OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Maxprop wrote:
How about letting individuals be less subjected to food advertisements
24/7?


How would you recommend that be accomplished?

I'm not sure. I have not personally examined the forces that pushed the
current system into place, so I'm not going to say how to push things in
a different direction.

.... Legislation?

Bad idea IMHO, for 2 fundamental reasons:
1- it's not likely to work all that well
2- that government is best which governs least.

Complete agreement with both points.

.... Certainly the food-producing/retailing companies won't voluntarily
abstain from advertising.

I agree, as long as the current socio-economic-legal systems are in
place. You seem to be on the opposite spectrum from Frank B who seems to
believe that advertising is just a curious way corporations have of
disposing excess dollars.

Independent studies have demonstrated, repeatedly and for decades, the
value of advertising and other forms of marketing to a company's bottom
line. That's beyond dispute. I wonder what Frank thinks the effect on GDP
would be were advertising completely eliminated?

The value of advertising or the value of the quality of advertising?

If advertising were eliminated I think excess consumption would be reduced.
Do you realize how much of the economy is hinged on crap and stuff that
really isn't needed?



.... Thus the government would have to *protect us* from such harmful
advertising. And wouldn't that constitute a nanny state?


Depends on how it's done. If the gov't were to say "No advertising
cheeseburgers, people are too dumb to know how much is healthy" then yes,
that would be nannyism.

No essential difference from the little caveats on cigarette packages:
"Smoking may be hazardous to your health." Duh.

Smoking should be encouraged. Cigarettes should be put into school lunches.
Government should openly market death, rather than sugar coat it like it has
for decades. The food pyramid was a death triangle, above ground nuclear
testing harmed thousands, legislation banning 4 point seatbelts has led to
millions of additional injuries. Government should be honest and say they
are here to kill and rob you.
Gambling, smoking, booze - all big tax revenues for government! Advertise it
as so: "smoke and drink here while you gamble away your entire SS check!"
Provide free busing from nursing homes to casinos! Who should rreally worry
about a little sugar and trans fat?



If OTOH advertising expenditures were to be penalized by taxation, for
example in a way similar to how research & development is encouraged by
tax rules, then that would not be nannyism and might tilt the system away
from heavy advertising.

Of course it's nannyism. The end product is to protect Americans from
themselves: nannyism.


Who will protect us from government?

The same people that teach us about government?


Penalizing advertising is, incidentally, a
legislative action, which you seemed to decry above. And it would not
work unless the level of punitive taxation would exceed the financial
benefit to the company in quesiton. Bad, unworkable idea.

Penalize advertising by not buying the product. Are some people so foolish
to believe that all advertising works? First you need a good product and
truthful advertising.



And how would a government effect such tax penalties without appearing
prejudicial? Would it be acceptable to allow, say, Phillip Morris to
promote their 'prevent kids from smoking' website while taxing McDonalds
for pushing Big Macs? Both companies produce potentially harmful products
that become addictive.

What identifiable ingredient in food is addictive? McDonald's is actually
good for you. In this case, too much of a good thing isn't exactly
wonderful.





It's also the result of the profit motive: large corporations are making
lots of money convincing Americans to eat more, thus becoming larger
corporally.


Corporations also encourage us to smoke, spend hours in front of video
games and TV, and take medications we likely don't require. There
appear to be only two solutions: personal responsibility, or the good
ol' nanny state. I prefer the former.


If you see only two solutions, then you're being intentionally obtuse, or
your blinders are strapped on a little too tight, or you're stupider than
I'd have given you credit for.

And you accuse Dave of ad hominems, particularly when they are no such
thing. This is beyond laughable, Doug. You are the cardinal hypocrite in
this NG.

Maybe runner up, unless you consider RB no longer a member.



Back to the issue: There are essentially only two alternatives. If the
government enacts *any* sort of program to protect us from ourselves, that
*is* nannyism. Couching such actions in the guise of
selective/progressive taxation or penalties is the most blatant from of
denial. Either the government protects us from ourselves, or it does not.
How it effects such protection is irrelevant.

It's ok for government to stop us from ordering an extra side of fries, but
it's not ok for them to stop us from ripping an unborn baby from the womb
and tossing it in the dumpster - that's a "personal decision"! Oh the
hypocrisy!

Just get the government out of everyone's lives and businesses. Humans made
it for hundreds of thousands of years without governments. All government
and religion can really do is cause big wars. The worst individuals can do
is demonstrated at British soccer matches. Compare that to WWII.

Keep government small and limited if you really care about safety and well
being.



Capt. JG wrote:
Now that brings us to the question... which works better? No opinions
now... just da facts.


One fact that is already on the ground is that advertising works.
Personal responsibility also works, when it is present.

Holy hypocrisy, Batman, that sure looks like just two alternatives to me.

Personal responsibility is always a choice. Some people just want government
to limit choices or worse yet, remove the consequences of those personal
choices and place the burdens of those responsibilities onto others.

There are no alternatives. Death is not an alternative. Either you chose to
live or you simply die.




Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Todd Nozzle wrote:
Just get the government out of everyone's lives and businesses. Humans made
it for hundreds of thousands of years without governments.

I assume that you are living in the woods, wearing the skin
of an animal you killed with a rock.

Oh wait, you're on the internet.

And you accuse me of hypocrisy. Thanks for the laugh.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Dave wrote:
Ah, take if from those awful Big Corporations and give it to some govmint
employees to do good deeds.

Is that a familiar theme?

I see a familiar theme he "whatever Doug says has to be
forced into a mold (however poor the fit) of -liberal-."

How is slightly restucturing an already existing policy, to
discourage corporations from spending their shareholders
money in non-productive ways, "taking it away"? Did you see
any words of mine proposing that gov't employees do good
deeds? Nope, it's all ad-hominem... pulled from a fantasy
world, to boot.

BTW I'm waiting to hear your explanation of how advertising
got to be so prominent in our economy, and the long list of
economists who agree that Galbraith has been discredited.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

DSK wrote:

Maxprop wrote:
When was the last time you saw something
notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway? Gorgeous country,
but stagnant.



Martin Baxter wrote:
How provincial.


Agreed. But then, to Max, there are only two choices.

I really like Jarlsberg cheese, don't know if making it
notable, productive, or indicative of creativity. I think
the milk does have to stagnate first ;)


GDP per capita:

Norway, $42,800
USA, $41,600

(2005 figures)

Who'da thunk it?

Cheers
Marty

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Dave wrote:
Several fallacies in that single sentence.

Only from your extremely convolured & prejudiced viewpoint.

... When you impose a tax on
something it's taking money away from somebody.

And when you restructure a tax that already exists?
That is what I am suggesting.


Calling it a "slight restructuring an existing policy" doesn't make it
something other than a tax.


Calling it "taking away from somebody" is ignoring several
basic facts.



Second, I'm not at all persuaded that politicians are better at deciding
what a productive use for a business's money is than the managers of that
business.

In general, I'm not either.

.... In general, under our economic system we have such decisions made
by the businesses themselves. And when we don't, the unintended consequences
are likely as not to be bad ones rather than good ones.


And the consequences (intended or otherwise) of the way
things currently work.... Billions of dollars spent on
advertising, to convince people to buy stuff that's bad for
them, for the sake of increased profits.

Note the difference between "increased profits" and
increased wealth, increased standard of living, etc etc.


For example, how do you feel about the completely
unporductive use of gazillions of dollars spent on lobbying?
That also increases profits to the detriment of citizens
interests.



Did you see
any words of mine proposing that gov't employees do good
deeds?


What are you proposing the govmint employees do with the money?

The same thing they are already doing, whether it's good or
bad is not a judgement imposed by this position.

Question: Why are *you* seeking to insert this judgement
into a totally unrelated logical suggestion?

In other words, you are once again putting up straw men,
misquoting... in other words, ad-hominem attack instead of
logic.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

How about letting individuals be less subjected to food advertisements
24/7?

How would you recommend that be accomplished? Legislation? Certainly
the food-producing/retailing companies won't voluntarily abstain from
advertising. Thus the government would have to *protect us* from such
harmful advertising. And wouldn't that constitute a nanny state?


It's also the result of the profit motive: large corporations are
making lots of money convincing Americans to eat more, thus becoming
larger corporally.

Corporations also encourage us to smoke, spend hours in front of video
games and TV, and take medications we likely don't require. There
appear to be only two solutions: personal responsibility, or the good
ol' nanny state. I prefer the former.


Now that brings us to the question... which works better? No opinions
now... just da facts.

My last sentence was an opinion, based on the observation that the nanny
state does little to encourage self-reliance and motivation. To the
contrary, in those countries, such as Norway, where people have
cradle-to-grave provision by the government, the creative juices just
don't seem to flow very copiously. When was the last time you saw
something notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway?
Gorgeous country, but stagnant.

Max

Unfortunately, opinions aren't facts. Is self-reliance and motivation better
than actual problem solving?

Their healthcare system is far better than ours for example. I also like
Doug's cheeze answer, but for different reasons.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Bzzt. What if a gov't "slightly restructured an existing policy" to
eliminate a tax? No, don't tell me. The answer is invade Iraq. :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:03:14 -0500, DSK said:

How is slightly restucturing an already existing policy, to
discourage corporations from spending their shareholders
money in non-productive ways, "taking it away"?

Several fallacies in that single sentence. When you impose a tax on
something it's taking money away from somebody. Otherwise it isn't a tax.
Calling it a "slight restructuring an existing policy" doesn't make it
something other than a tax.

Second, I'm not at all persuaded that politicians are better at deciding
what a productive use for a business's money is than the managers of that
business. In general, under our economic system we have such decisions
made
by the businesses themselves. And when we don't, the unintended
consequences
are likely as not to be bad ones rather than good ones.

Did you see
any words of mine proposing that gov't employees do good
deeds?

What are you proposing the govmint employees do with the money? Bad deeds?
Keep the money in the form of higher salaries? Give it to people the
politicians think will vote for them?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

For example, how do you feel about the completely
unporductive use of gazillions of dollars spent on lobbying?
That also increases profits to the detriment of citizens
interests.


Dave wrote:
Classic example of the kind of unintended consequences to which I referred
earlier. Whenever you put the govmint into Robin Hood mode, transferring
money from one citizen to another to effect some kind of policy goal, you
create the incentive for groups to act in their own interest to persuade law
makers that their cause is a deserving one, and should be on the receiving
end, or should not on the giving end, of the transfers.


I'd be all in favor of putting a stop to it, except that
every single gov't that ever existed, AFAIK, indulged in the
same thing to one degree or another.

Got any practical ideas, or do you just want to torch straw
men some more?

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:

Maxprop wrote:
When was the last time you saw something
notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway? Gorgeous
country,
but stagnant.



Martin Baxter wrote:
How provincial.


Agreed. But then, to Max, there are only two choices.

I really like Jarlsberg cheese, don't know if making it
notable, productive, or indicative of creativity. I think
the milk does have to stagnate first ;)


GDP per capita:

Norway, $42,800
USA, $41,600

(2005 figures)

Who'da thunk it?

Cheers
Marty

The US does it in spite of bordering third world countries both north and
south.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Todd Nozzle wrote:
Just get the government out of everyone's lives and businesses. Humans
made it for hundreds of thousands of years without governments.

I assume that you are living in the woods, wearing the skin of an animal
you killed with a rock.

Oh wait, you're on the internet.

And you accuse me of hypocrisy.


Never accused you of hypocrisy. I was questioning Maxipad's rating system.


Thanks for the laugh.

DSK


Keep government out of people's lives and businesses. Restore the
Constitution.