have cafo milk than nothing on the shelf.

and in a free market society a company will put saw dust in the flour and chemicals in the milk to make it whiter without having to tell anyone. And any competition that sells better quality food will just be bought out by the bigger company. There certainly have been horrible regimes that call themselves communists, but a lot of food shortages in the 20th century are a result of US sanctions and trade wars which block countries from getting gattinf resources, also by controlling global prices. just like what’s happening in venezuela

 

[InChristAlone]

and in a free market society a company will put saw dust in the flour and chemicals in the milk to make it whiter without having to tell anyone. And any competition that sells better quality food will just be bought out by the bigger company. There certainly have been horrible regimes that call themselves communists, but a lot of food shortages in the 20th century are a result of US sanctions and trade wars which block countries from getting gattinf resources, also by controlling global prices. just like what’s happening in venezuela

That doesnt mean there would be lawlessness!!

Actually North Korea is given a lot of aid so their people don't starve. They don't have the technology to produce enough food themselves. Now that capitalism is coming to North Korea people are not going hungry as much and have access to more technology.

 

[gaze]

That doesnt mean there would be lawlessness!!

Actually North Korea is given a lot of aid so their people don't starve. They don't have the technology to produce enough food themselves. Now that capitalism is coming to North Korea people are not going hungry as much and have access to more technology.

so you want a free market but with government regulation to ensure they cant put chemicals in the food? isn't that theoretically what americas supposed to have right now? it clearly is not working very well, the FDA and usda will never be independent of corporate interests, because a free market system leads to the wealth being accumulated by the higher ups, and the higher ups and their wealth is what gets people elected and put into positions of power in the government. The overall point I'm trying to make, is that in a capitalistic system, making money is the first priority, and things like health come second. cheaper production costs, paying workers as little as possible, using subpar ingredients if theyre cheaper, these will always be there because anything that can increase a profit is fair game, although sometimes they push it a little too far and the usda and fda and EPA "regulte" it, yet the vast majority of chemicals and toxins remain approved because there isn't conclusive "science" to ban it otherwise. Either way though, this definitely isn't the thread for it, but I'm open to DMs if you want to talk about it more.

 

[InChristAlone]

so you want a free market but with government regulation to ensure they cant put chemicals in the food? isn't that theoretically what americas supposed to have right now? it clearly is not working very well, the FDA and usda will never be independent of corporate interests, because a free market system leads to the wealth being accumulated by the higher ups, and the higher ups and their wealth is what gets people elected and put into positions of power in the government. The overall point I'm trying to make, is that in a capitalistic system, making money is the first priority, and things like health come second. cheaper production costs, paying workers as little as possible, using subpar ingredients if theyre cheaper, these will always be there because anything that can increase a profit is fair game, although sometimes they push it a little too far and the usda and fda and EPA "regulte" it, yet the vast majority of chemicals and toxins remain approved because there isn't conclusive "science" to ban it otherwise. Either way though, this definitely isn't the thread for it, but I'm open to DMs if you want to talk about it more.

The entire problem I have of this kind of ideal is that you can't vote it in. That's just asking for dictatorship. In a free country you have the ability to produce your own food if you so choose, or find your own family farm to get good food from. Or join a food buying club. The list goes on forever all the ways you can have a high quality life. Good luck doing that by using voting. You will forever be chasing some kind of future utopia that will never come. Liberty is everything. Without liberty you cannot have utopia.

 

[gaze]

The entire problem I have of this kind of ideal is that you can't vote it in. That's just asking for dictatorship. In a free country you have the ability to produce your own food if you so choose, or find your own family farm to get good food from. Or join a food buying club. The list goes on forever all the ways you can have a high quality life. Good luck doing that by using voting. You will forever be chasing some kind of future utopia that will never come. Liberty is everything. Without liberty you cannot have utopia.

Yea I agree liberty and human freedom is one of the most important virtues. but America is a corporate type of authortiarianism, with a culture thats filled with competition, poor food, dumbed down entertainment. I don't view it as a free country in the slightest. I get you think anarcho capitalism is a solution, but I think a free market always degrades into crony capitalism eventually, its just the natural progression of a free market. If I was born a couple decades before I was, I would have been drafted to the vietnam war and would have to have agent orange sprayed all over me while the government says its safe, only to come back and die of cancer while my kids get deformites. Thats hardly freedom. That said, most countries in the world have followed this trend. Ray argues using Grover Furr's account of soviet Russia, and under this account, people in the USSR had actually much more freedom, espeically in the scientific arena, and the big bad dictator narrative is western propaganda. I've read Grover Furrs works and Im not sure how convinced I am, but nevertheless I can see why Ray speaks fondly of it, especially cause he himself visited the USSR. Its also interesting to note, the majoriy of Russians todays have a favorable view of stalin and many want to go back to the system, so its not all bad like weve been told:

More than half of Russians want the Soviet Union back

 

[InChristAlone]

Yea I agree liberty and human freedom is one of the most important virtues. but America is a corporate type of authortiarianism, with a culture thats filled with competition, poor food, dumbed down entertainment. I don't view it as a free country in the slightest. I get you think anarcho capitalism is a solution, but I think a free market always degrades into crony capitalism eventually, its just the natural progression of a free market. If I was born a couple decades before I was, I would have been drafted to the vietnam war and would have to have agent orange sprayed all over me while the government says its safe, only to come back and die of cancer while my kids get deformites. Thats hardly freedom. That said, most countries in the world have followed this trend. Ray argues using Grover Furr's account of soviet Russia, and under this account, people in the USSR had actually much more freedom, espeically in the scientific arena, and the big bad dictator narrative is western propaganda. I've read Grover Furrs works and Im not sure how convinced I am, but nevertheless I can see why Ray speaks fondly of it, especially cause he himself visited the USSR. Its also interesting to note, the majoriy of Russians todays have a favorable view of stalin and many want to go back to the system, so its not all bad like weve been told:

More than half of Russians want the Soviet Union back

I can't help but think of North Korea. Many have had the chance to visit and they are only shown what they want you to see there. Everything is controlled. They have a big beautiful airport... But no customers. Skyscraper buildings but no occupancy. Even families will serve a bunch of food despite being poor and having little because it is very important to be seen as great. And they will call themselves the People's Republic. They are brainwashed from birth to believe their leader wants what's best for them. They love their master. It's stockholm syndrome. The reality is they are poor, some go hungry, they have very little opportunity in life. Life may have been good 'for a time' in these countries. But any food crisis usually means starvation and calling upon capitalist countries for help.

 

[gaze]

I can't help but think of North Korea. Many have had the chance to visit and they are only shown what they want you to see there. Everything is controlled. They have a big beautiful airport... But no customers. Skyscraper buildings but no occupancy. Even families will serve a bunch of food despite being poor and having little because it is very important to be seen as great. And they will call themselves the People's Republic. They are brainwashed from birth to believe their leader wants what's best for them. They love their master. It's stockholm syndrome. The reality is they are poor, some go hungry, they have very little opportunity in life. Life may have been good 'for a time' in these countries. But any food crisis usually means starvation and calling upon capitalist countries for help.

I personally wouldn't consider NK anywhere close to the USSR in terms of politics, but I get what your trying to point out

 

[BRMarshall]

The things you mentioned are the result of the gov't being involved. In a free market society you wouldn't have huge CAFOs and big Ag that are subsidized. Also it is the gov't that allows for big corporations that poison the environment. I am new to voluntaryist/anarcho-capitalism, but they have an answer to all the problems you brought up. Communism almost always causes food shortage. I'd rather have cafo milk than nothing on the shelf.

Hello I am interjecting with the quote above, as subject entree, to contribute some perspective of some of the political /economic perceptions being tossed around in this thread concerning the status of vitamin A which has become somewhat ubiquitous to the point of divorcing people from non modified sources of dairy, etc, which is thus a
reflection upon economy.

The last time a 'free market' actually worked for all concerned in the american economy was in what was known as the 'Golden Age of Agriculture" 1910-14, where farmers were the markets were paying farmers at a rate that gave them purchasing power commensurate with manufacturing and service sectors. This relationship was destroyed in various ways, including World War I, the institution of the Federal Reserve, and most directly importation of food forcing a drop in prices for agricultural raw materials.

The USA is not a free market chaos, but a Republican system of national government instituted to promote the general welfare, to which certain standards, such as the value of our currency is set by government. Now there never was any control over agriculture until May 1933 with the institution of the Agricultural Adjustment Act which under AAA. Sec 2, codified as 7 USC Sec 602, Agriculture was to be paid a "Parity" price for its production.

Contrary to many assumptions about FDR, the Roosevelt Administration sought to achieve Parity through the notion of supply and demand, where the government confiscated production for destruction in an effort to raise prices, thus conforming to an economic fiction known as supply and demand. The measures of the AAA took the marketing rights from farmers in exchange for this power to control supply and demand in order to raise prices. This was challenged in the Supreme Court in US v. Butler that struck down the government's position regarding agriculture, which was to impose production limits on farmers to raise prices, as unconstitutional, and affirmed that under the taking clause of the 5th Amendment, that in exchange for taking farmers marketing rights, parity was a required exchange....

Always the pressure of World War II and its commencement brough reality to the situation and in 1942 commodity markets were forced to purchase at a 90-110% window relative to Parity which was calculated upon that time when the 'Free Market' worked for all concerned 1910-14.

It was upon this foundation afforded by markets being forced to trade at Parity that the Arsenal of Democracy was able to work for the war effort without forcing farming at the point of a gun.

So this is what is important is that economics, capitalist economics is based upon capital formation, to which one can either earn or borrow. That choice is determined upon whether or not one is going to pay the farmers their due or steal one's daily bread.

As the record of WWII and its aftermath proves is that Parity worked, as it allowed for democratized capital formation upon earned income. A fair profit for production allowed the economy to work in the most democratic manner, creating the best opportunity for natural wealth distribution to happen.

You see in the 1930's a group called the Raw Materials National Council was created to answer the question as to why we were in a depression when the nation could produce as much real wealth as it ever had. It was determined by examination of the economic record that demonstrated that for every dollar created by agricultural production, that that dollar would grow by a factor of seven (7) when one looked at national income.

Underpay farmers and then the economy looses money as the multiplication factor of that earned income at its productive source is crippled by lack of money generated at the initial point of production.

Think of this like mitochondria which produce energy in our body. Farms are the mitochondria and when they are not fed they die.

So the post war boom in the forties and fifties was based upon the fact that parity for agriculture created earned income that was spent into local economies from the farm and then out to towns, cities and nation....all benefited until:

Until the 'interests whose interest is interest' convinced Congress to drop Parity in 1952 such that Americans might buy cars on credit.

You see, when an economy does not have an engine for earned income capital formation it must borrow money to keep the economy afloat. Thus the nation, privately and publicly is forced to borrow money at interest, because we decided to go on a 'cheap food policy' which was one of the globalists designs sold under (free market
propaganda, that utilized socialist practice, subsidies etc, to keep the game going, where part of the game was to gain one's neighbors farm through taking advantage of capitalist destruction tendencies)

Thus we had the destruction of the family farm to steal land so houses could be built on credit to enslave everyone into contractual indentured bliss fueled by cheap crap food, with attendant wars and more wars to defend a global dollar, based upon capital destruction, for the destruction of farming world wide is the result of this mess
and the fact that the market are now dictatorial as regard the crap food allowed monopoly positions in the market, i.e., no raw milk is available at the supermarket.

Read Charles Walters classic book called

UNFORGIVEN: American Economic System SOLD for Debt and War

This page on National Organization for Raw Materials has some very important essays on these issues.

NORM Economics NEW items from individuals / members

in particular this short one page graph and text

http://www.normeconomics.org/parity_table_45-16eb.pdf

 

[Tarmander]

This is exactly why I adore you and your radio show. Balanced

understandable. I would recommend you watch the movie “dark waters”, came out last year about how DuPont poisoned the world pretty much for 50 years, and still going on. Not sure how anyone can ever defend unregulated capitalism after watching that.

One reason I don't like to get into discussions like this is because it is very hard to communicate why capitalism can work to someone who has not either worked in the govt or tried to start a business. I am not sure if you have done either but, would you be willing to say that future experiences may change your view of how the world and people, work?

Regulatory capture is a thing too. Most of the things that Peat is against in the medical establishment are all regulatory good intentions taken to their logical conclusion.

 

[InChristAlone]

Hello I am interjecting with the quote above, as subject entree, to contribute some perspective of some of the political /economic perceptions being tossed around in this thread concerning the status of vitamin A which has become somewhat ubiquitous to the point of divorcing people from non modified sources of dairy, etc, which is thus a
reflection upon economy.

The last time a 'free market' actually worked for all concerned in the american economy was in what was known as the 'Golden Age of Agriculture" 1910-14, where farmers were the markets were paying farmers at a rate that gave them purchasing power commensurate with manufacturing and service sectors. This relationship was destroyed in various ways, including World War I, the institution of the Federal Reserve, and most directly importation of food forcing a drop in prices for agricultural raw materials.

The USA is not a free market chaos, but a Republican system of national government instituted to promote the general welfare, to which certain standards, such as the value of our currency is set by government. Now there never was any control over agriculture until May 1933 with the institution of the Agricultural Adjustment Act which under AAA. Sec 2, codified as 7 USC Sec 602, Agriculture was to be paid a "Parity" price for its production.

Contrary to many assumptions about FDR, the Roosevelt Administration sought to achieve Parity through the notion of supply and demand, where the government confiscated production for destruction in an effort to raise prices, thus conforming to an economic fiction known as supply and demand. The measures of the AAA took the marketing rights from farmers in exchange for this power to control supply and demand in order to raise prices. This was challenged in the Supreme Court in US v. Butler that struck down the government's position regarding agriculture, which was to impose production limits on farmers to raise prices, as unconstitutional, and affirmed that under the taking clause of the 5th Amendment, that in exchange for taking farmers marketing rights, parity was a required exchange....

Always the pressure of World War II and its commencement brough reality to the situation and in 1942 commodity markets were forced to purchase at a 90-110% window relative to Parity which was calculated upon that time when the 'Free Market' worked for all concerned 1910-14.

It was upon this foundation afforded by markets being forced to trade at Parity that the Arsenal of Democracy was able to work for the war effort without forcing farming at the point of a gun.

So this is what is important is that economics, capitalist economics is based upon capital formation, to which one can either earn or borrow. That choice is determined upon whether or not one is going to pay the farmers their due or steal one's daily bread.

As the record of WWII and its aftermath proves is that Parity worked, as it allowed for democratized capital formation upon earned income. A fair profit for production allowed the economy to work in the most democratic manner, creating the best opportunity for natural wealth distribution to happen.

You see in the 1930's a group called the Raw Materials National Council was created to answer the question as to why we were in a depression when the nation could produce as much real wealth as it ever had. It was determined by examination of the economic record that demonstrated that for every dollar created by agricultural production, that that dollar would grow by a factor of seven (7) when one looked at national income.

Underpay farmers and then the economy looses money as the multiplication factor of that earned income at its productive source is crippled by lack of money generated at the initial point of production.

Think of this like mitochondria which produce energy in our body. Farms are the mitochondria and when they are not fed they die.

So the post war boom in the forties and fifties was based upon the fact that parity for agriculture created earned income that was spent into local economies from the farm and then out to towns, cities and nation....all benefited until:

Until the 'interests whose interest is interest' convinced Congress to drop Parity in 1952 such that Americans might buy cars on credit.

You see, when an economy does not have an engine for earned income capital formation it must borrow money to keep the economy afloat. Thus the nation, privately and publicly is forced to borrow money at interest, because we decided to go on a 'cheap food policy' which was one of the globalists designs sold under (free market
propaganda, that utilized socialist practice, subsidies etc, to keep the game going, where part of the game was to gain one's neighbors farm through taking advantage of capitalist destruction tendencies)

Thus we had the destruction of the family farm to steal land so houses could be built on credit to enslave everyone into contractual indentured bliss fueled by cheap crap food, with attendant wars and more wars to defend a global dollar, based upon capital destruction, for the destruction of farming world wide is the result of this mess
and the fact that the market are now dictatorial as regard the crap food allowed monopoly positions in the market, i.e., no raw milk is available at the supermarket.

Read Charles Walters classic book called

UNFORGIVEN: American Economic System SOLD for Debt and War

This page on National Organization for Raw Materials has some very important essays on these issues.

NORM Economics NEW items from individuals / members

in particular this short one page graph and text

http://www.normeconomics.org/parity_table_45-16eb.pdf

Thanks for the info, yeah it was the gov't that changed so much about our country for the negative. But there are many people still paying higher prices for non subsidized farms.

 

[InChristAlone]

One reason I don't like to get into discussions like this is because it is very hard to communicate why capitalism can work to someone who has not either worked in the govt or tried to start a business. I am not sure if you have done either but, would you be willing to say that future experiences may change your view of how the world and people, work?

Regulatory capture is a thing too. Most of the things that Peat is against in the medical establishment are all regulatory good intentions taken to their logical conclusion.

Exactly, medicine is regulated to oblivion.

 

[Braveheart]

Would you consider Americans to be free? Try publishing a scientific article opposing vaccines, you’d be fired and blacklisted from all of academia for the rest of your life. Look at the food, the milk, everything is corporate owned subsidized by the government. Governmental control in America is extremely strong, but the decisions that the government makes is to incentivize profit with the bare minimum consideration of human health, cause the higher ups in government and business are one and the same. At this point right now, it is physically impossible to find any food in a supermarket that isn’t altered in a negative way. Americans are free to choose, but the choices they have are garbage.



understandable. I would recommend you watch the movie “dark waters”, came out last year about how DuPont poisoned the world pretty much for 50 years, and still going on. Not sure how anyone can ever defend unregulated capitalism after watching that.

 

[Sulcuscentralis]

The things you mentioned are the result of the gov't being involved. In a free market society you wouldn't have huge CAFOs and big Ag that are subsidized. Also it is the gov't that allows for big corporations that poison the environment. I am new to voluntaryist/anarcho-capitalism, but they have an answer to all the problems you brought up. Communism almost always causes food shortage. I'd rather have cafo milk than nothing on the shelf.

Agree 100%! Socialism In practice usually means lot of government. It’s like veganism - good on paper, but it never works for most people, and when they fail proponents of it will tell you it wasn’t “real” veganism.

 

[Sulcuscentralis]

Yea I agree liberty and human freedom is one of the most important virtues. but America is a corporate type of authortiarianism, with a culture thats filled with competition, poor food, dumbed down entertainment. I don't view it as a free country in the slightest. I get you think anarcho capitalism is a solution, but I think a free market always degrades into crony capitalism eventually, its just the natural progression of a free market. If I was born a couple decades before I was, I would have been drafted to the vietnam war and would have to have agent orange sprayed all over me while the government says its safe, only to come back and die of cancer while my kids get deformites. Thats hardly freedom. That said, most countries in the world have followed this trend. Ray argues using Grover Furr's account of soviet Russia, and under this account, people in the USSR had actually much more freedom, espeically in the scientific arena, and the big bad dictator narrative is western propaganda. I've read Grover Furrs works and Im not sure how convinced I am, but nevertheless I can see why Ray speaks fondly of it, especially cause he himself visited the USSR. Its also interesting to note, the majoriy of Russians todays have a favorable view of stalin and many want to go back to the system, so its not all bad like weve been told:

More than half of Russians want the Soviet Union back

Most, if not all foreigners who visited USSR can’t possibly give you an accurate account of what was actually happening there since the KGB was following you 24/7 and they were greatly inflating everything by showing them only the best parts of it. There were shortages of virtually everything for the common man. Also gulags. Solzhenycin wrote extensively avout it in his “Gulag Archipelago” - the most insane is that most in the west know very little about since it’s not taught in schools very much it and the death toll is way higher than Nazi Germany’s. Some postmodernists in 60’-70’s France even sympathized with the Ussr. Science progressed, because of the cold war. Most people in Ussr want it back, because Russian living standard is pretty low, like in most post Socialist countries and is corrupt to the bones.

 

[BRMarshall]

Agree 100%! Socialism In practice usually means lot of government. It’s like veganism - good on paper, but it never works for most people, and when they fail proponents of it will tell you it wasn’t “real” veganism. For modern examples look no further than Venezuela.

The problem is that most socialist thinking is just a constructed praxis designed by the capitalists themselves to thus control things through a false dichotomy. But, but the real problem is that socialist/Communist experiments have not run on a currency that treats raw material wealth, agricultural products on a par basis, to which unfortunately capitalist nations, such as the United States emerged from the Great Depression, which was a monetary fiction, upon doing that with which eliminates depressions and provides for full employment, which is pricing raw materials on par with manufacturing and service industries such that goods and services can best be distributed to the most people. This is what America did from 1942-52 with great success, until policy to increase public and private debt, destroyed the mechanism.

America is thus not Venezuela, but it will be soon, because the USA was the world revolutionary innovator of a Republican form of government resting upon improving the population as a whole through a commitment to the productive capabilities of mankind through science and the promotion of science that was very much connected with real life, for from farms did flourish a great nation with new innovations.

This was fostered upon the understanding of the importance of manufacturers that the writings of Alexander Hamilton are so important, the understanding that labor comes before money, and thus credit should serve labor, where the collective understanding of labor of mankind as a whole is increased through invention through investigation of the natural world. I leave with some words from Lyndon LaRouche, speaking in 1985, and to which a certain rediscovery of Alexander Hamilton that had allowed LaRouche and his associates to better understand Marxism as not entirely wrong, but not right either for its being used as an operation of the British Empire against Republican forms of government to which America had become the leading beacon. It is ironic to thus further note, that Russia even under Communism actually retained Russian Science to whose academies had taken direction from the American Revolution and Ben Franklin. This thus speaks to Ray Peat's recognition of Russian Scientists who retained a certain freedom to pursue science as it was debased in the west by the oligarchy as LaRouche and associates battled.

Thus the Quote from Lyndon LaRouche as found here

Building a Movement to Save Our Republic
:

“The most influential decisions we can make are those through which we change for the better some of the axiomatic assumptions embedded in our former habits of thought. The prototype for this is the kind of scientific discovery which accomplishes a relatively lesser or greater scientific revolution. In such scientific work, the investigator designs an experimental design which challenges one or more of the prevailing axiomatic assumptions of scientific work, which seeks to prove conclusively that this prevailing axiomatic assumption is false. This method of discovery Plato identifies as the principle of higher hypothesis.”

LaRouche concluded this speech as follows:

“The ultimate strategic objective of the great mobilization to which we are dedicated now, is to restore the power of republicanism as the ruling power, the ruling philosophy of our republics. We must establish in the years immediately before us, a new world order in relations among nations, an order shaped and ruled by those same principles for which was founded that great republic on whose soil we stand today. Let Russia enter such a community of nations, to secure the same rights and security as a nation as all other nations among that order, no more, no less. Let us thus, at last, bring this aching, immiserated, and dangerous world into order, into the republican order which the great Marquis de Lafayette imagined and served when he described our newly founded republic as a ‘beacon of hope’ and ‘temple of liberty’ in the eyes of the peoples of the world.

“Benjamin Franklin’s was the great cause, as the republicans of France, of Germany, of Italy, and other nations during and after his lifetime adopted him as their leader. Let us think back to that grand republican conspiracy which Franklin led, extended across Europe from Leibniz’s Petrograd Academy in Russia, through the court of Charles II of Spain, and across the Atlantic not only to the shores of North America, but among those republicans of Ibero-America with whom we of the United States share properly a special brotherhood of common principle today.”

 

[InChristAlone]

Most, if not all foreigners who visited USSR can’t possibly give you an accurate account of what was actually happening there since the KGB was following you 24/7 and they were greatly inflating everything by showing them only the best parts of it. There were shortages of virtually everything for the common man. Also gulags. Solzhenycin wrote extensively avout it in his “Gulag Archipelago” - the most insane is that most in the west know very little about since it’s not taught in schools very much it and the death toll is way higher than Nazi Germany’s. Some postmodernists in 60’-70’s France even sympathized with the Ussr. Science progressed, because of the cold war. Most people in Ussr want it back, because Russian living standard is pretty low, like in most post Socialist countries and is corrupt to the bones.

This is exactly what I was trying to say with my run down on North Korea. They are not the same culture but the way they present themselves to the world is similar. All information is controlled.

 

[gaze]

One reason I don't like to get into discussions like this is because it is very hard to communicate why capitalism can work to someone who has not either worked in the govt or tried to start a business. I am not sure if you have done either but, would you be willing to say that future experiences may change your view of how the world and people, work?

Regulatory capture is a thing too. Most of the things that Peat is against in the medical establishment are all regulatory good intentions taken to their logical conclusion.

can you specify how you would view the world and people working and how exactly it differs from what I said? Are you disagreeing with the statement that profit is priority #1? I don't necessarily think its priority number #1 for people I should have stated it better, it is mostly a means toward an end for individuals, but in any case in a capital oriented society, profit from the exchange of commodities has to be focus #1 for a company, in order for people to live the life they envision. In this sense, if one were to start a noble company, or one that they're passionate about, then they need to make more selling a commodity than they spend making it, there's no getting around it. So in order to do this, they have to keep costs low any way they can, which is done paying the workers as little as possible relative to the price of the commodity being sold, using the cheapest possible raw materials to make the product without ruining the reputation of the company and the demand of the product; basically keeping production costs as low as possible, while trying to sell to the market for as high as possible. I don't think its immoral in anyway, its how profit works, and when profit is the means towards which people can achieve their ends, i.e. a stable life, a family, a house, food, then it means every company is incentivized create a product as poorly as possible while maintaining a standard of excellence that will get the product sold. Its a critique on the system more so than the indivduals themselevs. Not only do we all suffer because their is a competition for who can produce commodity for as cheap as possible, disregarding the potential health complications, but the people who are not in a rational opportunity to risk starting their own company have to sell their labor to a company, putting in hours of physical labor in bad conditions while the company pays them less than far far less than what they sell the commodities for on the market. So they can spend 8 hours a day, for 365 days of a year making shoes, but they cant sell the shoes themselves directly nor are they getting compensated in a manner equivalent to how much their labor is worth if they were making the shoes themselves. So basically what we have is a company and the higher ups who have every incentive to automate as much as they can, pay their human workers as least as they can , producing a commodity for as cheaply as they can, for example using grains instead of grass to feed a cow, along with incentives for companies to produce science making their product seem healthier than it really is, in order to increase the demand of the product. Sometimes, because people are health conscious, there is a demand for grass fed and good quality milk, or a company that is small and employee owned, but these producers will simply never be able to compete on a grand scale with the company who has automated the labor and uses low quality ingredients, because the cost of labor is simply too high for "moral" companies to compete. A government, is always balancing the economy with peoples livelihoods, but if they overreach, then the market cannot keep up and people will starve cause prices will increase, and if they do too little than the standard would become too poor to justify. Not to mention the problem with a democratic government essentially being bought and payed for, by the companies that were able to produce for cheap, automate labor, and have high profit margins eventually leading to more money to donate and spend on a candidate that will further help their growth. I would define capitalism as is people exchanging commodities for a means to an end, which causes commodities to basically rule human social interaction. This degrades human quality of life by creating harsh working conditions, a culture of competition with other workers and other companies, incentives to produce low quality stuff while trying to market it as a quality product, combined with a government who is controlled by the rich trying to balance all these forces while keeping as many people as they can, both the rich and the poor, content enough so they don't revolt.

 

[InChristAlone]

can you specify how you would view the world and people working and how exactly it differs from what I said? Are you disagreeing with the statement that profit is priority #1? I don't necessarily think its priority number #1 for people I should have stated it better, it is mostly a means toward an end for individuals, but in any case in a capital oriented society, profit from the exchange of commodities has to be focus #1 for a company, in order for people to live the life they envision. In this sense, if one were to start a noble company, or one that they're passionate about, then they need to make more selling a commodity than they spend making it, there's no getting around it. So in order to do this, they have to keep costs low any way they can, which is done paying the workers as little as possible relative to the price of the commodity being sold, using the cheapest possible raw materials to make the product without ruining the reputation of the company and the demand of the product; basically keeping production costs as low as possible, while trying to sell to the market for as high as possible. I don't think its immoral in anyway, its how profit works, and when profit is the means towards which people can achieve their ends, i.e. a stable life, a family, a house, food, then it means every company is incentivized create a product as poorly as possible while maintaining a standard of excellence that will get the product sold. Its a critique on the system more so than the indivduals themselevs. Not only do we all suffer because their is a competition for who can produce commodity for as cheap as possible, disregarding the potential health complications, but the people who are not in a rational opportunity to risk starting their own company have to sell their labor to a company, putting in hours of physical labor in bad conditions while the company pays them less than far far less than what they sell the commodities for on the market. So they can spend 8 hours a day, for 365 days of a year making shoes, but they cant sell the shoes themselves directly nor are they getting compensated in a manner equivalent to how much their labor is worth if they were making the shoes themselves. So basically what we have is a company and the higher ups who have every incentive to automate as much as they can, pay their human workers as least as they can , producing a commodity for as cheaply as they can, for example using grains instead of grass to feed a cow, along with incentives for companies to produce science making their product seem healthier than it really is, in order to increase the demand of the product. Sometimes, because people are health conscious, there is a demand for grass fed and good quality milk, or a company that is small and employee owned, but these producers will simply never be able to compete on a grand scale with the company who has automated the labor and uses low quality ingredients, because the cost of labor is simply too high for "moral" companies to compete. A government, is always balancing the economy with peoples livelihoods, but if they overreach, then the market cannot keep up and people will starve cause prices will increase, and if they do too little than the standard would become too poor to justify. Not to mention the problem with a democratic government essentially being bought and payed for, by the companies that were able to produce for cheap, automate labor, and have high profit margins eventually leading to more money to donate and spend on a candidate that will further help their growth. I would define capitalism as is people exchanging commodities for a means to an end, which causes commodities to basically rule human social interaction. This degrades human quality of life by creating harsh working conditions, a culture of competition with other workers and other companies, incentives to produce low quality stuff while trying to market it as a quality product, combined with a government who is controlled by the rich trying to balance all these forces while keeping as many people as they can, both the rich and the poor, content enough so they don't revolt.

A factory worker has a very monotonous job that I couldn't fathom doing, but they aren't the ones marketing and selling the product which quite honestly takes wayy more skills than glueing a sole on a shoe all day. If a factory worker wants to be a manager or business owner they have every right to do so. But it is not the type of work everyone wants to do. It takes a lot of responsibility to be directly involved in making sure a company succeeds. Sometimes factory workers have very little stress whereas higher ups are full of stress and have high blood pressure. They are typically compensated for this level of responsibility. The hierarchy is there for a reason, not just to exploit. Also in the US thankfully you have options of working at employee owned companies and again you underestimate how much people get the need to support these businesses. I hope people continue to support small business where they can.

Also I think you are being too negative about US food production, yes to make a profit farmers have had to go big, but that doesn't mean the animals are sickly. Steers are raised on pasture until they get to a certain finishing weight where they go to the feed lot to be fattened a bit. Many people prefer the taste of grain finished beef, but there is a big market for grass finished beef too.

Milking cows have to be treated well or they get sick and have to be on special care which is costly for a farmer. They are given hay/silage to eat typically. A cow can't be healthy on only grains for long and a cow on antibiotics has to have their milk wasted until the drug is out of their system. So no dairy is going to thrive if they aren't feeding the cows well. People can pay more for pasture milk, that is their choice in the US. We are all voting with our dollars.

If people want to complain so be it, but the only way we can change anything is by supporting the businesses that are healthy.

 

[Tarmander]

can you specify how you would view the world and people working and how exactly it differs from what I said? Are you disagreeing with the statement that profit is priority #1? I don't necessarily think its priority number #1 for people I should have stated it better, it is mostly a means toward an end for individuals, but in any case in a capital oriented society, profit from the exchange of commodities has to be focus #1 for a company, in order for people to live the life they envision. In this sense, if one were to start a noble company, or one that they're passionate about, then they need to make more selling a commodity than they spend making it, there's no getting around it. So in order to do this, they have to keep costs low any way they can, which is done paying the workers as little as possible relative to the price of the commodity being sold, using the cheapest possible raw materials to make the product without ruining the reputation of the company and the demand of the product; basically keeping production costs as low as possible, while trying to sell to the market for as high as possible. I don't think its immoral in anyway, its how profit works, and when profit is the means towards which people can achieve their ends, i.e. a stable life, a family, a house, food, then it means every company is incentivized create a product as poorly as possible while maintaining a standard of excellence that will get the product sold. Its a critique on the system more so than the indivduals themselevs. Not only do we all suffer because their is a competition for who can produce commodity for as cheap as possible, disregarding the potential health complications, but the people who are not in a rational opportunity to risk starting their own company have to sell their labor to a company, putting in hours of physical labor in bad conditions while the company pays them less than far far less than what they sell the commodities for on the market. So they can spend 8 hours a day, for 365 days of a year making shoes, but they cant sell the shoes themselves directly nor are they getting compensated in a manner equivalent to how much their labor is worth if they were making the shoes themselves. So basically what we have is a company and the higher ups who have every incentive to automate as much as they can, pay their human workers as least as they can , producing a commodity for as cheaply as they can, for example using grains instead of grass to feed a cow, along with incentives for companies to produce science making their product seem healthier than it really is, in order to increase the demand of the product. Sometimes, because people are health conscious, there is a demand for grass fed and good quality milk, or a company that is small and employee owned, but these producers will simply never be able to compete on a grand scale with the company who has automated the labor and uses low quality ingredients, because the cost of labor is simply too high for "moral" companies to compete. A government, is always balancing the economy with peoples livelihoods, but if they overreach, then the market cannot keep up and people will starve cause prices will increase, and if they do too little than the standard would become too poor to justify. Not to mention the problem with a democratic government essentially being bought and payed for, by the companies that were able to produce for cheap, automate labor, and have high profit margins eventually leading to more money to donate and spend on a candidate that will further help their growth. I would define capitalism as is people exchanging commodities for a means to an end, which causes commodities to basically rule human social interaction. This degrades human quality of life by creating harsh working conditions, a culture of competition with other workers and other companies, incentives to produce low quality stuff while trying to market it as a quality product, combined with a government who is controlled by the rich trying to balance all these forces while keeping as many people as they can, both the rich and the poor, content enough so they don't revolt.

Talk about a wall of text. I got through most of it though.

I think there is a lot more complexity to the world, and the duality of exploiter and exploitee is not a great framework. Profit is priority #1 for a business, but your conclusions from this foundation are imo narrowminded and just rehash Marx. You can easily say because profit is a company's number 1 priority, they will do everything they can to make their products as safe as possible, and their workers as happy as possible, so as not to lose market share to companies who do. May sound crazy, but you can set up the rationale that way too.

I think you should read some Mises or someone else who tackles the Marxist tenants. The idea that labor is this exploited commodity and is not being paid fairly comes right from the 1800s and Marxist thought. And there are really some great explanations of what actually happens within an economy.

If you go through life with these beliefs, you are going to lose a lot, and drive high quality people away from you.

 

[gaze]

Talk about a wall of text. I got through most of it though.

I think there is a lot more complexity to the world, and the duality of exploiter and exploitee is not a great framework. Profit is priority #1 for a business, but your conclusions from this foundation are imo narrowminded and just rehash Marx. You can easily say because profit is a company's number 1 priority, they will do everything they can to make their products as safe as possible, and their workers as happy as possible, so as not to lose market share to companies who do. May sound crazy, but you can set up the rationale that way too.

I think you should read some Mises or someone else who tackles the Marxist tenants. The idea that labor is this exploited commodity and is not being paid fairly comes right from the 1800s and Marxist thought. And there are really some great explanations of what actually happens within an economy.

If you go through life with these beliefs, you are going to lose a lot, and drive high quality people away from you.

"make their products as safe as possible" so then why does McDonalds use bread with 25 ingredients that's been industrially processed instead of sourdough fermented bread with only 4 ingredients? why did coke replace sugar with high fructose corn syrup? why did ice cream brands start using carrageenan and guar gum as emulsifiers? It's cause they don't have to care about peoples health when they can produce it for so cheap that people buy it anyway because they love how cheap it is and how good it tastes.

How about the workers who in order to have a home, some food, and raise a family, have to work in a factory which gets no sunlight, they have to eat fast food junk cause they don't have time to go home and eat a fresh cooked meal, or what if they get a chronic illness cause they're body cant hold up? Your an emf guy, what about the workers who have to install emf towers in order to feed their familys? these people will just get left in the dust when they get sick, hanging on using government help, barely able to survive. Idk about you, but I don't want to value a human being based on their capability to be productive. Most working environments are incompatible with good health. To say that these people should quit their job, start a company, become rich, then be able to afford good quality food and not have to work till their body gives out is inhumane and absurd.