Gyroscopic Investing

LOL, I missed the part where Bernie's SC office called the police on Project Veritas when they asked them to comment on the situation

‘American Dirt’ is an important novel about the Mexican immigrant experience.
Oops, it was written by a white person.
What are they going to do next, make their own tacos?!
The horror.

Wow, Let's get Woke.


"I don't care what kind of nice, little, legal, Constitutional defenses that they came up with.”

https://twitter.com/i/status/1223355164158984192

Here's something fun to spend your tax money on:

https://freebeacon.com/issues/usda-sugg ... t-healthy/

Although technically this USDA is in the Trump administration, this sort of thing is a lot more "left" than "right".

Incidentally, I'm enjoying the articles on why denying food stamps to people who might be considered "unwilling to work" will result in the demise of urban groceries. Just one flaw in the logic: people won't stop buying groceries. What they won't buy are things like cell phone data plans and movie tickets. Although, I doubt urban mobile phone stores are going to go out of business because of this, either.

Just automatically pull tax returns and give the poor rice and beans. No need to pay a bureaucracy to decide if an addict is either unwilling or unable to work.

I've wondered that too. They could limit the cards to unprocessed foods, and ban them from being used for desserts, sodas etc. People could still buy them just with their own money.

But, MangoMan's larger point is correct: whether it's SNAP limitations or talking grocery carts, why is the government in the business of telling us what to eat anyway? For millions of years, humans got by just fine without official dietary guidelines - and that was true for most of the industrial age as well. It's only since the US government started doing that (1977) that people started getting fat and sick - and there's plenty of evidence that it was exactly this intervention that led to the diabetes epidemic we're currently faced with.

sophie wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:42 am I've wondered that too. They could limit the cards to unprocessed foods, and ban them from being used for desserts, sodas etc. People could still buy them just with their own money.

But, MangoMan's larger point is correct: whether it's SNAP limitations or talking grocery carts, why is the government in the business of telling us what to eat anyway? For millions of years, humans got by just fine without official dietary guidelines - and that was true for most of the industrial age as well. It's only since the US government started doing that (1977) that people started getting fat and sick - and there's plenty of evidence that it was exactly this intervention that led to the diabetes epidemic we're currently faced with.

I think the argument goes like this, "I don't care what food you buy with your own money, but when you're taking my money I get a say in the matter."

Don't we all remember that (awesome) video of the California surfer dude using his EBT card to buy lobster and sushi?

Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:12 am

sophie wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:42 am I've wondered that too. They could limit the cards to unprocessed foods, and ban them from being used for desserts, sodas etc. People could still buy them just with their own money.

But, MangoMan's larger point is correct: whether it's SNAP limitations or talking grocery carts, why is the government in the business of telling us what to eat anyway? For millions of years, humans got by just fine without official dietary guidelines - and that was true for most of the industrial age as well. It's only since the US government started doing that (1977) that people started getting fat and sick - and there's plenty of evidence that it was exactly this intervention that led to the diabetes epidemic we're currently faced with.

I think the argument goes like this, "I don't care what food you buy with your own money, but when you're taking my money I get a say in the matter."

I largely agree with your point, but there's still a slippery slope there. And some perverse incentives. For example, the way the feds mandated the national 55MPH speed limit and the drinking age of 21. It was through highway grants. Basically, the feds took a bunch of money from people which states could have taken, then offered it back to the states in the form of grants with all these strings attached. An end-around around the Constitution, really.

I guess the extreme in this example would be more and more people being considered poor and eligible for food stamps, and thus more and more people under the government's micromanaging. Unlikely, perhaps.... But if we really do turn into a society with a small upper crust and a large underclass, it amounts to the elites telling the plebs exactly what they may and may not eat.

sophie wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:42 am I've wondered that too. They could limit the cards to unprocessed foods, and ban them from being used for desserts, sodas etc. People could still buy them just with their own money.

But, MangoMan's larger point is correct: whether it's SNAP limitations or talking grocery carts, why is the government in the business of telling us what to eat anyway? For millions of years, humans got by just fine without official dietary guidelines - and that was true for most of the industrial age as well. It's only since the US government started doing that (1977) that people started getting fat and sick - and there's plenty of evidence that it was exactly this intervention that led to the diabetes epidemic we're currently faced with.

I’m against micromanaging a la Michael Bloomberg and soda. Just playing devil’s advocate, though, is it the intervention that led to diabetes’ spread or just something that was bound to happen with a rise in prosperity? I guess we were already prosperous in the 70s, but we had to stand up even to play video games.

I know the food pyramid has turned out to be a very poor guideline. Does that count as part of the intervention?

People on SNAP are going to find a way to drink Pepsi and eat Pringles no matter what is done with SNAP. Even so, the one justification I can think of for trying to impose restrictions is medical savings down the line. Like with the pyramid, we won’t get everything right, but I don’t think we’re going to find out in the future that soda is actually good for us. (Or, if you like Woody Allen’s ‘Sleeper’, chocolate cake).

dualstow wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:53 pm

sophie wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:42 am I've wondered that too. They could limit the cards to unprocessed foods, and ban them from being used for desserts, sodas etc. People could still buy them just with their own money.

But, MangoMan's larger point is correct: whether it's SNAP limitations or talking grocery carts, why is the government in the business of telling us what to eat anyway? For millions of years, humans got by just fine without official dietary guidelines - and that was true for most of the industrial age as well. It's only since the US government started doing that (1977) that people started getting fat and sick - and there's plenty of evidence that it was exactly this intervention that led to the diabetes epidemic we're currently faced with.

I’m against micromanaging a la Michael Bloomberg and soda. Just playing devil’s advocate, though, is it the intervention that led to diabetes’ spread or just something that was bound to happen with a rise in prosperity? I guess we were already prosperous in the 70s, but we had to stand up even to play video games.

I know the food pyramid has turned out to be a very poor guideline. Does that count as part of the intervention?

People on SNAP are going to find a way to drink Pepsi and eat Pringles no matter what is done with SNAP. Even so, the one justification I can think of for trying to impose restrictions is medical savings down the line. Like with the pyramid, we won’t get everything right, but I don’t think we’re going to find out in the future that soda is actually good for us. (Or, if you like Woody Allen’s ‘Sleeper’, chocolate cake).

Someday I might provide a full answer to your devil's advocate question, but in the meantime...yes, there is a very large body of evidence that the intervention led to the diabetes epidemic.

I do get the idea of: your bad behavior costs me money, therefore I have a right to regulate your behavior - but as Xan said it is indeed a slippery slope. If you can demand that people on food stamps not drink soda, then would you also support legislation limiting your iPhone use to 1 hour per day, and requiring 3 1 hour sessions at the gym every week? The failure of Prohibition provides a useful precedent, because in the end we as a country decided that this was not an appropriate use of legislation. Thank heavens for that.

Sure. I agree. Not to mention the harm it may do businesses like Pepsi and CVS, which has amusingly renamed itself CVS Health.
Please do post that follow-up sometime if you should come across it.

If im paying for some bum's dinner its gonna be rice beans and vegetables. Not factory-farmed, superbug-creating, rainforest-clearing McDonald's

I'm afraid I just don't see the "slippery slope" here. Maybe because I have no problem with the idea of requiring even very significant lifestyle changes from people who have voluntarily submitted themselves to a system by which other people are required to pay not only for the choices that put them in a dependent situation to begin with--but all the choices that they make going forward. The key, for me, is the voluntary nature of participation and the fact that at any time an individual can opt out of that system without forfeiting any of the rights that anyone else has to conduct their lives as they see fit.

Take for example the subsidy on Obamacare health "insurance" plans. One could pretty easily claim that people receiving these subsidies are on the dole and should answer to the people who are paying for how they're taking care of themselves.

The subsidy cutoff for single people is $48,560. The median income for individuals (that I found, anyway) is $31,099.

So right now, today, this line of reasoning has the government micromanaging the lives of a large majority of people in the United States.

I should point out that I think the real flaw here is the subsidy, and government intervention on health care, not necessarily the idea that people on food stamps should be required to make good food choices. But this is the world we live in.

MangoMan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:05 pm

Xan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:53 pm Take for example the subsidy on Obamacare health "insurance" plans. One could pretty easily claim that people receiving these subsidies are on the dole and should answer to the people who are paying for how they're taking care of themselves.

The subsidy cutoff for single people is $48,560. The median income for individuals (that I found, anyway) is $31,099.

So right now, today, this line of reasoning has the government micromanaging the lives of a large majority of people in the United States.

And what exactly is the problem with requiring at least some improvement in how people care for themselves if they get a subsidy? Jeez, the government intrudes on every aspect of our lives already, so I think this would be minor. And I'm with Maddy, if you don't like the requirement, don't accept the subsidy. Pay your own way and then do whatever you want.

The reason the subsidy exists is that people are now required to buy something that they cannot afford. "Pay your own way" doesn't really make sense there, does it? That can only work if the requirement to purchase is removed.

I guess the requirement was sort of removed with a wink and a nod, "we won't enforce it" kind of thing. Which still isn't great. And there are still a bunch of requirements on the "insurance" products that are available: cheaper, catastrophic insurance is illegal.

Somebody wants to buy catastrophic insurance, and can't because of the government. He can't afford the "insurance" that is available, because of the government. He buys a subsidized plan because what else can he do? Presto, now you've turned formerly self-sufficient people into those whom you can tell what to eat and do.

This was the big argument against Obamacare in the first place, of course.

Xan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:53 pm Take for example the subsidy on Obamacare health "insurance" plans. One could pretty easily claim that people receiving these subsidies are on the dole and should answer to the people who are paying for how they're taking care of themselves.

You really don't want the government dictating how to stay healthy! Standard American Diet, healthy whole grains at the top! Limit your meat, eggs and saturated fat! That has worked out sooo well! Have a bowl of heart healthy cereal with a couple slices of heart healthy whole grain bread and top it off with another 20-30g of sugar in your heart healthy OJ! What could go wrong?

MangoMan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:15 pm

Xan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:11 pm

MangoMan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:05 pm

Xan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:53 pm Take for example the subsidy on Obamacare health "insurance" plans. One could pretty easily claim that people receiving these subsidies are on the dole and should answer to the people who are paying for how they're taking care of themselves.

The subsidy cutoff for single people is $48,560. The median income for individuals (that I found, anyway) is $31,099.

So right now, today, this line of reasoning has the government micromanaging the lives of a large majority of people in the United States.

And what exactly is the problem with requiring at least some improvement in how people care for themselves if they get a subsidy? Jeez, the government intrudes on every aspect of our lives already, so I think this would be minor. And I'm with Maddy, if you don't like the requirement, don't accept the subsidy. Pay your own way and then do whatever you want.

The reason the subsidy exists is that people are now required to buy something that they cannot afford. "Pay your own way" doesn't really make sense there, does it? That can only work if the requirement to purchase is removed.

I guess the requirement was sort of removed with a wink and a nod, "we won't enforce it" kind of thing. Which still isn't great. And there are still a bunch of requirements on the "insurance" products that are available: cheaper, catastrophic insurance is illegal.

Somebody wants to buy catastrophic insurance, and can't because of the government. He can't afford the "insurance" that is available, because of the government. He buys a subsidized plan because what else can he do? Presto, now you've turned formerly self-sufficient people into those whom you can tell what to eat and do.

This was the big argument against Obamacare in the first place, of course.

All true, but you proved my point. It's all government regulation on every aspect of our lives. So why not add in a health requirement? Every little bit would help. Or, otherwise, get rid of all the regulations, and leave us alone.

So if you can't have a libertarian paradise, your second choice is a Communist dystopia?

Yale University is scrapping its renowned freshman course “Introduction to Art History”... in response to “student uneasiness” about the “overwhelmingly white, straight, European and male” artists featured.

— The Week / quoted bits from ‘Yale Daily News’
https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2020/01/ ... ey-course/

MangoMan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:00 pm

Xan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:01 pm
So if you can't have a libertarian paradise, your second choice is a Communist dystopia?

No. I'm not really seeing the leap to Communism here.

Since we agree that our government is not going to stop adding more regulations to our lives, how is it a tragedy (or Communism) to expect some kind of concession from those who the government subsidizes? I see this as basically the same argument that if you are able-bodied and receiving welfare, you should be working community service of some sort.

Because the government is absorbing as many people as it can into the "subsidized" class. You eventually have one set of rules for the "have"s and one set for the "have not"s, with an ever-expanding set of "have not"s in which you may one day find yourself.

The real problem is the manufacturing of "have not"s.

I'm not even saying I'm disagreeing with the (hypothetical) suggestion of making people on food stamps not eat junk. It's just scary to see the government with that much power over anyone. Once it has that power over anyone it'll come for me next.

If you accept the subsidy you can jump through the hoops.

The problem is turning into Canada where its illegal to buy private insurance.

The counter argument is that it forces the rich to maintain the quality of the public system. Similarly, libertarians want to ship bums out to the desert where they can get high all day, but maybe in practice that would make their quality of life worse.

"Ship bums out to the desert"? You mean like people should live in places they can afford, instead of the government building crappy housing projects in otherwise nice neighborhoods?

Agree with Xan - the real problem is the manufacturing of a large population dependent on government handouts. Instead of "haves" and "have-nots" I propose using the terms "donor class" and "recipient class". Great system except it depends on the donors continuing to stay in high-tax states, which of course they're not. Meanwhile, recipients are going to go where they get the most benefits. They're doing that. The math is just unsustainable, and precious few appear to realize this.

Personally, I really don't care what food stamp recipients buy in the grocery store. I care much more about who is getting food stamps, and why, and why there is even a food stamp program to begin with when it could simply be rolled into a single cash-payment welfare program. I'd be more interested in limiting benefits to legal permanent residents or citizens, and putting a time limit on the number of total months of benefits for an individual. As in, instead of the state handing you $200 a month for groceries, why don't you go get a minimum wage job and work the 5 hours a week needed to get that $$? Or clean houses, or do small moving jobs, or whatever.

That's what would happen if you took away the food stamp benefit from someone who wants to eat and is capable of getting that job. If they're mentally ill or physically disabled that's another matter - then they should be getting SSI, not food stamps.

Yes, Sophie, "donor" and "recipient" are better terms for what I was aiming for. Thanks.

Simonjester wrote: "Gentry, Commoners, and Clients." is a definition i recently read.. the gentry are the elite who think they are owed power and wealth, the commoners are the shrinking middle class "trump voters" who the gentry seek to bludgeon into submission, for the benefit and growth of the client population who depend on the gentry for their existence..

dualstow wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:42 pm

Yale University is scrapping its renowned freshman course “Introduction to Art History”... in response to “student uneasiness” about the “overwhelmingly white, straight, European and male” artists featured.

— The Week / quoted bits from ‘Yale Daily News’
https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2020/01/ ... ey-course/

Speaking of Yale

https://www.reddit.com/r/BillBurr/comme ... ents_bill/

dualstow wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:45 am Speaking of Yale
https://www.reddit.com/r/BillBurr/comme ... ents_bill/

I'm getting the sense that trade school might be a better, less painful, choice for these young people.

Maddy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:55 am

dualstow wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:45 am Speaking of Yale
https://www.reddit.com/r/BillBurr/comme ... ents_bill/

I'm getting the sense that trade school might be a better, less painful, choice for these young people.

Definitely a better choice, although they don't realize it.