scratch-mark

Why Are Americans Such Fucktards About Food For Kids?

I’ve blogged about school lunches a few times before. Here’s my favorite: It’s The Crap; Just Eat Real Food.

School Lunch Frankenfood
American School Lunch Industrially Manufactured Frankenfood

America: the fucktarded land where kids can’t even get a freshly made fucking PB&J sandwich for lunch; no, they have to come industrially assembled in a factory with bulk-purchased, cheapest possible ingredients, packaged, and then trucked far & wide.

By comparison, here’s what a typical school lunch looked like in France back in 2010 when I published that post, inspired by this article.

School Lunch in France
School Lunch in France

Shameful, in every respect. Not that I think it’s the responsibility of the State via coerced taxation to buy a free lunch for anyone; but since that’s not going away, it does seem minimally prudent that it be used to ensure quality, or that hell, priorities get adjusted? I’ve recently written about how Americans don’t give a shit about their children. Not really.

…Speaking of which, I note that the National Debt has increased about $3 TRILLION in the same 3-year period of time. Public debt is an awesome barometer in noting just how much fucktard parents and fucktard grandparents are liars. They dote on and on about the kids; but they want their “retirement,” and by doG, those kids, grandkids, great grandkids…great, great, great, great, great, great grandkids are going to pay for it all, with interest, while they wave their flags, read every single AARP press release that ever came out, and sport “I voted” stickers. Pathetic.

Tom Brokaw was wrong. It’s not “The “Greatest Generation.” It is—literally—the most entitled feeling generation in the history of planet Earth. I’ll take the previous one, that endured the Great Depression, anytime.

Moving right along, here’s what French school lunches look like in 2014: What French Kids Eat For School Lunch (It Puts Americans To Shame!):

lunches
Impressive, caring French school lunches for an investment in healthy kids (click to enlarge)

First courses: cucumber and tomato salad; cabbage and tomato salad; tabouleh (made with bulgur); and potato and pickle salad.

Main courses: veal marinated with mushrooms, broccoli; roast beef, potatoes, baked tomatoes with herb; breaded fish, cauliflower; and sausages, zucchini.

Cheese with  three of the four meals.

Desserts: apple tart, kiwi, peach, ice cream, apple.

“All our fruits, vegetables, fish and meat are sourced locally, some of them from local farms,” according to Dany Cahuzac, the city counselor in charge of school matters, including the cantine. The local bakery delivers bread, a staple of every French meal, fresh every morning. And every two days, there is at least one organic item on the menu. Once a month, an entirely organic meal is served. The only drink offered at lunchtime is filtered tap water, served in glass pitchers.

OMG! Water to drink, only. It’s likely assumed that they had full fat milk for petit déjeuner that morning.

…Instead of hanging heads in abject shame and failure in the face of an admission of guilt over what can rightfully only be described as child abuse, what does America do instead? It literally makes a Federal Case out of it, enlisting the wife of the holder of the highest political office—in oder to garner political points more so than anything else.

And since one ought never pass up a chance to use the word audacity in reference to the Obama administration, they had the audacity to call the thing the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. Watch what these teachers and kids think about that.

And here: See Why This Kentucky School District Just Told Michelle Obama To Take Her Lunch Plan And Shove It.

The promise of a significant influx of federal money was not enough to convince officials in one Kentucky school district to stick with the school lunch program endorsed by Michelle Obama. According to a Cincinnati Enquirer report, Fort Thomas Independent Schools will no longer be confined by the strict mandates set forth in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act that went into effect earlier this year.

Despite the fact that the district would receive hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to implement the regulations, administrators cite the fact that kids are not eating the resulting meals as their reason for dropping the program.

Well, one problem is that so many kids can’t even recognize food anymore. It’s been bred out of the population. On the other hand, I do note that the guidelines mandate that only skim or 1% milk can be served. 1% has 25% of the milk fat of actual milk.

The other thing is that I believe most schools nationwide don’t even prepare food in the school kitchen, anymore. When I was in elementary school, I volunteered for the kitchen almost all the time. I loved working with the nice lunch ladies. There were daily deliveries of of food: meat, fish, fowl, vegetables and fruits. These cooks would actually do something radical like follow a recipe, put food in pots and pans, and cook it. It would be served on cafeteria platters that had to be washed; and we had forks, knives, and spoons.

Perhaps if schools went back to preparing actual food and encouraging kids to pitch in with the preparation, serving on the line, and cleanup, they would develop an appreciation and these problems will take care of themselves, by the kids themselves.

Update: Via Angelo Coppola, here’s a 5-minute CBS News report about school lunches in France.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

110 Comments

  1. j3nn on August 15, 2014 at 17:03

    It’s because schools give their funding priority to administrative and pension costs. They don’t give a damn about the children, their education, or their nourishment. They cut all the important corners to pay pensions and healthcare to teachers who retired 20 years ago and to current tenured teachers who teach the same rhetoric 5 hours a day, year after year, and make $100k a year only to have half of the year off. Yeah, yeah I know this isn’t every school district or every teacher, but once you start looking at the unions, the tenured teachers, and the retirees, the picture is a lot different than the rookie teacher who barely makes ends meet until they become tenured. Game changing.

    • j3nn on August 15, 2014 at 17:08

      Not to mention the crony contracts these “food” servicing companies get that produce that garbage. There are people getting insanely rich off of putting out dirt cheap foods that are barely edible. There are so many levels of wrong in the public education system. Common sense is ignored in favor of greed and profit. They know there are better solutions, but no one is willing to sacrifice the real 800 lb. elephant in the room.



    • Hello on August 15, 2014 at 18:00

      It should compulsory for ALL teachers to eat the food served to the kids at schools.



    • elmo on August 15, 2014 at 21:42

      yeah but when they goes on strike its for the children.



  2. James on August 15, 2014 at 17:28

    The school lunch providers, like ALL rent seeking “private” businesses that provide goods & services to the government beauracracies, could care less about the benefits of their product. As long as the “nutritional” requirements are met, it’s about the cheapest product which will enrich the company officers. Who cares about the kids? There’s big $$$ to be made from a captive customer.

    I remember well my lunches in grade school….both of my grandmothers were cooks in the school. Every morning & lunch was from scratch…nothing pre-cooked & wrapped in plastic.

    Political nutritionists are world class fucktards!!

  3. pzo on August 15, 2014 at 17:53

    I loved my “lunch ladies,” back in the 50’s and 60’s. Real food – hey, how about baked HALIBUT? – lovingly prepared.

    I’ve been to a few school lunches of my grand kids……….oh.my.god. Some days, sorta real food available, most days, packaged industrial “foods” served on throw away plastic trays. I look at “Snackables” or whatever those abortions are in the grocery store and I want to puke.

    The somewhat good news is that daughter of said kids does her best to often make lunch and keep them on a sort of straight and narrow.

    There’s a TED talk about a woman who took over a school district’s lunch programs and did things like introduce salad bars. Oh, here: http://www.ted.com/talks/ann_cooper_talks_school_lunches

    It’s not so much evil administrators or gummint interventions as some posters above have, um, posted. It’s our whole society, what we think is normal and the branding of food.

    • Bret on August 16, 2014 at 01:48

      Abortions. Hahahahahahaha.

      Excellent choice for imagery. 🙂



  4. Hello on August 15, 2014 at 17:55

    Since we’re pointing out Fucktards, you might want to double check your spelling. “bread out” should be “bred out” fucktard.

    • Allison on August 16, 2014 at 08:55

      I wish he kept it ‘bread out’ for proper symbolism. I see an edit happened, but i probs would’ve thought it intentional 😉



  5. Hello on August 15, 2014 at 17:55

    🙂

  6. Angelo on August 15, 2014 at 18:34

    For a good look at French school lunches, check out this CBS news video: http://youtu.be/oW3MBfkN9dk

  7. Rip on August 15, 2014 at 20:55

    Interesting to note that despite their economy being in the toilet,the French haven’t let the standards of their school meals drop.

    • Richard Nikoley on August 15, 2014 at 21:07

      All States steal money from every person.

      The French are not so chagrined as to Fuck up the kids.



    • Richard Nikoley on August 15, 2014 at 23:29

      America loves cars. The French love food.

      But kids can’t eat cars.



  8. raj on August 15, 2014 at 21:14

    One top of it american companies like P&G fucktards sold/still selling vegetable oil to poor buggers in India like my family who think all oil are same and cheap to buy and ruined my fucking life.

    If cigarate companies are sued to their ass why are we not doing that to vegetable oil, HFCS and chips companies. Legal system in highly advanced nation ( lol ) US is still mofo’s i say.

    great post !!

    • Bret on August 16, 2014 at 01:45

      I doubt even our feds could manage to keep a straight face suing these people while simultaneously subsidizing them.



    • raj on August 16, 2014 at 09:02

      Add Pepsi and Coca cola to that list. The day these guys are going to sell Resistance Starch filled sugar water to avoid legal issues is not that far.



  9. Brandon K on August 16, 2014 at 01:28

    Japan seems to do a pretty good job all around with school lunches; not “perfect”, but all real food for the most part.

    Just take a look at the results from an image search:

    https://www.google.co.jp/search?q=%E4%BB%A3%E8%A1%A8%E7%9A%84%E3%80%80%E5%A4%A7%E9%98%AA%E5%B8%82%E3%80%80%E5%AD%A6%E6%A0%A1%E3%80%80%E7%B5%A6%E9%A3%9F&tbm=isch

  10. Bret on August 16, 2014 at 01:44

    I can’t decide which disgusts me more: the pictures you posted, or the fact that the USDA has proposed in no subtle way that the free lunch program containing that crap be expanded to all students.

    All on the tax payer’s dime.

  11. GTR on August 16, 2014 at 01:47

    In all fairness – industrially made food should be superior to homemade one. The industry has the capacity and the ability to exceed everything else in excellence in everything it wants to.
    Industry can design stuff more advanced that anybody else using genious engeneers and supercomputers, industry can produce stuff more complex and complicated than anybody else thanks to the process, and make it in a more precise way – measuring and assuring multiple parameters along the way. It’s proven over and over again in the fileds other than food that industry is a superior way to making products.

    It’s just that in the food industry almost only wrong things are designed for and optimized: cost to produce above all, taste – including adding addictive properties, box design, a very, very long shelf life, and uniformity of an end-product (not viable if the inputs are biological). It’s as if the technological industry optimized only for using cheapest materials, a lot of planned obsolescence, style over parameters etc. – of course the products would be hopeless. But it’s the state the food processing industry is in.

    The solution may be to change the values that the industry designs for, optimizes for, rather than giving up on the industry. Both quality of the products could end up higher as well as overall cost (including the cost of time spend for preparation of home foods) could be lower.

    • raj on August 16, 2014 at 09:05

      Its called Irony, If you are gaining something (technology) from nature you better give something back (i.e, your health) that’s how balance is maintained.

      Obey her mostly break her wisely 🙂



    • Richard Nikoley on August 16, 2014 at 10:45

      I’m no Luddite but what I’ve said is that we ought not be treating food and drink for the human body like we regard cars and cellphones (more and more for less and less).

      I’d agree that the capacity exists to make highly wholesome food in an industrial setting and have it be uniform. Unfortunately, wholesome is not the standard anywhere I’m aware of in industrial settings, but profits through cost cutting, using the cheapest, most artificial ingredients possible, longest shelf-life possible, etc., combined with as many lies in marketing they can get away with.



    • raj on August 16, 2014 at 12:12

      Amen Richard, I just like to add one more statement. Amozonian are eating some shitty plant to avoid a particular pathogen from growing in gut, if we take our starch filled bread there we will get sick like a dog. If you live in Artic circle eat like poral bear just saying.
      Eat locally think globally.



    • Bret on August 16, 2014 at 21:32

      Unfortunately, wholesome is not the standard anywhere I’m aware of in industrial settings, but profits through cost cutting, using the cheapest, most artificial ingredients possible, longest shelf-life possible, etc., combined with as many lies in marketing they can get away with.

      I thank industry’s federal assistance for this mess, whether through subsidies, tax breaks, licensing/regulation/other barriers to competition, etc.

      I think most people do want quality food. They just have no idea what that is, because their god damn government, being in cahoots with charlatans, lies to them about it.

      Then again, it’s the people’s fault for trusting that government.



    • GTR on August 17, 2014 at 12:44

      The potential advantages of for-quality industry food making over home/restaurant preparations:

      1) Ability to produce extremaly comprex products. Like a food with a 1000 ingredients; assuring nutritient completness. Right now professional chefs can do like 25 ingridients stir-fry, home cooks use even fewer. Ability to do complex products could revolutionize nutrition.

      2) Ability to measure comprehensively and precisely both input ingredients, as well as the end-product. When you buy some food, like a vegetable you really don’t know what’s inside – eg. if the food grew on selenium-rich soil it has a lot of selenium, if it grew on poor or depleted soil it has very little selenium. Industrial factory can measure such factors; eg. assuring that high-mineral ingredients go to a product labeled as high-mineral, while low-mineral ingredients go to a product labeled as low-mineral. Then at the end the end product can be measured again. This way a counsumer would know precisely what they buy.

      3) Actual precisely control of the process. Starting from simple stuff – ability to precisely control temperature, pressure, timing, proportions with tools much more advanced than a pan or a pot. I have a suspicion that today a huge proportion of human-made food is made a wrong way – overcooked loosing vitamins and enzymes, undercooked – leaving parasites, bacteria, fried at too high temperatures leading to AGEs, acrylamide etc. Even simple stuff being done wrong – like people (including chefs) not knowing that one should first cut the sulphur vegetables, then let them sit, only then cook.

      4) In an industrial proces you can include a huge chunk of knowlege of our civilization about the best practices of making food. Both the newest one, but paradoxically even including traditional Weston A Price methods. Individual people just don’t have time or will to soak/ferment beans or do other long-term processing. The civilization’s total knowledge about nutrition is too large to learn for individuals, including professional chefs, but it can be included in the process, including being automated.

      5) Our current way of making food includes multiple wrong parts that persist probably because of inertia, rather than because of merits. Consider “fresh produce” – you basically have the thing standing for a long time in a rack, in a temperature more appropriate for humans than fruit or vegetables, and being constantly touched by hordes of customers (this has been partially eliminated by internet shops). Or a thing that Duck Dodgers mentioned – meat loosing it’s glucose because of not being flash-frozen or consumed immediately.
      When you have an industrial process there are always engeneers there trying to find flaws and improving it. Thus a industrial, but for-quality making of foods could lead to constant elimination of wrongdoings or weak points in food making.



  12. kxmoore on August 16, 2014 at 02:20

    What the hell?

    “Our early research on this project showed that one metabolite in particular — butyrate — is a key driver of colon cancer, so it’s conceivable that antibiotics that limit butyrate could help prevent or control colon cancer

    http://news.utoronto.ca/low-carb-diet-cuts-risk-colon-cancer

  13. gabkad on August 16, 2014 at 05:22

    Richard, do you think the kids who routinely eat that crap diet would even know HOW to eat French school food lunches? They wouldn’t eat the vegetables, for starters because they don’t get them at home either. Looks like the ‘meals’ are designed to be eaten by hand. Do you think these kids know how to use a knife and fork?

    Ultimately good eating habits start at home. That’s why when we were kids, the stuff made by the ‘lunch ladies’ at school was ‘normal food’. Go déclassé sometime and take a look at the content of shopping carts at Walmart or one of the big suburban supermarkets.

    Remember all that big deal about pink slime? And how schools had to source their pink slime free burgers? The news later was that kids didn’t like their slimeless burgers. There was a school board official someplace like Minnesota (can’t remember exactly which state but it was in the north) who announced that they were going back to the original burgers because students wouldn’t eat the new type.

    • pzo on August 16, 2014 at 05:49

      @gabkad, re kids not knowing how to use utensils.
      When I was in elementary school, a teacher, Miss Mills, would walk around the lunchroom looking for kids with elbows on the table. She would walk over and stick a fork in said offending elbow.

      Can you imagine that today? Not just the FB rants about how their precious snowflakes are perfect and need to express themselves. Not just the forthcoming lawsuit, that’s a given. But the mere fact that an adult cared enough to teach etiquette?

      As Marie Antionette said, “Let them eat with sporks.”



    • Mo on August 16, 2014 at 07:36

      As part of a summer gymnastics program back in the early ’90s, our family hosted many middle class girls from around the country.

      We were shocked to discover at the dinner table that one girl, age about 11, could not use utensils. It turned out that all her meals had been fast food from paper and cardboard, eaten by hand.

      That was more than 20 years ago. If I had to guess, it’s worse now.



  14. Amy L.H. on August 16, 2014 at 11:26

    Short answer to your question, Richard: we don’t give a fuck what we put into our bodies or our kids’ mouths, make it quick and be sure it’s sugary so we can plop it in front of the kids and get back to our RHONJ, DWTS, Angry Birds, cat vids, and the Kardashian twats.

    Heaven forfend that we try to teach our kids good eating habits. You know, Richard, you KNOW what most people would tell you if you took a random poll of parents and showed them the French lunch: “Oh, my kids would NEVER eat like that, I can barely get them to try peas, they just love their PB&J too much.”

    Excuses, and pitiful ones. It does our children no favors to have no expectations of them, whether it be of their eating habits, personal hygiene, or behavior in various situations. We’re snowflaking them, ironically, into perfect automaton-like compliance with Big Food, Big Ed, Big Gov.

    Fucktards, indeed.

    • Richard Nikoley on August 16, 2014 at 11:48

      Thank you, Amy.

      I call bullshit right to people’s faces when I hear that “my kids won’t eat that” diarrhea that gushes from their stupid mouths.

      Hunger is the most powerful human drive. Anyone would eat anything edible. Anyone. Anything.

      Years ago on 20/20 there was a segment about picky kids. In the one family profiled, the three kids would literally eat nothing but pizza, hot dogs, burgers. They brought in some experts.

      Within 2 weeks the kids were eating Brussels sprouts, spinach, and everything else. How?

      1. Zero food is available except mealtimes.
      2. All food is cooked, real food.
      3. No desserts, no treats.
      4. No sugar water beverages.
      5. Everyone eats together, at the table.
      6. There are no alternatives to what’s served.
      7. Nobody is pressured to eat any particular thing, or eat at all. They’re welcome to not eat, but nothing will be available until the next meal.

      Guaranteed to work 100% of the time, and there’s no worries if there’s a food item or two they just don’t like so forego it.

      I don’t like menudo and I don’t like braised kidneys. Can’t think of anything else I don’t like.



    • Amy L.H. on August 16, 2014 at 11:56

      That pretty much sums up how we do it with the kids, one family one meal except on some occasions like picnics or parties where I’ll make them a special meal (birthday, whatever). I’m not above serving chicken nuggets or pizza, but I make them myself and the kids help – getting them in the kitchen is a huge part of them wanting to eat food.

      Also, my kids knew the words “diluted” and “hydrated” by the time they were 2.5-3. I give them a serving of fruit juice a day, diluted with water. Other than that, they get water to drink. Mean Mommy! They don’t like drinking milk, so it goes in oatmeal if they’re eating that, or sometimes they get hot chocolate at bedtime or with breakfast.

      They ASK for water, not soda or juice. Water. When they think of snacks, they want cheese and apples, olives on their fingertips, or a slice of bread with peanut butter. It’s far from perfect, but light years ahead of some other kids, who only know Oreo’s and Sun Chips.



    • Amy L.H. on August 16, 2014 at 11:58

      And hot dogs? We have a local game butcher who processes a few deer a year for us into ground and sausage. We butcher some, and some we take to him. He makes killer deer hot dogs and my kids love them.

      I’ll have to send pics of my three- and five-year old helping Daddy butcher a deer. They hold the knives and help him wash and wrap the cuts. Kids will do anything you EXPECT them to do, keep the expectations reasonably within their reach and watch them WOW you.



    • Richard Nikoley on August 16, 2014 at 12:42

      Yep, I consume about a quart of OJ every week or two, about half juice, half club soda. Dose makes the poison.



    • pzo on August 16, 2014 at 17:25

      Richard, I will suggest that sex is the strongest drive that we have, not hunger. Certainly, ultimately, hunger will win in the long term. But we, at least most of us, will forgo food in the medium term for sex.

      And just look how stupid we can be for sex.
      As Arthur Schopenhauer observed almost two hundred years ago, sex controls us:
      “The sexual impulse in all its degrees and nuances plays not only on the stage and in novels, but also in the real world, where, next to the love of life, it shows itself the strongest and most powerful of motives, constantly lays claim to half the powers and thoughts of the younger portion of mankind, to the ultimate goal of almost all human efforts, interrupts the most serious occupations every hour, sometimes embarrasses for a while even the greatest minds, does not hesitate to intrude with its trash, interfering with the negotiations of statesmen and the investigations of men of learning, knows how to slip its love letters and locks of hair even into ministerial portfolios and philosophical manuscripts, and no less devises daily the most entangled and the worst actions, destroys the most valuable relationships, breaks the firmest bond, demands the sacrifice sometimes of life or health, sometimes of wealth, rank, and happiness, nay, robs those who are otherwise honest of all conscience, makes those who have hitherto been faithful, traitors; accordingly on the whole, appears as a malevolent demon that strives to pervert, confuse, and overthrow everything.”



    • Bret on August 17, 2014 at 04:04

      Reminds me of the wise words of Mrs. Doubtfire: “It’s either wholesome, nutritious food, or empty tummies.”



    • LeonRover on August 17, 2014 at 09:00

      Dia is Muire Dhuit!

      What ?
      Straight from prison in Las V ?
      Yeah, 100 ml/day not Toxic.

      🙂 🙂

      Slán agus Beannacht



    • gabkad on August 17, 2014 at 16:09

      Exactly!

      I don’t know what menudo is, (okay fine, I’ll google it) but I’ll eat your kidneys for you. 🙂



    • gabkad on August 17, 2014 at 16:22

      Amy, I guess if you have access to resources, like deer, and you live in a more rural environment, all things are possible. And if you don’t work outside the home even more so.

      I must say I did allow my children a weekly treat of junk like McDonald’s chicken McNuggets. Don’t know what was used to fry them back in the late 1980s, early 1990s. I hate the smell of the place though. I’d even eat a cheeseburger or a 1/4 pounder with cheese. I’m still alive. I think. Maybe I only think I’m alive.

      My kids drank a lot of milk though. I had to buy a separate small refrigerator just for milk. They ate a lot of fruit and vegetables, meat and etc. etc. So caving in to advertising bullshit wasn’t such a big deal. Now they are adults. One of them would rather go hungry than eat fastfood. The other one is good about cooking from scratch but periodically goes to McDs for breakfast crap. C’est la vie.

      No one got cancer or mental cognitive decline or obesity or anything else. Dose makes the poison.



  15. Allan Folz on August 16, 2014 at 20:04

    Richard, you had me at fucktard. 🙂

    The first poster is on the right track, but I think a little too narrow with her indictment. It is the Boomer generation. Baby Boomers not only squandered the inheritance from their parents, they have mortgage their children’s future. 3 generations of wealth pissed away in one.

    School lunches are a poetic metaphor of the whole country. Boomers have been eating their children’s seed corn for 30 years now. Fuck them.

    • pzo on August 17, 2014 at 05:57

      My, my. How bittter, Allan. Care to provide actual examples of how I fucked up your life? What do you mean by 3 generations of wealth?

      Signed, an ignorant seed corn eating Boomer



    • Bret on August 17, 2014 at 07:17

      I won’t speak for Allan, but I do agree with him. Watch Boomers flock to the polls over the next decade or so and fight tooth and nail to preserve the tax-funded retirement benefits that they “earned,” while castigating with extreme prejudice anyone who desires or intends to curb the unbridled monster.

      Relatively few of them will ever acknowledge the mathematical impossibility of continuing these benefits as promised, or how economics predictably and immutable forces this kind of result upon government programs such as these, or how their ‘benefits’ are nothing more than money confiscated from working citizens and redistributed. It’s government corruption at its best.

      Richard has mentioned in the past that the generation preceding the Boomers–you know, the ones who stood in soup lines in sheer desperation–possessed far and away more respectable character than their children, and he is right.



    • Richard Nikoley on August 17, 2014 at 08:11

      I’m in full agreement with Allan and Bret. Nothing to add.



    • gabkad on August 17, 2014 at 16:27

      I suppose if the grandparents are not penniless refugees from communism, it’s possible to piss away three generations worth of inheritance. So far there’s been on inheritance. They are still hanging in there at age 81 and 79.

      What am I supposed to say? ‘DIE you bastards, DIE! I want to have the chance to piss away my inheritance.’ LOL!

      Even funnier given that I own the house they are living in. And not because someone gave it to me.

      Maybe one of my kids will piss away her inheritance. The other, not. Depends on the kid. I’ll be dead by then.

      duh



    • Richard Nikoley on August 17, 2014 at 17:47

      “What am I supposed to say?”

      How about “good job,” you have shamed billions, because you saw to yourself and yours?



    • Bret on August 17, 2014 at 20:47

      gabkad, it sounds like your personal situation is much more appropriate than the economic farce I hear about from others nearly every week.

      Most elderly folks that I know of own their own homes, live alone (either truly solo or with their elderly spouse), and depend like hell on their beloved Medicare and Social Security. I don’t want them to die any more than you do, but at the same time, I feel more of us ought to realize that bankrupting the nation into financial oblivion simply so that each of our seniors can live two or three more years is probably not a smart call.

      Today’s crop of westerners don’t seem to have any appreciable comprehension of their own mortality, or are in denial of their proximity to it. Which I suppose is fair enough, being that animals don’t think about that stuff, and we are nothing but cranially complex animals. But even so, this is the folly of governed societies. People forcibly take from others while convincing themselves that they actually own and/or deserve what they take. They don’t think of it as force, because they have no incentive to. It’s marvelously ironic: we modern humans have these big, magnificent, overly developed brains, and we haven’t the slightest clue how to use them, because all we ever do is indulge in the most disgustingly self-absorbed behavior one could ever imagine. Like I said, nothing but animals–we’re the only ones who think otherwise.

      As to your situation, I think it is appropriate for grown children to take care of their elderly and ailing parents. They did it for us: it would be decent of us to do it for them. Otherwise, we are the self-centered assholes. Neither direct theft through by taxation nor generational theft through national debt need be a party to this process.



    • GTR on August 26, 2014 at 03:36

      Bret wrote: “their ‘benefits’ are nothing more than money confiscated from working citizens and redistributed”
      “as is the case with so many other issues, fueled primarily by economic illiterates who don’t want to admit that they are stealing from people and secondarily by people who, while they understand economics and the concept of tax-funded theft, simply did not save their money and now want a bailout.”

      As I have already witten, lots of wealth comes from non-human sources like: work of robots, work of computers, or utilization of natural resources of the Earth. Saying that the sole source (“nothing more than”) of redistributed income stems from “working people” is thus wrong.
      A good example of utilizing natural resources for providing government benefits could be Lybia under Gaddafi.
      https://www.facebook.com/notes/ibn-e-umeed-فرخ-اِبنِ-اُمید/gaddafis-socialist-libya-some-untold-facts/271716282867550
      But basically in any country with some form of socialist behavior it’s either direct or undirect source of benefits (via corporate taxes on natural resources extractors and so).
      Even in the US things like work of robots, computers, and natural resources are an indirect sources of benefits like Medicare socialist program. After all 1/2 of it is paid by the emplyers, and some of them have income originating from extraction of natural resources, work of robots, or work of computers; from which they pay this tax.
      My questions were even more general:
      “Who gets the benefits from the works of robots, automatons? Who gets the profits from the extracted oil, cut wood or other natural resources? A capitalist would answer – only the capital owners. A socialist would like to spread such profits over a larger population.
      So it’s not one group of people stealing from other group of people, but rather a deeper question of who should be the beneficiary of the wealth related to third-parties: robots, natural resources etc.”
      Going “blind humanist” on the subject – portraying the world as interactions only between groups of people, without including the huge, huge influence of non-human actors on the civilization, the economy is not simply invalid.



  16. pzo on August 17, 2014 at 09:53

    With the Social Security overhaul – a truly bipartisan effort by a Democratic Congress and a Republican president, it is my generation (which I believe includes Richard) that paid for not only our parent’s benefits, as originally intended, but our own.
    The only people who got benefits without contribution were the original ones in 1935. When I was working, and my parents were retired, I was grateful for the contributions required of me and my employers.
    If you don’t like the fact that old people vote in large numbers, get your peers charged up to change things.
    Of course, I have this weird hunter-gatherer perspective about society. We are to take care of each other, at all times. Since most of us aren’t going to pre-chew food for an elder, let alone live in the same compound, we have to have alternatives.
    SS is fine until somewhere around 2040. That date was reduced by a few years because many boomers lost their jobs in The Second Republican Great Depression, and had to tap SS. Like me. Thank you, FDR.
    BTW, SS will be solvent forever by eliminating the earnings cap for contributions. Might even be able to lower the withholding percentage a bit.

    • Allan Folz on August 17, 2014 at 19:04

      To clarify, I am not speaking on a personal level, though there’s plenty of that too, I’m speaking on a societal level.

      The Great Depression generation built a tremendous amount of public works projects before and after the war (oh yeah, and fought a word war, but we’ll ignore that for now). Boomers haven’t built shinnola for infrastructure and barely maintained the infrastructure “bequeathed” to them. More recently as times have gotten tight they have been selling-off infrastructure to various private entities foreign and domestic. Not all the time and everywhere, but often enough to support my claim they are burning through 3 generations of wealth because the money they take from the sales is going into public pension funds that weren’t nearly as much underfunded as grossly over-promised.

      Higher education is another apt example. When Boomers went to college one could easily and practically work a good summer job to make enough money to float one along through the school year. Today college students have to take on debt somewhere between a 20% down payment and the whole freakin’ house. Where’s that money go? To the Boomer administrators making in the top 5% of incomes for jobs that used to be solidly middle-class employment when they were college students.

      As far as employment, Boomers have outsourced almost the entire lower-skill half of employment. When they could relocate factories, they relocated factories. When the work itself couldn’t be relocated they let millions jump the border. Mow lawns, deliver newspapers, bus tables, all those summer jobs Boomers did as kids, are gone to today’s kids. Lest I start sounding like a Communist, I’ll say Reagan (like him or hate him, I don’t care, but I think we can all agree he was no Communist), was the President that put into place import quotas an Japanese vehicles. Jobs matter, and the standard of living one gets from a job matters immensely. Boomers had the wind at their backs their entire working careers, barely saved for tomorrow, and have left the next generation with an immensely tougher row to hoe.

      But hey, I didn’t want to get all political. I thought this was self-evident, but coming back to the comments I see some confusion over the implications of what I said and even a charge that I’m bitter. I’m not bitter, I’m outraged — “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”



    • gabkad on August 17, 2014 at 21:10

      Which boomers? The senior or junior or both?

      Because as a junior boomer, I tell you it has been tough. The only plus was university fees didn’t put me into years of debt. But the interest rates when I graduated in 1981 were 22%. I left the country and worked someplace where I could both work hard (it was difficult to get a decent associateship in those days and buying a business was out of the question for me) and earn good money. Lots of adventure as well. When I came back, the economy was good for a short time and then boom: Black Friday. Then in the early 90s there was a recession. Things picked up but in 1996, unfortunately I fell gravely ill and didn’t recover fully. Meantime the industry in this country was gradually moved out and people lost their jobs. It was a slow steady erosion of jobs and job security. Then from 2004 until 2008 my health improved, I was able to work hard, albeit with considerable physical pain, had a chance to work hard and then 2008…….another BOOM! We have not recovered and my health took a slide as well.

      So here we are 2014, trying my damnedest to get healthy, business is semi-shit and I’m almost 57 years old. Finished raising the kids 7 years ago and thought, great, I can proceed unimpeded by immediate family obligations. It’s been up-down-up-down the whole time. And now it would appear the location of my business is going to be majorly renovated/or something and I will be given 90 days notice to vacate at some point in the relatively near future.

      After everything, I’m just going to retire. Fuck it. I need to take care of my health first and I figure even if I’m living off savings I’ll have the time to do what I need to do. BTW I have no insurance for health costs, nor do I have a pension plan except for whatever the government provides after age 65. Seeing as how I’ve been paying into it since age 16, I don’t have any qualms about collecting it. And if by some chance my parents live forever and I won’t be able to sell that house (maybe they’ll live longer than me since they don’t have any stressors in their lives except whatever they create for themselves) then eventually I’ll run out of money and you can wave at me as you drive by while I push my shopping cart filled with all my earthly possessions.



    • pzo on August 18, 2014 at 07:54

      Brett, I appreciate your thoughtful response.

      The declinations you rightfully bemoan have come about through a political climate that gained huge traction with the election of the old geezer hisself, Mr. RR. But even he understood that SS was here to stay and it is a popular program providing much needed income late in life.

      What my parent’s generation, yes, the “Greatest” one learned is that we are all in “this” together and that when we work together great things can happen. That includes getting out of the depression via taxing the rich and then spending the money on programs (and eventually ramping up arms manufacturing for the Lend Lease program and WWII). Then, fighting that terrible war. While my father never saw combat, he was inconvenienced, you might say, for almost the entire duration, both land side and ship board.
      That generation understood that to make a better world for their kids, they had to tax themselves to built schools, parks, etc. Now we are at a point, where people believe that taxes are inherently wrong, evil, and should be zero. Yes, many boomers have bought into this mindset, but it’s really a transgenerational one, from guys older than me watching Faux News to young ones claiming to be Libertarian because they think it sounds cool.
      The fifties and sixties were probably the golden years for the middle class. While we can’t turn back the clock, we can bring back jobs, progressive taxation, and respect for labor, not just capital.

      (Oh, Lord, just spend half an hour with a Nokia Customer Avoidance drone in India. What a horrible experience, humorless, repetitive of what’s already been said, and absolutely not resolution oriented. I NEVER have these problems with American call center personnel.)

      Well, I need to get some actual things done today. Thanks again for your perspectives.



    • Bret on August 18, 2014 at 22:42

      Hi, pzo.

      I appreciate your giving me the time of day despite being busy with other activities. The great thing about internet debates is that we can choose when to reply, so that our debates don’t interfere in our lives.

      I find many of your statements to be fallacious, for one reason or another.

      No one has ever demonstrated exactly why Social Security and (an even bigger problem) Medicare are “here to stay,” other than their immense popularity. Popularity alone is not a suitable justification. Even if it was, the popularity on this issue is, as is the case with so many other issues, fueled primarily by economic illiterates who don’t want to admit that they are stealing from people and secondarily by people who, while they understand economics and the concept of tax-funded theft, simply did not save their money and now want a bailout. Sounds like the auto, insurance, banking, etc industries about seven years ago, just on a more widespread and individual scale.

      Much needed income? Only for people who did not save. With that kind of loose logic, we could justify just about any widespread government welfare action whatsoever, because some people did not or might not prepare. Doesn’t sound convincing to me.

      I will grant that government can play a simultaneously useful and intrusive role during a depression, but not the one that FDR’s government played. Wage and price controls, for instance, were the stupidest ideas in the world and led to all sorts of unintended consequences, including arguably the Medicare monster that we don’t currently have a plan to overcome. Financing a (TEMPORARY!) minimal income for the masses when job availability is almost nonexistent seems reasonable…an enormous government dole given to everyone that has no limitations and no plans for phasing out, however, does not. That’s what the ancient Romans did, and things did not turn out so well for them.

      Zero taxes? Maybe some folks believe that. I personally am less extreme on the issue and believe that taxes can be useful when appropriately imposed. But topping 50% (don’t cop out on me at 39.6…you have to consider state income tax, sales tax, corporate tax, gas tax, all that crap) is clearly a bad idea and is undeniably theft.

      The value of labels like libertarian (capital L means Libertarian Party; lower-case l means someone who believes in freedom) is in the eye of the beholder. What you think is a laughable fad, worthy of casual dismissal, I think is a much more sensible way of thinking than assuming government–a mere collection of our fellow human beings, all with the same human flaws the rest of us have, empowered to use force–has the answer to every problem that ever arises. That’s an extremely inefficient strategy at best, and a path to economic ruin at worst.

      If you are dissatisfied with Nokia, for instance, a better bet than dreaming of government intervention is to shop around for another cell phone manufacturer that better meets your standard of customer service. Competitive capitalism affords you that luxury, and it works wonders in doing so. Government need have no role in that process.



    • GTR on August 19, 2014 at 00:59

      “No one has ever demonstrated exactly why Social Security and (an even bigger problem) Medicare are “here to stay,” other than their immense popularity.” – my answer is more about political money distribution system than about these specific programs.

      One of the justification could be the following questions: who gets the benefits from the works of robots, automatons? Who gets the profits from the extracted oil, cut wood or other natural resources? A capitalist would answer – only the capital owners. A socialist would like to spread such profits over a larger population.
      So it’s not one group of people stealing from other group of people, but rather a deeper question of who should be the beneficiary of the wealth related to third-parties: robots, natural resources etc.
      Notice the capitalist way – only the owners get profits – is neither fair nor optimal – engeneers who invented the robots get only a tiny bit of the profits from them. You have to be the owner of something to profit – so why would any intelligent person be an engeneer?



    • Bret on August 19, 2014 at 01:25

      GTR:

      Perhaps not everyone would agree with me, but I don’t think capitalism means only relatively few people receive profits as owners.

      As stronger competition arrives onto the financial scene, more people have an opportunity to invest in low-cost, high-quality investment options. My Roth IRA with Vanguard averages a 0.2% annual expense ratio, for instance, and my investments are in index funds and ETFs. That makes me an owner, just perhaps not in the sense that you meant. But I still get profits, whether I sell the funds at a gain over my cost basis or take dividends, or both.

      Diverse ownership is not limited to big-money Wall St suck-ups, either. When small businesses start up, they are often funded, and thus partially owned, by venture capitalists and other such people.

      Rich tycoons with curly mustaches hogging all the money for themselves is more a fantasy of Hollywood socialist tripe than a reality of capitalism. It’s certainly closer to reality in government, in my view.

      To return to your question, I would be an engineer, if being an engineer was what I loved to do. Then I would invest portions of my income, so that I, too, was an owner. Capitalism is still a beautiful thing in my eyes, as you can surely tell.



    • GTR on August 19, 2014 at 16:00

      @Bret – so basically you admitt that it’s the ownership that leads to rewards in capitalism that the capitalism recognizes as meaningful, rather than a real contribution to the civilization eg. invention as an engeeneer. A well publicized example could be the Shuji Nakamura – inventor of the blue led, who got like $180 bonus for his invetion, while having a salary just as non-inventing peers; only through a lot of public whining and complaining, as well as as a lawsuit he got more appropriate money for his contribution. Basically meaning a lawsuit and a publications are a way to get money. This is quite known today – eg. money extracted by patent trolling (lawsuits) are higher than money you can extract for the same patents as a salaried inventor.

      So besides ownership I’d also add getting percentages for activities, eg. for lawyering or lawsuits getting a percent of case/result/income, or financial brokerage, or just trade as a second possible way to get some money.
      Another example of ownership getting more than doers are various salary-suppresing schemes, eg.
      http://pando.com/2014/01/23/the-techtopus-how-silicon-valleys-most-celebrated-ceos-conspired-to-drive-down-100000-tech-engineers-wages/

      Which is one of many examples of capitalism acting against free market. Free market is kept alive by the government, that regularly saves it from the capitalism: by eliminating cartels, monopolies etc.

      It’s kind of hyporcrisy that lovers of capitalism denigrate socialism as full of parasites – benefits takers – not realizing that capitalism is full of parasites too; those who get a share of income disproportional to the real contribution, or even just for being totally passive, doing noting (rentiers) just because of owning.



    • Richard Nikoley on August 19, 2014 at 17:17

      “…only through a lot of public whining and complaining, as well as as a lawsuit he got more appropriate money for his contribution. Basically meaning a lawsuit and a publications are a way to get money.”

      In other words, he counted on the State from the start, and in this case, he placed his bet well.

      Nice. At who’s expense?



    • Richard Nikoley on August 19, 2014 at 17:20

      “Another example of ownership getting more than doers”

      The most fucktarded ignorant thing I’ve read in a month.



    • Richard Nikoley on August 19, 2014 at 17:39

      “Free market is kept alive by the government, that regularly saves it from the capitalism: by eliminating cartels, monopolies etc.”

      Without a doubt, the most fucktarded thing I’ve read in my life.

      Bret, would you care to cure ignorance, here?



    • Richard Nikoley on August 19, 2014 at 17:41

      “not realizing that capitalism is full of parasites too”

      The fucktard just doesn’t stop.

      Conflating capitalism with statutory corporatism, privilege by government.

      No wonder we’re lost.



    • Bret on August 19, 2014 at 21:47

      Bret, would you care to cure ignorance, here?

      It’s hard to know where to start. He/she is confounding crony patent laws with competitive capitalism. Were I to address such a fucktarded comment with another logical retort, I see no reason to expect anything other than another reply containing similar fucktardation. I’m learning to lose my patience a lot quicker with these amateur commies than I used to. I might as well try to teach my dog how to speak Latin. That would probably be more fun, too.

      It is funny, though, how he thought he had caught me in a contradiction. “So basically you admit that it’s the ownership that leads to rewards…” I never said otherwise. It’s no admission; it’s full agreement. I am just not stupidly pretending that only a fortunate few get to be owners.



    • Bret on August 19, 2014 at 21:56

      Conflating capitalism with statutory corporatism, privilege by government.

      No wonder we’re lost.

      Indeed. I think about this kind of ridiculous ignorance multiplied by tens of millions of Americans, and it makes me sad. I think we’re soon going to earn ourselves those soup lines you’ve been predicting.



    • GTR on August 20, 2014 at 01:21

      @Bret – “He/she is confounding crony patent laws with competitive capitalism. ”

      What do you mean? Don’t capitalist entities like technology corporations actively ask government to give them patents? Including the CRONY ones? Don’t they fight extract the money from both their legitimate and crony patents from others? Don’t they lobby for keeping or even extending current patent law?

      If not “competitive capitalists” then who is registering all those patents – churches? charities? philosophers?

      People – you have to understand that this whole PROPRTY stuff that is the basis for capitalism is not natural, but artificially kept alive by the governments. Predation is natural – the strongest entity forcefully get what it wants. Had it been not for the government then the mafia/criminals that use force would get all the property. Even in the Middle Ages there was a form of a redistribution of income from owners to those militaryli capable in the form of a loot.

      Now what you call “crony patent laws” are capitalistm-inspied attempt to make the state do the same artificial thing called PROPERTY in the non-material realm. They may have good or bad design; but the idea is analogous to the physical property concept – with a government as a keeper of it.



    • GTR on August 20, 2014 at 01:34

      @Richard – “Conflating capitalism with statutory corporatism, privilege by government.” in response to “capitalism is full of parasites too”.

      A good example of a person that gives no personal contributions to the civilization as a whole, but extracts a lot from it would be someone who doesn’t work at anything, but just inherited lots of money, and is living a luxry life on dividends from it. A parasite – from the global view.

      Capitalism is full not only of parasites, but of destructors too. Junk food producing capitalists, that actively marked their products to children, definitely lead to a worsening of condition of the world compared to the situation there were not existing, yet by capitalism-preferred measures like profits, revenues, growth they excell.



    • GTR on August 20, 2014 at 02:03

      @Richard – “In other words, he counted on the State from the start, and in this case, he placed his bet well.” – read the story. First he did the way you’d love – working for a private company. Which for a breakthrough invention have him $180 bonus (while his base salary was same as the engeneers that just apply existing products or make small incremental improvements); while the owner – the company – “his invention was worth about 60 billion yen, or roughly $580 million, to Nichia” (the company)

      http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/business/worldbusiness/12light.html?_r=0

      Only then, after not getting much money, he went to the court, as well as did a PR campaign in the press.

      So rely on capitalists – get $180 for an invention worth $580 million; use state and propaganda – get $8,9 million. So much for relying on capitalists to pay a fair price..



    • Bret on August 20, 2014 at 07:49

      GTR:

      Of course corporations seek patents. That means those particular corporations are not capitalists, but cronies. And why do you hand the corporations all the blame for seeking those patents while making no mention of government’s culpability for giving them? You don’t have a handle on the terminology here, let alone the logic.

      And on that note, I no longer have the patience or the desire to try to steer you out of your funk of economic ignorance. It appears to be a steep uphill climb, and I’ve got better things to do with my time.

      Ta ta.



    • Richard Nikoley on August 20, 2014 at 11:08

      I have to follow suit. I simply don’t have the time or inclination to engage with those who:

      1) Endeavor to justify why everyone ought be trying to live at the expense of everyone else.

      2) Makes meaningless distinction between massive rent-seeking corporations and the State.

      Ta ta.



    • Kyle on August 20, 2014 at 20:01

      @https://freetheanimal.com/2014/08/americans-fucktards-about.html#comment-645820

      “…everyone ought be trying to live at the expense of everyone else.” ~ Bastiat

      Since there was no welfare in his day, don’t you wonder who he could possibly be talking about?

      Funny thing, socialists say that “conservatives have done more for the socialist cause than socialists ever have.”



    • Richard Nikoley on August 20, 2014 at 21:24

      What’s funny about that? It merely means that commies laf about someone sinking almost to their level.

      Fuck conservatives.



    • Kyle on August 21, 2014 at 10:27

      (Funny) as in interestingly odd.

      “Fuck conservatives.”

      Yes, and billionaires too!

      Communists?? I never said anything about communists!

      Have you read ANY of the following?

      The Spirit of the Laws ~ Montesquieu
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_the_Laws

      On Liberty ~ John Stuart Mill
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty

      Two Treatises of Government ~ John Locke
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Treatises_of_Government

      The Law ~ Federic Bastiat
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_%281849_book%29

      The Wealth of Nations ~ Adam Smith
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

      Das Kapital ~ Karl Marx
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

      And usually available at your local library:

      James Madison ~ Richard Brookhiser

      Thomas Jefferson, the Art of Power ~ John Meacham

      Jefferson and Hamilton ~ John Ferling

      Alexander Hamilton ~ Ron Chernow

      Madison and Jefferson ~ Burstein & Isenberg

      The First Tycoon, the Epic Life of Cornelius Vanderbilt ~ T. J. Stiles

      The House of Morgan: an American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance ~ Ron Chernow

      Titan, the Life of John D. Rockerfeller ~ Ron Chernow

      The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt ~ Edmund Morris

      Theodore Rex ~ Edmund Morris

      Wilson ~ A. Scott Berg

      Louis D. Brandeis ~ Melvin I. Urofsky

      FDR, a Biography ~ Ted Morgan

      Eisenhower – in War and Peace ~ Jean Edward Smith

      I’ve noticed that wherever Wikipedia has articles on economics, the one word invariably attached is “THEORY”. Or are you irrevocably tied to the Austrian School???

      Kyle



    • Richard Nikoley on August 21, 2014 at 14:28

      “I never said anything about communists!”

      The exclamation signals that you make meaningless distinctions.

      Interestingly, you ask if I’ve read “ANY”–in all caps–which is a funny lie because you know I have and wouldn’t be here otherwise.

      I fucking hate liars, and plus, you didn’t even assert you’d read them all.

      Bye.

      PS: I have little respect for those who claim to be well read.



    • Kyle on August 21, 2014 at 15:12

      “…because you know I have…”

      I know nothing of the sort. As a matter of fact, you’re response leads me to believe you haven’t read anything more than one can pick up at Lew Rockwell.

      I have read them. And you sir, are nothing more than a bullshit artist.

      Bye to you too.



    • Richard Nikoley on August 21, 2014 at 19:20

      I don’t pay any attention to Rockwell. Never have.

      Never read Mises. Not an Austrian. Never was, though quite familiar with the ideas.

      You’re the bullshitter. What I have read is well documented in the 4,000 posts on this blog, but far more important is that I actually think and you regurgitate.



    • Kyle on August 22, 2014 at 08:29

      Prima facie –

      “1) Endeavor to justify why everyone ought be trying to live at the expense of everyone else.”

      The State is the great fiction through which everyone endeavours to live at the expense of everyone else. – Frederic Bastiat



    • GTR on August 22, 2014 at 12:21

      @Bret, @Richard – you are both committing logical fallacies

      Bret commited a classic “No true Scotsman” logical fallacy. The template goes like that:

      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

      “You made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument.

      Example: Angus declares that Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge, to which Lachlan points out that he is a Scotsman and puts sugar on his porridge. Furious, like a true Scot, Angus yells that no true Scotsman sugars his porridge.”

      Brett applied the template of the fallacy directly – when I have shown some acts incompatible with his vision of capitalists done by capitalists, he exclaimed that these are not pure capitalists, but “cronies”.

      Richard started some classification program against “Conflating capitalism with statutory corporatism, privilege by government.” basically like dividing the world into distinct pure capitalism and capitalism colaborating with the state – appeal to purity. And this distinction is wrong, as pure capitalism and collaborating with the state are just 2 separete methods that an entity can use to increase the capital.
      Like you have a single corporation with multiple divisions: one division sells competitively on the free market, the second divisions sells to the state using bribes etc.
      So this is a kind of “black-or-white”/”false choice” fallacy suggesting that there is some kind of a sharp division between two methods of getting money, while there’s a lot of hybrid or immediate modes are both possible and present in the real world, even within a single entity.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma



    • Richard Nikoley on August 22, 2014 at 15:14

      I’ve been pointing out the no true Scottsman fallacy for 15 years.

      This isn’t it. I’ve also been pointing out the law of identity, in which conflating two things that aren’t the same, is a violation of.



    • Bret on August 22, 2014 at 22:49

      GTR, you could not be more wrong. Remember when I told you that you didn’t understand the terminology? You just proved me correct.

      Governments and corporations exchanging favors IS…NOT…CAPITALISM. It is crony capitalism, and the two are different. No, I did not come up with that just now to reduce my dissonance from your having caught me (as you implied) in a logic trap. You didn’t.

      You are, moreover, displaying a strong ignorance of what these terms mean; subconsciously denying the undeniable fact that without a corrupt government, you could not have these inappropriate favors; and then making the most illogical leap of all by suggesting that this same corrupt government exert more control over the economy, which will supposedly improve things.

      You are a stupid, stupid dumb fuck. Just stop it. You are utterly humiliating yourself right now, and you don’t even realize it.



    • GTR on August 23, 2014 at 01:54

      @Bret – if your definitions are correct – that “exchanging favors” with the government negates capitalism then capitalism is a fairy that doesn’t exist in the real world.

      Examples of “exchanging favors” – private transportation corporations utilizing govnermnet-owned road or rails, private energy corporations (both energy producers and brokers) being able to sell energy only because the governments artificially separated wire operators from energy sales (previously there had been local wire owner monopoly on energy sales); sometimes even utilizing govnernment-owned long-distance power wires. Those who operate this way – not capitalists?

      Your version of capitalism – even if temporary existed – is not a sustainable one, as some corporations would surely invent the idea of collaborating with the govnerment. Eg. if you have a factory that spews out products like a machine gun; and which costed a lot of fixed-cost in investment, then you are basically forced to sell to everyone to keep with the output, or you won’t recover the investment.

      But those are the minor points. You completly avoided the major ones – with the hardest-hitting one being that the private property is a thing artificially kept alive by the govnernmet. No ineraction with the govermnent = no property = no capitalism. And this includes basic things like definitions – like what constitutes a non-material property?



    • GTR on August 23, 2014 at 02:00

      @Richard – so can you give like 3 examples of real capitalism?



    • Richard Nikoley on August 23, 2014 at 07:47

      “You are a stupid, stupid dumb fuck. Just stop it. You are utterly humiliating yourself right now, and you don’t even realize it.”

      Dunning-Kruger.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect



    • Richard Nikoley on August 23, 2014 at 08:48

      “@Richard – so can you give like 3 examples of real capitalism?”

      That you even ask this signals your utter ignorance.

      For one, no corporation is capitalist, because they have limited liability as a privilege of government. No business entity that uses patents, trademarks, or copyright as a privilege of government is capitalist.

      No company that employs lobbyists in DC, state capitals or locally to lobby government for rent-seeking favors such as subsidies or regulations that create barriers to entry is real capitalist.

      No company that supports licensing laws are capitalist.

      No company that uses eminent domain to get land it wants is capitalist.

      The closest thing to real capitalism are business that remain sole proprietorships (full personal liability) or partnerships (joint and several liability). Leaves you pretty much with undercapitalized mom & pops, nowadays.

      To see examples of real capitalism on a large company scale you have to go way back. For instance, Cornelius Vanderbilt got his start by defying a NY law granting monopoly privilege to one company to run ferries. J. J. Hill built the Great Northern Transcontinental RR, and then opened shipping trade with Japan, and didn’t use a penny of government money, nor eminent domain. At the same time, the only transcontinental you’ve every heard about lost money from day one, was a hotbed of corruption and kickbacks and was in receivership many times.

      For shit’s sake already, take the Red Pill and cure your face palming ignorance.

      Start here:

      http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/424575.The_Myth_of_the_Robber_Barons



    • GTR on August 23, 2014 at 19:14

      @Richard – your examples of who’s not capitalist are not compatible with popular definitions of capitalism that use wording like “chiefly”, “largely”, “predominately”, “mostly” etc. rather than “exclusively” etc.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism?s=t
      Eg. “an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained CHIEFLY by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. ”

      “Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.[1][2] Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets and wage labour.[3] In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged.[4]”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

      So by these definitions some kinds of preodminately private, minority government hybrids (eg 90%/10%) are classified as capitalism.

      Besides these definitions are mostly about OWNERSHIP, not flow. Government as a minor actor through which the wealth flows, but which doesn’t accumulate capital or wealth is compatible with such definitons.

      These definitions also leaves open what is property that capitalists acumulate, who defines it and how it is protected – by all present and historical evidence it means that capitalism is a government-based system, in which governement intervenes into the freedom of individuals and corporations to protect property it defines, at the requests of the owners. Think like a trademark – a capitalists, as one of the method to increase his capital, asks a government to give him exclusivity to a word or a phrase, and then asks the government to beat up others who dare to use them without his permissions. A process fully compatible with the essence of capitalism – private ownership of such trademark, as well as accumulation of capital, as well as trade – a trademark can be sold, the trademark owner producing prouct under the trademark etc.

      Your example with the guy first breaking the government ferry monopoly – isn’t it obvious that he was a beneficiary of the govnermnent action? Had there not been a government-granted monopoly he would face a heavy competition form multiple private corporations, preventing him from entering the market.

      In summary – you and Bret clearly suffer from some purity ideology, as well as some idealization problem. But I think that the official capitalism definition – different from yours – is not good either. Basically it looks like the mechanism of capital ownership and accumulation and creation, as well as participation in free markets etc. are orthogonal to wheter the ownership is by private entity, or by some kind of cooperative or a government.

      For example how to classify investnment companies owned by governments? Like Mubadala? Non-capitalist capital creators?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mubadala_Development_Company
      “Its focus is on managing long-term, capital-intensive investments intended to deliver strong financial returns and tangible social benefits for the Emirate”.



    • Bret on August 24, 2014 at 02:34

      @Bret – if your definitions are correct – that “exchanging favors” with the government negates capitalism then capitalism is a fairy that doesn’t exist in the real world.

      Jesus, GTR, you really do seem determined to display a grasp of economics that makes absolutely none sound anything but hyperbolic.

      Yes, capitalism is pretty nonexistent in the present day, thanks in no small part to economic illiterates like yourself, who keep blaming corporations for crony capitalism and never the government officials who are just as complicit.

      What economic structure do you suppose would be superior? You dodged my question first: How would giving an undeniably corrupt government, which ruins market-based incentives with favors to corporations, more control over the economy result in a better situation?

      None of the rest of that bullshit in your post makes any more sense. Prohibiting monopolies is a legitimate function of government, as is enforcement of charges for trespassing, destruction of property, and anything else property-related. You are also arguing against a straw man, since I never said government ought not to exist. Only that it should not interfere in market-based supply and demand, whether with tax breaks, direct subsidies, unevenly applied regulation, and so on.

      If we replaced ignoramuses such as yourself with people who understand that competition keeps prices low and customer satisfaction high, then capitalism would be a much more visible and present phenomenon.

      But you are not in the minority, from what I observe. Millions of morons like yourself are regurgitating and propagating the same logical fallacies that you are, begging their elected officials for more communism, and propelling us toward a deep depression, courtesy of a national debt default and collapse of the dollar. Just wait.



    • GTR on August 24, 2014 at 13:37

      @Bret – you speak like a pope telling ex-cathedra what is “legitimate” for the government, what it “should not interfere with” – as if you conveyed some divine commandmant .

      But in reality I see absolutely no reason or motivation for any government to listen to people with the ideologies like yours. First of all – this is a group that either hates or despises/scorns it. Its very visible in your writings. Basically why should the government take commandmants what it “is legitimate” from a non-friendly party?

      The the essence of what you write – basically you have this views that looks like:
      1) Government is no good.
      2) Leading some profitable economic activity is virtuous.
      3) Government should not lead such economic activity.
      (alternatively: a) having a large revenue is one of the metric of success b) government should be minimal and keep it’s revenue small 🙂
      To me it looks like like a self-contradictory views. If doing some for-profit economic activity is good, then obviously a wise government should do it: if investments in capital brings profits – the wise government should invest, if producing stuff brings profits – the wise government should produce. If extracting natural resources brings profits – the wise govermnent should extract. It’s stupid for a government to prevent itself from participating in beneficial activities – and libertarian/”pure capitalist” ideologies would lead to that.
      So your motivational talk with the goverment might look like this:
      – Hey govermnent, you should really adopt Pure Capitalism!
      – What would we get from it?
      – You’d be forbidden from participating from profitable economic activites! Only private persons would be able to do it – thus the ideology of purity would be fullfilled!

      A funny cartoon here
      http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/libertarians-as-seen-from-the-other-side

      /////////////////////////////////

      I suspect that a lot of this “purity” ideologies come from misunderstanding of what money inherently is. Perhaps thinking it is just for providing comfort, luxry etc. Well, money, wealth – inherently – means having a political – via the ability to buy people, their time, fruits of their thinking, their sympathy etc. If you are rich you have the ability to make others do as you wish by paying them to do it. It is one of the major political powers – other being force, indoctrination.
      Thus Pure Capitalism means political power in the hand of capital owners. And capital owners being allowed and even expected and encouraged to be egoistic – work only for their own good; disregard the good of anything other – including non-civilization-entities, like the the natural environment and it’s needs. I just don’t see it as a good political system.

      It’s explained in the link below, under “Unscientific aspect #3” :
      http://www.jayhanson.org/oldindex.htm

      “But even the casual observer can see that money is social power because it “empowers” people to buy and do the things they want—including buying and doing other people: politics.
      If employers have the freedom to pay workers less “political power,” then they will retain more political power for themselves. Money is, in a word, “political,” and “economic efficiency” is correctly seen as a political concept designed to conserve political power for those who have it—to make the politically powerful, even more powerful, and the politically weak, even weaker.
      Our national currency provided the means for moneyed interests to capture our formal political system.”



    • Richard Nikoley on August 24, 2014 at 16:11

      “But in reality I see absolutely no reason or motivation for any government to listen to people with the ideologies like yours.”

      It’s a few hours since this was posted. Have you stopped lafing, face palming, yet? Bret?

      I’m not certain but in the realm of politics, this might be the most ignorant thing I’ve ever heard in 24 years of engagement.

      Hell, we just always assumed that the guys with the red tape and guns at the bottom of the stack were just lafing at us. To assume that we did this to persuade THEM. Unbelievable inability to comprehend an opponent. Worthless fucktard on all levels.

      We called it right. Complete fucktard.

      I might get motivated to use him as an object lesson of how to avoid being a regurgitating pathetic waste of flesh and fuck, once I get to the cabin and reflect on it tomorrow.

      Time for lessons in anarchy, I think.



    • Kyle on August 24, 2014 at 19:36

      GTR,

      I may dispute Richard on many points, but this isn’t one of them. Hopefully I can add a description of the perspective that he and others are discussing that is causing you to struggle.

      “In summary – you and Bret clearly suffer from some purity ideology, as well as some idealization problem.”

      Not a problem….it’s best to begin with the pure concept because it helps to distinguish divergences that can and often lead to complete perversion. This helps to uncover the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Why bother? Your economic and political independence depend on it. Take a look at the Santa Clara county and Citizens United cases where corporations are pointing to establish their “personhood” and “money is speech” “rights”. Funny, given that a corporation is a creature of the state, a tail which may now wag the dog.

      “1) Government is no good.”

      Patrick Henry said that “…government is but a necessary evil” which can best be understood by use of James Madison’s statement that “…if men were angels there would be no need for government”. Google the rest of Patrick Henry’s speech for further clarity.

      “Capitalism”……concessions.

      The strict concept is the accumulation of capital for business purposes. Any other activity is a divergence.

      No sooner than the US Government was instituted and could raise taxes (large sums available for usurpation), the new government was inundated with power and privilege seekers. Most were dressed in the clothing of capitalism but were not capitalists. They sought to profit from the edict of government which is not capitalism but in actuality profiteering, dependent on the granting of “concessions”. That term is still used to this day usually by resource companies.

      What Richard and Bret are telling you is that when even a purely capitalist business begins to operate in this way they drop the capitalist veil and become profiteers (seekers of power and privilege) dependent for their profits on government edict which previously, in general, was only a power of divine right monarchy. The granting of concessions to privilege seekers (renteers, etc.) can be further understood by comparison to the practice of the granting of letters of marque to privateers (profiteers) that allowed the seizure of foreign shipping as prizes which was much used by the European powers of the day. More can be found on the “granting of emoluments” in the Federalist Papers.

      The early republic granted no powers of incorporation due to the fact that the East India Trading Company, incorporated in England, was the source of many of the problems between England and the colonies. The founding fathers detested corporations.

      Licensing, limited liability, all of that is set by edict and as such is a “prize” granted by government which results in the perversion of government from it’s constitutionally protracted powers. Notice I said protracted instead of granted.

      Hope this helps.



    • Bret on August 24, 2014 at 22:28

      1) Government is no good.

      Another straw man. Two strikes and you’re out, GTR. I’m not going to bother with the rest of your leftist proselytizing.

      You seem to think that ignoring my criticisms and expatiating considerably over barely related issues, based largely on straw man argumentation, no less, substitute for a grasp on the logic of decentralized and unfettered competition vs. central planning, which you patently lack.

      If it was your goal to propagate commie wannabe mental retardation well beyond my limits of patience, then you succeeded. I’m unsubscribing from this post, so that I am not lured back in, like the last time. You go ahead and have the last word, commie boy(/girl?). Then, when I don’t reply again, you can give yourself a congratulatory fellatio(/cunnilingus) because that means you “won” the debate.



    • Bret on August 24, 2014 at 22:38

      It’s a few hours since this was posted. Have you stopped lafing, face palming, yet? Bret?

      We called it right. Complete fucktard.

      Serves me right for giving him the time of day. I have been through this time and again, seen how unparalleledly dumb people who believe this shit are and how unwilling they are to engage my actual words (vs. the Republican stereotype they think I am trying to emulate), and still I let myself get dragged into a debate with a braindead fucktard.

      Like I told him, he can enjoy having the last word and then declaring himself the winner of the debate.



    • GTR on August 25, 2014 at 02:31

      @Kyle – First post, about the “purity” stuff.
      You wrote: “Not a problem….it’s best to begin with the pure concept because it helps to distinguish divergences that can and often lead to complete perversion.”

      My take is that we already know that most things tend to fall into normal distribution (bell curve), or similar distributions that tend to have left and right sides with non-zero numbers on them.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

      And thus we know that purity is unlikely to exist in the real world. Knowing this it is obivious that any economic theory should start with bell-curve like distribution, rather than assuming purity. Purity assumption is an error in itself in anything realting to the real world. Unless of course you want such stuff in a computer game, a book, or just-for-fun or hobby simulation.

      So knowing there’s no purity but something like standard distribution a theory can strive to improve average, decrease standard deviation etc. – but not assume purity.

      The second important issue that I have already mentioned is that we live in a complex civilization with many “hybrid” constructs existing in it, that tend to prosper well in it. My example was a corporation with multiple division – one division fulfilling “purity” critieria, the other division fulfilling what Bret and Richard call names. And there are simple mechanisms for creating such hybrids – purchases, mergers, owners or managers changing their mind about “purity”. A factor like governments periodically changing periodically between more state-economy oriented and more private-economy oriented supports such hybrids too, as less risky than pure ones.
      Even in the “minimum government” (just army + police + lawmakers) models there would be someone who needs to provide such minimal govnermnet with buildings, police cars, weapons for the army -> thus the need for non-pure entities.
      So basicaly we know that hybrid non-pure entities exist, are going to exist, and even are neccessary. So assuming purity is an error in and of itself.



    • Kyle on August 25, 2014 at 09:16

      God help us. GTR, you’re all over the map. Until you understand basic pure concepts how do you expect to apprehend their relationship to other things? Until you do, you’ll forever be living in a matrix where you’ll accept whatever is presented to you as reality simply because it’s been given a name. A name that may have only a vague relationship to the thing itself. You’ll never know when something is being misrepresented.

      Sure, there’s diversity. There’s just as much diversity in misrepresentation also. What would you do about that? Understand and comprehend basic pure concepts so that you can ‘apprehend’ what is and is not.

      I don’t see any reason to continue this dialogue, You have to do the work, no one can do it for you.



    • Richard Nikoley on August 25, 2014 at 10:59

      “I don’t see any reason to continue this dialogue, You have to do the work, no one can do it for you.”

      Dunning-Kruger.

      It happens. Prime example.

      He is literally too ignorant to grasp, anymore, his own ignorance.

      He is not making errors. This is important. He’s a perfect useful idiot setting out to do what he’s been programmed to do.



    • GTR on August 25, 2014 at 11:46

      @Kyle – you wrote “No sooner than the US Government was instituted and could raise taxes (large sums available for usurpation), the new government was inundated with power and privilege seekers. ”

      I’d advice Americans to get a view on the history wider than your own country. Otherwise the roots of political systems won’t be understanable. Take a “big governent” system, with a huge interventions of the government with in the economy, . That’s Ancient Egypt. Basically a transformation from tribalism to civilization started with “big governments”.

      http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/economy/

      Other early ancient countries in the Mediterrenean, like Minoans, also had a centralized, big-government economy based on redistribution, it was known as “Palace Economy”.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_economy
      “A palace economy or redistribution economy[1] is a system of economic organization in which a substantial share of the wealth flows into the control of a centralized administration, the palace, and out from there to the general population, which may be allowed its own sources of income but relies heavily on the wealth redistributed by the palace.”

      So stories that tell about starting in some kind of a golden era of free enterprise, and then evil Big Gov coming and destroying the paradise are fake. The civilization started with big governments, and command economy.

      Some free markets, trade-based economy, some prototype of capitalism, but based on trade (so with some but not much capital accumulation) came much later – with Phenicians, then Greeks.

      A rule by crooks – I guess Rome would fit?



    • Richard Nikoley on August 25, 2014 at 12:10

      “I’d advice Americans to get a view on the history wider than your own country. Otherwise the roots of political systems won’t be understandable.”

      Keep the thread going. GTR is a fucktard manufacturer and it’s gold.

      I’m saving it all.

      Might be a book in the works.

      He’s a ver big value, so come back, Bret (I’ll give you a cut).

      Dunning Kruger can actually provide you a god rush. They actually think they’re telling you something, or in some particular way, you’ve not heard from a million similar fucktards before.

      Oh, keep using profanity. This seems to bait the creature.



    • Kyle on August 25, 2014 at 12:52

      LOL! I can’t believe it! But I guess I’ll have to.

      “Dunning-Kruger”

      Yes, I just read the article at Wikipedia and it’s absolutely true. I’ve had direct experience with it.

      I have to apologize Richard. When I first came here, I saw you as terribly, terribly unkind and a brow beater.

      Now I see your responses as an act of self preservation from the enormity of the crap. I would now liken you to one of the old mule skinners who was not above picking up a section of chain and hitting a recalcitrant mule square between the eyes to get it’s attention. They didn’t call them mule skinners for nothing. But that’s only in analogy.

      You can explain until your blue in the face and they just won’t get it because of the propaganda they’ve been inundated with. What else are you to do?

      “He is not making errors. This is important. He’s a perfect useful idiot setting out to do what he’s been programmed to do.”

      I know that. Just never realized the enormity of it.



    • Richard Nikoley on August 25, 2014 at 20:24

      Thank you, Kyle, for understnding my mission over 20 years old and still running.

      One mind at a time.

      But, the other part is I waste time on GTR for reason. For a while, anyway.

      Most attempts are failures.



    • GTR on August 26, 2014 at 12:05

      @Richard – “I’ve been pointing out the no true Scottsman fallacy for 15 years. This isn’t it.”

      The other option is that Bret is not educated in set theory or the basics of languages. His sentence in and of itself is contradictiory: “Governments and corporations exchanging favors IS…NOT…CAPITALISM. It is crony capitalism, and the two are different. ”

      It’s like writing “Mowgli IS… NOT… HUMAN…. He is a tall human, and the two are different”. It’s pretty clear that “crony capitalism” is a subset of “capitalism” as a whole – the latter consisting of (“crony” sum “non-crony”) capitalism.

      So it is possibe – but not certain – that Bret is not a mighty debater using logical fallacies (ad-hominemns, no true scotsman) as weapons against against those with a different views, but that incompetence and anger are a state of his mind when he writes blog comments.



    • GTR on August 26, 2014 at 12:10

      @Richard – you wrote “For one, no corporation is capitalist, because they have limited liability as a privilege of government.
      No business entity that uses patents, trademarks, or copyright as a privilege of government is capitalist.
      No company that supports licensing laws are capitalist.
      No company that uses eminent domain to get land it wants is capitalist.”

      Can you provide a link to a linguistic definition source – like a respectable dictionary, or respectable encyclopedia that contains definition of capitalism compatible with your statements above?



    • Richard Nikoley on August 26, 2014 at 12:18

      I never bother with demands from people who display an unwillingness to think for themselves.

      Bye.



    • GTR on August 26, 2014 at 12:47

      Bret says: “Another straw man.”

      Bret – you wrote things like:
      “How would giving an undeniably corrupt government, which ruins market-based incentives with favors to corporations, more control over the economy result in a better situation”

      So you call goverment “undeniably corrupt”, and ruining economy – and when I characterize such views as “goverment being no good” you claim it is a strawman argument?

      Speaking of strawman – you associated me as being causally associated with:
      “begging their elected officials for more communism”
      “propelling us toward a deep depression courtesy of a national debt defaut”
      “propelling us toward a deep depression courtesy of […] collapse of the dollar”
      “keep blaming corporations for crony capitalism and never the government officials who are just as complicit”

      You can start from explaining my involvment in the collapse of the dollar. Start from the assumption I’m not an American.
      The “never blaming govnermnet officials” (proving nonexistance) part is kind of more tricky for you to prove. You’d have to know everhting I wrote, said, even in private…
      Then you can identify all the officials I talked to and aks them how I begged them for “more communism”.



    • GTR on October 8, 2014 at 01:08

      About Nakamura again – he just got awarded Nobel Price (along with 2 other co-disovereres) for the invention I mentioned.



  17. Richard Nikoley on August 17, 2014 at 10:27

    “get your peers charged up to change things.”

    Laf, laf, laf. Nothing funnier that watching a delusional person who doesn’t even know it.

    https://freetheanimal.com/2014/08/newsflash-whores-wishes.html

    • pzo on August 17, 2014 at 15:45

      Richard, you may be one of the few whose cynicism exceeds my own. But I offer up the evidence that whatever is that you and Allen don’t like is because someone, or more accurately, many someone’s, changed things from whatever they were to the way they are now.

      I live in Sarasota, Florida. Sarasota County is the oldest county of all US major metropolitan areas. Oldest, as in age of population. I’ve seen old people, their agendas, and yes, their political blindnesses up close and personal all of my life. The funny thing is that at one time I despised those old white haired men in their big Buicks. Now I are one. (The car isn’t my choice, just inherited from the old folks, too lazy to change.)

      The goddess laughs at me. And you.



    • Bret on August 17, 2014 at 21:03

      pzo, your logic is sound until you are unwittingly hoodwinked by the fallacy of collective government solutions.

      Bureaucrats will never spend, save, invest, or waste your money as efficiently or productively as you will, and certainly not in a way that is tailored to your needs and wants. How about instead of having confiscated a large portion of your paycheck for 40 years, government instead had warned you explicitly that if you wanted some comfortable years as a retired senior, you had better save your own money? Do you think you would be any worse off in that case, without Social Security and Medicare, than you are now?

      If you think the answer to that question is yes, then your trouble here is a lack of understanding of fundamental economics and an erroneous faith in government as a means of wisdom and problem solving. If that is indeed the case, then let me reassure you that you are not alone. But whether their ignorance is common or not, the elderly are still stealing from the current and future generations, plain and simple. Saying, “My parents did it to me,” is a truly shitty rationale for determining how to treat one’s own children (and in this case, their whole generation as well).

      Lastly, I will be happy to complain about Republicans with you all day long. Almost every single one of them, seriously. They have destroyed markets, incentives, and more with their filthy cronyism. They can rot in an African prison as far as I am concerned. But that doesn’t mean communism (or whatever euphemism the Democrats come up with for it) is either a feasible or justifiable solution.

      Stop playing the “I only have two political parties to choose from” game. That’s for morons. Try thinking for yourself. The right answer is typically not the most popular answer (nor the second most popular in off years).



  18. Richard Nikoley on August 17, 2014 at 16:18

    “I’ve seen old people, their agendas, and yes, their political blindnesses up close and personal all of my life. The funny thing is that at one time I despised those old white haired men in their big Buicks. Now I are one.”

    I have zero respect for a can’t beat ’em join ’em plea.

  19. Colleen on August 18, 2014 at 10:32

    We had lovely lunch ladies (1970s) but never food like that in the French pics. The problem with your analysis is that many Americans would not even want to eat the vegetables and fresh foods shown above, much less feed such food to their kids. Those people are not reading your blog. School food is simply a reflection of what many people eat, processed crap. If people were eating at home food like that pictured above, they wouldn’t stand for feeding their kids school lunches. But most people are eating food similar to that served in school lunches and see nothing wrong with it — in other words, they are not feeding the kids crap, simply what they eat all the time. The whole milk thing (pun intended) is the worst, it shows the lack of understanding, or the belief that fat is the enemy as opposed to processed food. I would enjoy your posts more if you branched out into more original name calling.

    • GTR on August 19, 2014 at 00:48

      @Coleen ” The problem with your analysis is that many Americans would not even want to eat the vegetables and fresh foods shown above”

      A Chinese cuisine chefs say that stir-frying can make people like to eat vegetables. So it may be a technique, and spices rather than vegetables themselves.

      A more traditional Western way, that is compatible with the whole “processed food” trend is to mix everything like a grinder or a food procesor with “everything else” and either make a sausage-type-food from it or some kind of pancake with flour added (it could be made from safe starch flour, or bean/chickpeas flour).



  20. LaFrite on August 18, 2014 at 12:58

    School food is simply a reflection of what many people eat, processed crap

    There you have it Richard, that is why Americans are so fucktards when it comes to feeding their kids at school.

  21. eljeromo on August 19, 2014 at 15:44

    My own children eat their fair share of chicken nuggets and sugary treats but none of them will go anywhere near a school lunch.

  22. Kyle on September 3, 2014 at 20:11

    If Only American Kids Could Eat School Lunches Like They Do in France – September 2, 2014

    Well, this is certainly bouncing around the net. Are you guys reading each others minds or just the same sources? You posted yours first Richard. Maybe you should ask for a mench. LOL!

Leave a Comment





YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780