. . . and The RestDiscuss just about anything besides Politics and Religion! Discuss sports, pop culture, computers, videogames, welcome new members, wish someone a happy birthday. Or just chit chat!
Some Notable Fat Countries
Kuwait - 74.2%
United States of America - 74.1%
Argentina - 69.4%
Egypt - 69.4%
Greece - 68.5%
Mexico - 68.1%
Venezuela - 65.2%
Some Notable Skinny Countries
Ethiopia - 5.6%
Cambodia - 11.3%
Afghanistan - 15.1%
India - 16.0%
Pakistan - 22.2%
Japan - 22.6%
I don't think political system has anything to do with it. Clearly impoverished countries are not as fat as rich ones .What other conclusions can you draw from it?
Thanks, you reminded me of this photo essay comparing the actual food eaten by families in various countries, about a dozen total. In this case a photo is indeed worth a thousand words.
Which part of capitalism is it where we subsidize corn so much, which is borderline magical in it's ability to put weight on people, and everything else that eats it, that it winds up in virtually everything we eat, whether as an ingredient or as a feed?
Daniel
We subsidize corn because corporate agriculture's lobbyists can bribe the legislature to do whatever they want. It's called "corporate welfare", and it's costing us billions of dollars while the corporations getting it are posting record profits. To answer your question, it's the part of capitalism where the capitalists become so wealthy and powerful that they can buy the government. And through their bought-off politicians, they can rob us all blind.
We subsidize corn because corporate agriculture's lobbyists can bribe the legislature to do whatever they want. It's called "corporate welfare", and it's costing us billions of dollars while the corporations getting it are posting record profits. To answer your question, it's the part of capitalism where the capitalists become so wealthy and powerful that they can buy the government. And through their bought-off politicians, they can rob us all blind.
Oh so your a hardcore, Soviet style socialist. Okay. Even socialism is capitalism.
How are you connecting obesity and capitalism, and how would socialism fix that? Not that I necessarily agree or disagree, but where does, say, crass commercialism end and personal responsibility begin?
The fundamental problem with capitalism is that it's one and only purpose is to maximize the return on capital investment. And that being the case, everyone else involved the commercial endeavor becomes an impediment to that goal. So that in the capitalist system, the capitalists are always seeking to exploit everyone else, if they can, for maximum profit. And this creates a system based on antagonism, competition, and mutual exploitation. It's a system that inherently seeks to create winners and losers, instead of seeking cooperation for everyone's mutual benefit.
The capitalist system is itself, very unhealthy. So it's no surprise that it results in an unhealthy population.
A more socialist system would take the focus off of the maximization of return of capital investment, and put it back on the real purpose of commerce: mutually beneficial trade. It's a different way of thinking.
For example, right now, we don't build houses for people to live in, we build them to make money. So the houses we build are not especially good to live in. We don't build cars for people to get around in, we build them to make money. So our cars are way over-built, over-priced, and bad for the environment. We don't build and operate hospitals to help the sick and injured get better, we build and operate them to make money. So as a result, they give too much care to the people who can pay their exorbitant prices while we ignore the sick and injured who can't.
My point is that when making more money, with money, becomes the reason for all our commercial activity, the quality of life of most people, suffers. But when we make improving the quality of people's lives the goal of our commercial activity, then everyone wins.
Right now, we produce tons of junk that no one needs or even wants. And then we produce tons more junk (advertising) designed to convince us that we need and want it. And the result is that we are living in a world of useless junk, and some have far more than they need, and still are not happy, while others are going without even their basic needs, and aren't happy, either. Our system produces a lot of junk, and little actual happiness.
We need to stop focusing on making money, and maximizing profits, and start thinking about doing things that make our lives better. We'd all be richer and healthier for it.
The fundamental problem with capitalism is that it's one and only purpose is to maximize the return on capital investment. And that being the case, everyone else involved the commercial endeavor becomes an impediment to that goal. So that in the capitalist system, the capitalists are always seeking to exploit everyone else, if they can, for maximum profit. And this creates a system based on antagonism, competition, and mutual exploitation. It's a system that inherently seeks to create winners and losers, instead of seeking cooperation for everyone's mutual benefit.
The capitalist system is itself, very unhealthy. So it's no surprise that it results in an unhealthy population.
A more socialist system would take the focus off of the maximization of return of capital investment, and put it back on the real purpose of commerce: mutually beneficial trade. It's a different way of thinking.
For example, right now, we don't build houses for people to live in, we build them to make money. So the houses we build are not especially good to live in. We don't build cars for people to get around in, we build them to make money. So our cars are way over-built, over-priced, and bad for the environment. We don't build and operate hospitals to help the sick and injured get better, we build and operate them to make money. So as a result, they give too much care to the people who can pay their exorbitant prices while we ignore the sick and injured who can't.
My point is that when making more money, with money, becomes the reason for all our commercial activity, the quality of life of most people, suffers. But when we make improving the quality of people's lives the goal of our commercial activity, then everyone wins.
Right now, we produce tons of junk that no one needs or even wants. And then we produce tons more junk (advertising) designed to convince us that we need and want it. And the result is that we are living in a world of useless junk, and some have far more than they need, and still are not happy, while others are going without even their basic needs, and aren't happy, either. Our system produces a lot of junk, and little actual happiness.
We need to stop focusing on making money, and maximizing profits, and start thinking about doing things that make our lives better. We'd all be richer and healthier for it.
PureX, I don't often find myself in agreement with you ...and yet you've made some good points. I'll have to think about that for a bit before answering.
Oh so your a hardcore, Soviet style socialist. Okay. Even socialism is capitalism.
Daniel
The Soviet government was not socialist, nor was it communist. It was basically fascism pretending to be socialism. As far as I know, actual communism has never been tried on a national scale. And socialism takes many forms. So if you want to insult socialism, you'll have to be specific as to which type you want to denigrate.
The Soviet government was not socialist, nor was it communist. It was basically fascism pretending to be socialism. As far as I know, actual communism has never been tried on a national scale. And socialism takes many forms. So if you want to insult socialism, you'll have to be specific as to which type you want to denigrate.
I didn't denigrate socialism at all. Americans already socialize a lot of expenses. Including food. I don't think its a bad thing either. I have no problem with public money being used to make sure that food is always in plentiful supply and cheap, and we've been doing that for decades.
Slogan/motto:
We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. - Martin Luther King Jr.
Reputation:
October 3rd, 2012, 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by annabenedetti
Thanks, you reminded me of this photo essay comparing the actual food eaten by families in various countries, about a dozen total. In this case a photo is indeed worth a thousand words.
I remember seeing this in the past but I'm a little confused. For example the first family they show is an Italian family that has 11 loaves of bread in their picture. They really eat 11 loaves of bread in a week? The second family eats sheep meat but I'm not sure I see any meat in the picture.
I believe that the Universe is one being, all its parts are different expressions of the same energy,
and they are all in communication with each other, therefore parts of one organic whole.
This whole is in all its parts so beautiful, and is felt by me to be so intensely in earnest, that I am compelled to love it and to think of it as divine
- Robinson Jeffers
No, not limited to food. At all. There are a lot of ways for a materialistic and consumerist society to feed a monstrous appetite. Maybe I should have made the OP less specific.
I'm all for capitalism. But there are some real downsides. I think one of the things that makes us great is also what's going to drag us down.
"There was so much handwriting on the wall that even the wall fell down"
"In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. The source of better ideas is wisdom. The surest path to wisdom is a liberal education." – Alfred Whitney, Essays on Education
Don't you know
That it ain't a crime
If all the squares
And the junkmen
Think you're out of line
I didn't denigrate socialism at all. Americans already socialize a lot of expenses. Including food. I don't think its a bad thing either. I have no problem with public money being used to make sure that food is always in plentiful supply and cheap, and we've been doing that for decades.
If we were really socialist, however, we would be using public money to make sure our food supply is sufficient, available, and healthy for us to eat. Making sure we all have lots of Wing Dings in our cupboards is not necessarily 'socialism'. It's corporate oligarchy pretending to be socialism.
If people went back to a more simple way of eating, they would be so much healthier.
It's a sad irony of our times that instead of the poor being thin and the rich fat, it's the other way around today.
We have a great many poor and economically strapped people in this country. The cheapest and easiest food to prepare is almost always the least nutritional in a addition to the sugar/fat comments.
We have a great many poor and economically strapped people in this country. The cheapest and easiest food to prepare is almost always the least nutritional in a addition to the sugar/fat comments.
That's what makes it sad irony. There was a time when the wealthy ate the rich, high fat foods and the poor ate beans and rice and root vegetables. Now the rich eat low fat, high nutrition foods that come at a dear price and the poor have dollar-deal TV dinners, ramen and boxed mac-n-cheese and very little fruit and vegetables and quality meats because those things are too expensive. Prices have gone up so much in recent years that they're too expensive for many on a limited budget.
Not having adequate access to acceptably nutritious food doesn't necessarily have anything to do with gluttony, although it's a commentary on our times, to be sure. Gluttony isn't the province of any particular demographic, it's something we all can be susceptible to in different ways, rich or poor or in between.
Linear Mode
