Count me surprised.
At 140 comments so far on my last post about being a blogger first, expanding my topical area beyond just Paleo diet and exercise mostly, the support is pretty damn remarkable. Even some commenters like Nakhil Hogan who disagree with me on my approach to politics (stop voting, fer crissakes!), have their hearts solidly in the right place. For most of them, their minds will eventually follow. I’ve been at this aspect of my online presence for 20 years, now, and when the heart is right, the mind follows, eventually.
I’ll cover more of the political angles in a subsequent post. For now, in one comment to that post, I wrote:
I view the paleo movement as a movement to liberate the mind toward independence, individuality and freedom in a human evolutionary context.
It’s not about fucking paleo brownies and cookies.
At a point, one commenter added:
What would be the bestest possible paleo product? Imo a line of paleo frozen dinners from a subsidiary of Lean Cuisine. Takes all the stress and wasted time out of preparing a healthy paleo dinner for your family.
Commenter Brent replied, in A++ fashion, in my view:
I can’t tell if this statement is meant to be ironic or serious, but I am seeing that attitude expressed more frequently as paleo goes more mainstream. And it indicates that the paleo movement is close to jumping the shark.
I am reminded of some investment advice I got a while back, which is basically: when the mainstream jumps on an investment idea, sell. Now, a paleo lifestyle is not something I’m going to leave, but – like others – I may have to leave the label behind as it starts to become a marketing term instead of a lifestyle concept.
I saw the same thing happen with low carb when it became a “fad.” One thing I will always be grateful for, from my low carb days, is heightening my awareness of what I was eating, as opposed to just how much of it. In addition to cutting down on carbs, Atkins admonished his readers to also cut out hydrogenated oils and some artificial sweeteners, like aspartame. Suddenly I was checking food labels for ingredient lists instead of just macronutrient content. It made me laugh at ludicrous products like Better’n Peanut Butter, with its inch-long ingredient list of processed additives that made it “healthier” than a product that was made of “roasted peanuts and salt.” That kind of thinking led me to paleo/primal living.
paleo is (was?) a concept, not a brand, not an ingredient list, and not shorthand for gluten and/or dairy free. The latter is what the food industry wants it to be, because they can make their crap without gluten, and simply use a whole bunch of other potentially toxic crap to make the same foods palatable. They did the same thing with maltitol, which made products sugar free and “low carb,” but also caused diarrhea.
You may or may not have seen the report on the gorillas in the zoo whose health improved when they were taken off their diet of standard-issue gorilla food pellets. The which were high in sugar and other processed crap, but met all the “nutritional requirements” for gorillas, but was giving them heart disease and making them lethargic. Their health and energy improved when they were given whole foods more like what they would eat in the wild: fresh leafy vegetables and fruit. Sound familiar?
A “healthy paleo frozen dinner by Lean Cuisine” is contradictory. Frozen dinners are the equivalent to food pellets for zoo humans. I’m looking at my copy of paleo Magazine and I see an ad for “Paleo Coffee Creamer” – which is an oxymoron. paleo creamer is called “cream” – preferably raw from 100% grass-fed cows. The act of sourcing fresh, quality ingredients, “wasting time” by preparing them properly, and enjoying them with good company is what makes the meal paleo, not just its gluten/dairy content. paleo is about changing our attitudes about our food – its quality and preparation – and our lifestyles. I think Richard’s point is that it is also about changing our mindsets towards life in general. That is, breaking away from the mindset of civilization – aka, the zoo. In other words, free the animal.
Again, paleo is a concept. When we start looking for paleo in convenient, processed, pre-packaged containers — so that we can continue being zoo humans eating their food pellets — the concept is dead.
OK, so a few years back when the first packaged snacks you could order like paleo Kits came on the market, I was glad for it. Have ordered them a few times and they seem pretty wholesome to me. Same with Jerky Chews. I’m sure there are others. But where does it stop? It probably doesn’t, and I find it a tad sad.
As everyone knows, I’m not religious and I’m not at all in favor of The Church of paleo either. At the same time, the notion of sanctity transcends religion. In the narrative of Jesus tossing the money changers out of the temple, It’s not about Jesus, sky fairies, or anything supernatural. It’s about the idea that some things are sacred, and we should hold ourselves to high standards and low compromise. To put it in purely secular terms, it would be like having vendor booths set up for the photographer, caterer, planner, decorators, et al, at your daughter’s wedding.
It’s about there being an appropriate time and place. And paleo, if it means anything at all, is about a little more effort, a little more care, a little more involvement, a little more time and attention. It’s about the sanctity of something fundamental about not only our physical health, but our mental and social health. Think families going out and sourcing their food with care, collaboratively coming up with menu plans, all hands on deck for the preparation, and enjoyment mutually…sitting around the table talking to one another.
Saying grace, optional. Or, just take a moment of silence to contemplate “Mother Nature,” or something.
How far removed is that idea from getting stuff in a bag or box with “paleo” stamped on it, that takes no more effort than point and click, and which the family members grab to take on the road before heading out the door?
How about a new paleo book being published almost weekly, now?
How about print and blog publications that are little more than vehicles for advertising all of the foregoing, and very light on substance?
…And all the while, a guy like Jimmy Moore gets criticized relentlessly for some of the sponsorships he has, even in the face of his clear move to cleaning things up with higher quality, including embracing paleo in general and promoting grassfed and pastured animal products. At the same time, the paleo world seems to be moving in the opposite direction.
So as a free market capitalist kinda guy, all this might surprise you. And honestly, I’m torn. I have no problem with making money…on the contrary, it’s a virtue.
But I also believe in freedom and policing one’s self and ourselves. So proceed with caution. Ask yourself when you opt to buy that next whatever in a bad or box, whether you’re advancing your values or taking a step back.
StoneAgeMom 
Joseph Fetz 
Samson 
As has been said with increasing frequency by the “early adopters,” paleo is much more than just a diet. The mainstream wants to turn it into a fad diet, but we know better.
This is why I gave up on convincing my husband. His mindset doesn’t get him past a linear paradigm. “I ate the just the middle out of my breakfast burrito,” he says as he’s washing it down with a whole milk sugar free vanilla latte. Okay. You hear me but aren’t listening.
For me, it’s not about reinactment, a diet, or a set of rules. It is a community and a paradigm on how I can function optimally in this short life and how I relate to and raise my son.
Hi Richard: This is the dilemma I deal with everyday. I launched Grass Fed Jerky Chews out of my personal need for a quality nutrient-dense snack made from grass-fed beef raised in US. I started making it at home with the meat I sourced locally (Marin Sun Farms, Open Space Meats, and now Brandon Natural Beef) and people were pushing me to make it more available so they and their kids could have a nutrient-dense snack for work/school or a camping trip. So I made it available online. People buying my product are not necessarily all Paleo, just consumers who support high quality, good tasting real food snack (why I didn’t even want “paleo” in the name and why I make info about where I source the meat and who makes the jerky transparent). Most importantly, the biggest reward I get is from partnering with grass-rachers who are grateful to me for supporting and promoting their sustainable practices through my product. My toughest dilemma is how do I grow Jerky Chews without compromising the business model and yet keep it sustainable. Might have to get a “real” job to support my biz (and you’ll find a lot of grass-ranchers are doing that, but like them I wouldn’t trade the satisfaction of running such company for anything).
Sophia. Honestly? Your jerky tastes and feels to me better than I make myself. That’s why I took care to mention you.
Don’t do paleo brownies. I know you never would and that is important.
Another consideration is that jerky has a long, long history as a real food, and sometimes you do need to take with.
You keep doing what you’re doing, keep it pure, and don’t compromise and people will make the distinctions I allude too.
You speak a lot of shit. The only way we can be free is classless society. A planned nationalised economy run democratically. Capitalism poisons us and has become historically redundant as it no longer develops the productive forces. The only possible bright future for humanity is one where the technology is controlled by us, for us. Production for profit is a straight jacket.
Oh, thanks Shaun. Ive been waiting for a commie anarchist, syndicalist, or whatever, to show up. I dismissed them long ago for a simple reason: animals are territorial, and in the context of humans, that means claims on property.
You stupid, clueless morons propose that while chimapziies can claim and defend property, humans cannot.
I dismissed Prudhoun too, long time ago, maybe 1994.
Should I go on with the moron? I dunno. Let’s see what what to moron comes up with.
…don’t forget to feed on your regurgitat, first, man,
I am guessing that Shaun is a proponent of the ‘Venus Project’, otherwise known as “Marxism with robots”. I am also guessing that he doesn’t understand a single bit of political philosophy or economics, and that he is unaware of the impossibility of calculation, and thus increased utility, in a non-market society. Without private property and the voluntary exchange thereof, there simply is no way of knowing whether an action increased value or was wasteful– there is no calculating measure or guide. Instead, it is economic chaos that often impoverishes all but those in power.
Well, there is also the whole problem of democracy being one of the most unjust forms of governance, and that centralization of power typically results in authoritarian regimes and mass-murder, but that’s a discussion for another day.
Marxism with robots? You have the typical ignorant idea of communism. You equate Stalinism and the regimes in China, Cuba etc as communism. Political illiteracy!
Socialism, the transitional period between capitalism and communism, is based on the highest form of democracy, workers democracy. The workers will elect the officials, and the officials will have real power to change their lives. Democracy under capitalism is very limited because the real power is in the hands of the people who own the economy, not the puppet politicians.
The Russian revolution degenerated into Stalinism because of the objective conditions in the country. Mass starvation, illiteracy, exhaustion, civil war, 21 foreign army interventions in a semi-feudal backwards country. This was the soil from which Stalin and the bureaucracy he lead gradually usurped power, from the organs of workers democracy. In spite of the bureaucratic degeneration, Russia went from a peasant country to a superpower with men in space and growth never matched by a capitalist nation.
Socialism is international and democratic, it needs democracy to survive. Stalinism is a perverse, authoritarian, bureaucratic caricature of genuine socialism.
“The Russian revolution degenerated into Stalinism because of the objective conditions in the country. Mass starvation, illiteracy, exhaustion, civil war, 21 foreign army interventions in a semi-feudal backwards country. This was the soil from which Stalin and the bureaucracy he lead gradually usurped power, from the organs of workers democracy.”
I’m sure it will be different next time.
“In spite of the bureaucratic degeneration, Russia went from a peasant country to a superpower with men in space and growth never matched by a capitalist nation.”
Hey, can you please send over some of that stuff you’re smoking? It’s obviously awesome.
I think it’s time to haul out Carl Sagan, which I do whenever someone in religion or politics goes on about all their distinctions (in this case, why the communism we all know is not _really_ what Shaun has in mind).
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
“You have the typical ignorant idea of communism. You equate Stalinism and the regimes in China, Cuba etc as communism. Political illiteracy!”
That’s a nice straw man, but if you look above you will see that I did no such thing. Also, I would be willing to bet that my home library contains far more socialist works than you’ve read in your entire life, and I’ve read every single one of them. So please, spare me the “this is what the transition period is” claptrap. I know what Marx’s conception of history was, and it was entirely wrong. Human history does not follow some linear progression, instead it has an uneven and unpredictable path. If this weren’t true, then revolutions wouldn’t be necessary in order to bring “socialism to the masses” in the first place.
Democracy is always a failed form of governance because it only cares what the majority wants. In other words, the minority gets fucked. So, this is automatically logically inconsistent with the Marxian view of egalitarian equality. Further, because democracy is merely the arbitrary rule of the minority, this often leads to the subjugation of the minority, as been seen in one form or another throughout the history of democratic regimes. Further, no matter who you elect to be the caretaker of government, they have no property claim to the state’s devices, therefor they have no incentive to maintain it or to increase its value. Instead, the caretaker’s first goal is to get as much as he can while he is still in that role. This, along with democratic aims, leads to an overall reduction in time preference, thus distorting the time structure of production. However, it is those in government and their close friends who reap the benefits of this lowering of time preference, whereas the rest of the population (the democratic workers) who reap the impoverishing results. Further, this lowering of time preference also creates a situation in which certain pluralities within society will seek certain benefits at the expense of the rest of society. It doesn’t matter what form of economy operates under a particular democratic regime, this is inherent to all democratic regimes.
The very fact that socialism relies upon democracy just goes to show how absolutely flawed it is.
note: “arbitrary rule of the minority” should read “arbitrary rule of the majority”
So, my only viable future is as a government house-pet? I can either settle down to enjoy bread and circuses (free! with the stipulation that we all have to do whatever Uncle Sam says, no matter what) or be the angry dog at the manger (and so richly deserve the beat-down I have coming)? Some of us find both of those alternatives demeaning: we are not willing to be the government’s human chattel. Maybe our time has passed and the syndicate will put us down. That is OK, but I am going to insist on making myself a martyr for liberty rather than acquiesce in being humiliated as some kind of scumbag who must die so that the world can have “peace” (auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant: if the syndicate ever does achieve its most noble goals, I suspect it will because humanity is no more; maybe that will be a good thing, but I am not convinced, at all).
“The only way we can be free is classless society. A planned nationalised economy run democratically.”
There is no such thing. A planned nationalized economy leads to one end – dictatorship. This is Obama’s endgame along with the wannabe Republicans.
Capitalism is in its era of irreversible senile decay and you are waffling on about the free market and ‘independence’. You do realise our hunter-gatherer ancestors were primitive communists? They hunted their means of survival and distributed it fairly. We need to return to this but on a much higher level, on the level of superabundance! Your views prove what I already suspected about you, arrogant pig.
Shaun. You clearly have zero idea of my history of over 3,000 posts since 2003′ none paleo before 2007.
I’ll throw you a bone.
Corporations are a product of the state. Your problem is that you have not made distinctions. Capitalism is merely private production, do with it what you will.
Capitalism has been equated with government sanctioned mega corporations and so is the real problem that people are figuring out what values people wamt to trade for, or is the real problem that barriers to entry are such that whores sleep together every night?
Caution: I use metaphor for brevity.
Corporations are a product of the state? Wow. The government is a capitalist government, the government is run in the interests of capitalism.
Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism has exhausted its historical role in developing the productive forces, just as slavery and feudalism did before it. The crisis we are in today, in the last analysis, is the productive forces revolting against the straight jacket of private ownership and the nation state.
As for the state, the state came into existence precisely when society first divided into classes. The new ruling class needed special apparatus to control the majority they were exploiting for a surplus. When there are no classes in society, the material need for a state is gone. Capitalism needs a big, bureaucratic state because the ruling class are a tiny minority, exploiting and living off the labour of the majority. They need to keep the masses in check! So don’t give me all that state bollocks, the only way to be free from the state is classless society.
You didn’t respond to the fact we were primitive communists through most of our history. No classes, no state, no police force, no money etc.
You lack a basic understanding of human history, let me give you a very brief overview. 99% of our existence – prmitive communism – no state, no classes. Private property was alien to our ancestors, the hunting grounds were owned by one and all.
It then became possible to produce more than we needed to survive and slave society developed. The slaves produced the surplus and the slave owners controlled the surplus. The owners needed to control the slaves, they were held against their will – this is the origins of the state.
Slave society resulted in development of art, philosophy and science since a class of people were free from labour. However, the contradictions inherent in slave society piled up and slavery was replaced by feudalism.
Land was power, the feudal lords controlled the land. The serfs were semi-slaves, they had to work for their lord for most of the week but had a few days to produce for their own needs. the serfs literally carried the surplus up to the lord’s castle.
Yet again the productive forces developed but the contradictions piled up. Feudal society was rigid and became a block on trade. Each region had its own currency, laws, customs etc. The big merchants challenged the power of the lords and capitalism was born out of the ruins of feudal society.
We are now in the same situation, capitalism has produced colossal advances in the productive forces, but it is now a fetter on further progress. The great technology created by capitalism cannot be utilised to its full potential because it is controlled by a tiny minority of parasites who use it to enrich themselves, at the expense of everyone else.
The only way this huge productive potential can be realised is for the productive forces to be socially controlled.
A basic understanding of human history proves economic systems are born, mature, and die. Capitalism is not eternal.
All economic systems of record (i.e. since civilization began) operate by exploiting a class of slaves. The syndicate will just create a new slave class and exploit it.
I think you have it the wrong way around. The only way to achieve a classless society is to be free from the state.
Today capitalism is trumpeted around as the idea that the ultimate goal is to have money aka wealth. However free trade is not the only way to production and wealth. The real problem is that mercantilism didn’t die(as many would have you believe). It morphed and began to call itself capitalism in the early-mid 19th century. The most prevalent way to wealth today is often this hybrid capitalism-mercantilism. Neo-mercantilism’s direct relationship with government is what you see today in the US(corporate subsides, exemptions, the fed, bailouts, military industrial complexes, granted monopolies etc.) This is a strong force to deal with so workers unions and such have spawned seeing a piece of the pie ready for them and have taken it. So the is reality capitalism has never taken over. Where we have seen capitalism is he US has been emerging industries generally for a short time before the neo-mercantilist and unionist are able to organize and lay their hands on new industries. The pure form of capitalism is laissez-faire a economy. In a laissez-faire capitalist economy money/wealth CAN ONLY BE ACQUIRED THROUGH VOLUNTARY TRADE.
So Shaun, are you against free trade?
“You didn’t respond to the fact we were primitive communists through most of our history. No classes, no state, no police force, no money etc.”
You forgot: no agriculture, no industry, and much less division of labor. You also forgot that we lived in small tribes of less than 100 people scattered around. You’re trying to apply the economics of a hunter-gatherer tribe to modern, industrialized nations with populations in the hundreds of millions. Those are not the same things.
It reminds me of Ms. Clinton saying, “It takes a village to raise a child.” I wholeheartedly agree. However, a nation of 300 million people — run by un-elected bureaucrats thousands of miles away — is not a “village.”
Shaun, first of all, it is true that primitive societies were often communal. However, it is also true that primitive societies had almost zero capital, that they were tribal (i.e. they only had a handful of members), they lived at or below the subsistence level, etc. And, no. Not everything was shared equally. Those that didn’t put in their fair share often starved to death. It was a very brutal existence, notwithstanding your fairy tale understanding of human history. Try to coordinate billions of units of labor, millions of resources, hundreds or thousands of pieces of capital, all from different parts of the world and all to make one little iPhone; and do this without private property and prices. It cannot be done. There would be no way to know if it would be better to use diamonds or to use plastic for the casing, or whether copper or gold would be better for the leads, etc. There would be no way to know whether one course of action was value-adding or wasteful. It is literally impossible to plan an economy successfully, which is why all command economies are rife with waste and discoordination. Read ‘I, Pencil’ just to get a little idea of how complex and economy really is, then multiply that by infinity. Shit, even a ham sandwich involves an immense capital structure.
You say that everything should be shared fairly. What does that even mean? Who determines what is fair and what is not? Further, if there are no prices and no property, how can you determine the productivity of one worker vs another (BTW, the LTV was refuted over a century ago)? Is every worker owned by the state, and if not, who owns his labor (without private property ownership)? If everything is shared equally, what incentive is there to work hard? If everything is shared equally, what incentive is there to innovate? In fact, if there is no private property, no prices, no profit, and everything is shared equally, what incentive is there to do anything other than feed off of others’ work? Would this not lead to a cascade of laziness, and thus lower total utility? You say that technology will work for us, but who is to build the technology? Who’s going to design the technology? Who’s going to maintain the technology once it’s built? What incentive is there to do any of this if all production is shared?
You say that superabundance is possible. How is this possible if all of the resources of the Earth are scarce? You cannot create matter out of nothing, you can only transform matter. Well, if that is the case, how do you know whether one transformation of matter is more valued by society than another transformation of matter? I mean, you have no private property, thus no exchange and no prices. So, what feedback mechanism tells you that matter transformation A is better than matter transformation B? Further, if you cannot even solve this simple matter (without private property and prices), then how can you ever hope to create superabundance? Shit, you cannot even calculate whether one process is less wasteful than another process, or whether one good is more valued by society than another good, so superabundance in way off.
The simple fact is that you were brainwashed by Jacque Fresco, a man who has a child’s understanding of the world around him. He has made no innovation in thinking, rather his ideas are just a repeat of the same fallacious ideas of Marx and Engels. The only difference is that he thinks that robots can replace the workers and that computers can plan and coordinate everything. This is all rubbish, and when you understand economics and the natural laws of human existence, it is quite easy to see what a pipe dream it really is.
If it weren’t for ignoramuses like you, I don’t think that these ideas would ever get a foothold.
Joseph, it can be done because of capitalism. Capitalism has created the technology we need, the super computers and advanced technology needed to formulate an accurate plan of production and produce superabundance. Socialism builds on capitalism and takes us to a higher level of production. Work will be a universal right, millions of people condemned to unemployment under capitalism will be free to work, the productive potential is mind blowing when combined with the advances there will be in science and technology.
Under capitalism the profit motive holds back science. Labs compete against each other, holding patents, and profit dictates where we invest. Money is invested in hair loss products instead and more important problems which blight the planet. Under socialism the whole of science will collaborate and unite to overcome obstacles and conquer the world.
The irony of you calling me an ignoramus.
No, profit dictates what ends are most valued, because all resources are scarce. Under your system, there can be no great abundance because you cannot coordinate production at all, because there is no calculating method to show which ends are most valued by society and which aren’t. There is no escaping that resources are scarce, so all your system would do is waste resources en mass.
Also, you pose a clear contradiction. You say that less work is the ideal (which I agree, this is the ideal of society). However, then you go back into your Marxian mumbo-jumbo and say that work is a universal right. So, which is it? Is work a disutility, or is it a utility? I am going to go with a disutility.
Further, unemployment is not an inherent feature of the free market. The market system in use today is what is called a mixed-economy, which means that it incorporates aspects of a market economy with aspects of a socialist economy. Probably the biggest cause of unemployment today is the monopoly issuance of money, which is the direct cause of the business cycle; followed by interventionist laws into labor markets (i.e. unemployment payments, minimum wage, licensing, etc).
You try to blame the problems of the world around you on the market, when in fact the market is merely a reactionary system, it is only reacts to the inputs plugged into it. Throughout your lifetime and most of human history centralized power-centers have existed and had interventionist policies toward the marketplace, yet you want to blame the problems on the market? That is retarded. It shows me that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and have had blinders on. When you have monopoly power centers, it goes without saying that the evil in society will seek the reins of such power for their own ends, and that they will subjugate the masses under them. Unfortunately, the rise of democracy has created the illusion that it is YOU that is in charge of government, not the overlords of power. That is complete bullshit.
I am calling you an ignoramus because it is apparent that you have only taken into account the Socialist telling of the story, and have not also studied those that have refuted it (Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Menger, Bastiat, Boewm-Bawerk, etc). It’s great that you’re at least studying something, that is certainly more than most people do. But, to only study a narrow and simple-minded sliver of something is almost worse, because you become obsessive with that new knowledge, to the point that your judgement is clouded when presented with logic. Everything that you’re bringing up has been tried and has failed. Even further, it was predicted that it would fail for the very reasons that I am discussing here.
Also, I noticed that you didn’t address a single question that I posed, which tells me that you aren’t learned enough to give an answer. This is not uncommon for those who study a subject from only one perspective and think that they’ve found truth. Bullshit!
Work is no more a right than happiness, good health, education or a ferrari. The Bill of Rights states clearly our inalienable rights – the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (the key word being pursuit). Anything beyond that you have to earn your right.
I actually take a pretty hard-core ‘Natural Rights Theory’ stance and say that all rights are derived from property. Since most of the Enlightenment thinkers were natural rights theorists, and the “founders” were highly influenced by these thinkers, it is no surprised that the Bill of Rights is almost entirely based upon this conception of rights.
Oh, and did I mention that all you’ve accomplished thus far is prove to the entire internet-connected world that you’re an absolute, fucking idiot? Good job!
Everybody, please give a round of applause for Shaun the absolute, fucking idiot… May we hope that he never reproduces and that his genetics end with him.
clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap
Why are our cows fed soy? Why are chemicals pumped into our food? Why is the air we breathe toxic? Because of the profit motive. If production were from human need there would be no restrictions, no reason to poison our bodies!
“Why are our cows fed soy? Why are chemicals pumped into our food? Why is the air we breathe toxic? Because of the profit motive. If production were from human need there would be no restrictions, no reason to poison our bodies!”
It’s the Eeeeeevilllll corporations, Shaun.
Obama is getting grey hairs because he sits awake nights wringing hands of what to do about it,
If only we had Stalin, things could get fixed in a jiffy.
Why do you have shelter? Why do you have food? Why do you have a computer? Because of the profit motive.
If profits are so evil, send me yours. Make sure to cancel your Internet subscription while you’re at it, because it’s not a human need.
Samson, it’s not like he invented biting the hand that feeds.
His root problem is that in a situation where a whore has a great relationship with her pimp, because he clears the landscape for her, he sees only the whore,
And actualy, he loves the pimp, because he wants to be the pimp’s next best whore,
Whore/pimps are honest. They don’t force anyone to fuck.
Yes, I have been accused of needlessly insulting prostitutes in the past.
Why do you drink water instead of turpentine? Why do you have sex with humans rather than sheep? Why do you breath rather than suffocate? Because of the profit motive.
You’re so stupid that you probably don’t know that profit has absolutely nothing to do with money. In economic terms, profit is merely revenue exceeding cost. To put this in simpler terms, all actions of humans are done to increase utility (i.e. to improve our state of being), if this weren’t true, there would be no reason to act (all needs would be satisfied). If we engage in an action where the result is valued less than the effort put into it, this is called a loss. However, if we engage in action where the result is valued more than what we put into it, then this is called a profit.
So, if for instance I want to have sex with Jessica Biel, I might give her flowers, cook her some dinner, tell her that she looks pretty, or whatever. If after railing her I determine that what I put into it (flowers, dinner, sweat nothings in her ear) is valued less than the utility gained from railing Jessica Biel, then I am said to have a profit. Further, if after railing her I determine that what I put into it is valued more than the utility gained from railing Jessica Biel, then I am said to have realized a loss. As you can see, having sex with Jessica Biel is not the determiner of profit/loss, rather it is the difference between the subjective value of resources put into the endeavor vs the realized utility of the endeavor. Further, and I cannot stress this enough, profits reaped in the service or production of goods for others can only be reaped by meeting the customers desired ends. Thus, a business that reaps a profit not only increased its own utility, but it also increased the utility of the customer. Thus, profit increases the general utility of society.
So, essentially, your reasoning is fucked. The reason that cows are fed soy and chemicals are put into food is because the general masses don’t give a shit what they put into their bodies and that they also want extremely cheap food. As for the toxic air, that is due to the fact that the government, which is an institution that is supposed to protect property rights, doesn’t do its only fucking job (which is protect property rights). Instead, those in control of the state created an agency called the EPA to protect their cronies from lawsuits, while also dramatically reducing the financial liability incurred for polluting. Meanwhile, idiots like you support the EPA, never realizing that it is a shell created by these companies and their friends in government.
Joseph Fetz:
I was reading along with great captivation until you stated that you would put sweat in Jessica Biel’s ear. You sir, are a fascist pig.
Laf
LOL. I would use the excuse that that was a typo, but now I don’t know. Freud?
“The reason that cows are fed soy and chemicals are put into food is because the general masses don’t give a shit what they put into their bodies and that they also want extremely cheap food. ”
I have found this to be an entirely true statement with about 95% of my friends and family. They would be pissed if, in the event food manufacturers changed their ingredients, prices of their beloved “cheap” food became more in line with the effort put into making the product. They wouldn’t be able to afford their iphone and manicures. It’s all about choices.
Joseph, your writing and thinking are wonderful; dinner and flowers are wonderful, but sweat in my ear?? 🙂
Like I said, the market is operating perfectly to the wants of the consumer, it is the consumer that is faulty in most cases. However, you must also realize that I am talking about the general masses when I say that. Because the market has also provided for our wants, as well. I have absolutely no problem finding grass-fed and pastured meat, animal organs, organic produce, etc; all at a very good price. In the socialistic world that this guy is talking about, you’d be lucky to have food at all.
Boy, I tell ya. You get sweat in a person’s ear ONE TIME…. LOL
“Like I said, the market is operating perfectly to the wants of the consumer, it is the consumer that is faulty in most cases. However, you must also realize that I am talking about the general masses when I say that. Because the market has also provided for our wants, as well.”
Hold it right there, Joseph. You’re forgetting one teensy-weensy detail.
Marketing. Consumers want what the market makes them want.
I love the way you blame the consumer, rather than the market. There may be irony somewhere in this comment.
Nigel
The market operates from two approaches, or paradigms. There is the obvious one, as has been discussed, that it accounts for all values via supply, demand, pricing, costs, lowering costs, etc., to supply people with what they objectively need, think they want, and desire.
But how did people ever think to desire automobiles, airplanes, ships, or party gags, cellphones, and all other manner of things until someone came up with them and created a market. Thing is, of these two functions, it is the latter that generates most of the wealth and jobs in society.
And also, just like the video I posted from OPM, this latter function is what preserves and recycles dead capital.
“But how did people ever think to desire automobiles,…”
Nerds often invent gizmos for shits & giggles. Some invent gizmos to solve a problem. If the gizmo turns out to be a great idea, other people desire it. Lots of different types of automobiles were invented, but none of them caught on until Karl Benz’s design. Nerds aren’t usually very good at marketing, so they get somebody who is to do it for them. Nerds & entrepreneurs go together.
Do you ever watch “Dragons’ Den USA”? I find the UK version fascinating.
The thing is, if all of the gizmos in your above list had never been invented, life would have been completely different but we would have been happy all the same.
You always, always, always make the same stupid fucking error.
“we would have been happy all the same.”
Who the _fuck_ is WE?
Why do you always, always, always feel so qualified to speak for every other living should on Earth?
I typed a reply at great length on my Blackberry while I was at a music gig. It didn’t post. Fuck. Anyway, the answer is fucking obvious.
Everybody doesn’t miss what everybody doesn’t have and everybody doesn’t know about (because it hasn’t yet been invented).
Why do you always*, always*, always* not see the wood for the trees?
*You don’t always, just as I don’t always.
No Nigel.
You always do it, and I always point it out. 🙂
BTW, how close are you to Brighton/Hove? I have a reason for asking.
O.K. then. Here’s another one. We are all going to die. 😀
I’m about 60 miles from Brighton. You have piqued my curiosity.
Nige
I’ve got your email. Somethng entirely unrelated to this. Very old fried who just looked me up, whom I used to trmp around Tailand with late 80s early 90s . Thought I’d introduce you via email. And he needs to shed some poundage.
O.K. I normally refer people to my blog, but I can do personal consultations by phone & email.
Oh, I just meant in a friendly, chatty sort of secret handshake sort of way, like this shit really works, or however you Brits say it to one another when there’s no Yank in earshot, that sort of thing. I emailed a copy of my book.