The political Libertarian platform.

[Vater Araignee]

It is plain to see. The megacorps are the ones running sweatshops the world around. They are the ones peddling high fructose corn syrup even tho it's be proven to be harmful to the human body and addictive.

You have a habit of rejecting anything you don't agree with I've noticed, even if backed by science.

I don't take the word of an article and just like a priest I don't take a scientists on their word.

Show me the proof, don't say it is true, prove it is true.

[Vater Araignee]

(From wikipedia...) "The most widely used varieties of high-fructose corn syrup are: HFCS 55 (mostly used in soft drinks), approximately 55% fructose and 42% glucose; and HFCS 42 (used in beverages, processed foods, cereals and baked goods), approximately 42% fructose and 53% glucose", which means that for 10g of HFCS 55, 5.5g are fructose and 4.2g are glucose, and the rest (likely) is 0.3g sucrose. An apple has 5.9g of fructose, 2.4g glucose, and 2.1g sucrose.

If you look closely, there is actually a higher percentage of fructose in an apple than there is in HFCS. Why the fuck is everyone so uptight about this subject?

Most people key in because it is an ingredient that is difficult to get away from. Others point out that there are enzymes that naturally occur in fruit that helps you process the fructose that does not exist in the refined product.

Others will key in on a serving of liquid being only 8oz and we are trained to call the 20oz bottle 1 serving so don't understand that there is more than 31g carbs in that bottle (77.5g).

Are you going to eat 13 apples a day? or intake that average soda drinkers fructose, 26 apples a day?

Pop

Sausage McMuffin (Ya probably knew that HFC was in the muffin but did ya know that Corn Syrup is in the patty too?)

Chef Boyardee Beef Ravioli (Yup HFC)

Fruit Roll Up (corn syrup, dried corn syrup, the fructose in what little fruit they actually contain)

Yoplait

Barbecue burger (In the sauce, the pickles, and the catchup. Some brands of fries even have it)

It doesn't seem unreasonable to eat all that in one day till you add up how much Fructose you are eating.

[Nymada del Sol]

I don't take the word of an article and just like a priest I don't take a scientists on their word.

Show me the proof, don't say it is true, prove it is true.

I read the actual studies. Not just the articles.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I read the actual studies. Not just the articles.

Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to defend all this processed crap.

The debate about HFCS is very conflicted. Many of the pro and con studies are easy to spin (often ACCIDENTALLY) one way or another depending on ones predisposition.

Even places like Center for Science in The Public Interest and various other health-journals don't condem it , its just sort of well "surgar intake is way too high, and HFCS is sugar too, and is in everything..."

This isn't an isolated quote, its just that the HFCS 'debate' has been going on for a long time, and there are back and fourth discussions about it Ad Infinitum.

One of the newish studies published in Metabolism (WIDELY quoted as ANTI-HFCS):

"Medicine and the University of Florida examined fructose levels in the blood of 40 subjects after they consumed 24 ounces of a drink sweetened with either HFCS or sucrose (table sugar). They found higher levels of blood fructose in those who drank the HFCS beverage, as well as higher blood pressure readings and higher levels of uric acid, a substance that in excess is tied to kidney damage and gout."

But , when you look into it further, for one, yeah sure this is going to happen:

"But HFCS contains a higher percentage of fructose than sugar does (55 percent fructose compared to 50 percent in sugar), and when the researchers took that into account the difference was no longer statistically significant."

That is, Fructose is the problem and since oz per oz HFCS has more, sure its going to come out (seemingly) that HFCS is the problem, when really its not comparing apples to apples.

The short term bottom line is just to cut down on all this garbage, as its a problem (almost) everywhere. We grew up (as a species) during ages when calories were hard to come by, now, we still have this "scarcity" disposition but live in an era when even broke people get way too much "food" because its so cheap compared to the 200,000+ previous years and we still have the gobble gobble mentality that was a good survival instinct the way up until very, very recently.

[SaGa]

a lot of libertarian ideas are sound. except the economic anarchy. the belief that capitalism stays capitalistic is rather nieve. i often do not think the argument that monopolies never happen under capitalism because new innovations hammer out the aged companies is not a good. monopolies happen, duopolies happen. and the 1% can happen in a free market. when it comes to banking and loaning money. and the natural ties banks have to the goverment. that is where capitalism evolves. and the free market ends.

[SaGa]

and what is the libertarians position on austerity measures. and the danger it causes on society in its acuteness. and when the fed is taken care of and these banks do blow up. how will libertarians protect society from being slaves to this debt. and watch the standard of living drop to a third world country.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

and what is the libertarians position on austerity measures. and the danger it causes on society in its acuteness. and when the fed is taken care of and these banks do blow up. how will libertarians protect society from being slaves to this debt. and watch the standard of living drop to a third world country.

The devil would be in the details of which measures specifically.

In general though, debt is a monster of our own making that a free market (hypothetically) would expect you to pay up on, not be protected from via some sort of socialistic redistribution of debt. A private bailout (or default , which is good in the long term so the theory goes) is just as bad (or good) as a public one, just a different sort of inefficiency that needs to be sorted out by the market. Short term pain is a product of more free markets, for longer term efficiency.

[SaGa]

yes but our debt is not normal. if we take the greek crisis and how austerity could spell doom. can we take the short term hit with a debt looming past our own gdp. and if we cut our socialized programs at this stage to quickly, you will see civil unrest that might not lead to a free market at all. and if goverment can, martial law and the military might be used to police. with how socialized we have become, one cant see switch without a partial collapse, and no matter how logical it is for the long term. people will still think in the short term if its there bellys they want to feed and shelter they need

[Nymada del Sol]

The devil would be in the details of which measures specifically.

In general though, debt is a monster of our own making that a free market (hypothetically) would expect you to pay up on, not be protected from via some sort of socialistic redistribution of debt. A private bailout (or default , which is good in the long term so the theory goes) is just as bad (or good) as a public one, just a different sort of inefficiency that needs to be sorted out by the market. Short term pain is a product of more free markets, for longer term efficiency.

Debt is a artificial thing that does not exist in reality that is used as some manner of pretend commodity.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

yes but our debt is not normal. if we take the greek crisis and how austerity could spell doom. can we take the short term hit with a debt looming past our own gdp. and if we cut our socialized programs at this stage to quickly, you will see civil unrest that might not lead to a free market at all. and if goverment can, martial law and the military might be used to police. with how socialized we have become, one cant see switch without a partial collapse, and no matter how logical it is for the long term. people will still think in the short term if its there bellys they want to feed and shelter they need

Theres a huge number of ifs and's and buts in there. No one has a clear crystal ball, unfortunately.

I wasn't really making a case there, I was just stating what case is made for "sucking it up" not that I personally think that is the best case/suggestion. That is, the argument goes that bad business practices and bad markets, if left to their own devices (generally) will weed out the bad seeds themselves, and will not, if "bailed out" constantly. Not that I think there is never a reason to write off debt or bail anything out.

Having done only the tiniest bit of homework on this to even begin to give a homemade troy suggestion on what to do. Every time I read into any economic situation if i'm being fair, I find what sound like very, very well reasoned arguments that often have almost the exact opposite suggestions.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Debt is a artificial thing that does not exist in reality that is used as some manner of pretend commodity.

It gets very hard very quickly to manage the value of say 10 goats and a car and a stack of sliced bread and what is a "good trade" for that pile of goods. Currency was invented multiple times in pre-history just for this reason, exchange, is very difficult without some sort of "common currency" to smooth things out, trade (which is usually money exchange) becomes near impossible at larger scales without "imaginary" currency.

Depsite my ideological desire for a no-money system, it I think is pretty clear that it needs to exist, at least on our current reality. Which in Utopia we wouldn't need money, and yay! But unfortunately...

Debt is artificial in the same way that money is an artificial commodity (and letters and words and numbers and ideas), but it is a commodity just like a patent or other intellectual property is a commodity.

Debt is an IOU. If IOU's are not honored then the belief in the system goes to crap, and that means a lot of homeless people if the monetary system starts crumbling.

This doesn't mean that ALL debt needs to be honored, not even close, but one is expected to keep his or her word except in extreme circumstances.