6 ms·

> I'm (further) convinced that healthy eating and corporate interests are completely opposed. I dunno- the longer you live, the longer I can sell shit to you.

by trentmb 10y ago

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
LionessLover 10y ago
Corporations - especially publicly traded ones - are not exactly known for their long-term planning. Quarterly reports on the other hand...
- billmalarky 10y ago
  It's a prisoner's dilemma. Lacking government regulation, investment will always flow to the food companies willing to sacrifice the longterm health of consumers in exchange for higher revenue. That is, food corporations that practice methods that increase consumption to unhealthy levels - high sodium, high sugar, low satiating and cheap to produce foods (high-carb, high-yield meat products due to growth hacks like bovine growth hormone). The food companies that choose not to play along are either niche health food companies, or they will go bust by not being able to compete in a commodity market. Sarah Palin (1) would have you believe we should have the "freedom" to eat what we want. However, for the vast majority of Americans that's a straight up pipedream. We are "free" to eat whatever is available, and baring government intervention what is available is subject to the forces described in my previous paragraph (ie garbage optimized to make us over-consume). The obesity epidemic WILL NOT be resolved until heavy government regulation comes into play in the food industry. Pretending otherwise is no different than those who pretend abstinence education prevents pre-marital sex. 1. Obviously I'm just using her here as poster child for a certain political ideology.
  - combatentropy 10y ago
    > Sarah Palin would have you believe we should have the "freedom" to eat what we want. However, for the vast majority of Americans that's a straight up pipedream. I don't know, in every town there is a grocery store that sells produce, raw meat, and other unprocessed foods. If your argument is that the shopper is so overwhelmed by advertising that he just can't help but choose poorly --- well, that's the dividing line between conservatism and liberalism. Actually I believe that there is truth to both sides, but either side taken to the extreme leads to absurdity. Full faith in the individual, and full faith in government, are each flawed. > no different than those who pretend abstinence education prevents pre-marital sex May I suggest you look into that more?
    - billmalarky 10y ago
      >If your argument is that the shopper is so overwhelmed by advertising that he just can't help but choose poorly --- well, that's the dividing line between conservatism and liberalism. You're free to believe that most humans are capable of making healthy eating choices by their own free will if you want (not trying to be catty, and I'm not sure that was the point you were communicating, just how I interpreted your comment), but the data overwhelmingly suggests otherwise. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/USObesityRate1960-2004.svg/350px-USObesityRate1960-2004.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/US... At a certain point I believe it is important to protect people from themselves. Being too proud to admit that "humans can be taken advantage of using certain hacks/tricks" makes society as a whole weaker. >Actually I believe that there is truth to both sides, but either side taken to the extreme leads to absurdity. Full faith in the individual, and full faith in government, are each flawed. You and I agree on this point 100%. Currently I believe the FDA has allowed too much leeway with the food industry. I'm not foolish enough to think that it couldn't easily swing too far in the other direction as well.
nickbauman 10y ago
But long term returns almost always have a lower priority to short term returns in a company's balance sheets.
- sheepleherd 10y ago
  sigh... lemme tell ya what they taught us in finance theory class: rich investors are not stupider than average investors; in fact, if investing "for the long term" is the right thing to do, rich investors actually have the resources, wherewithal and the time to do it. The problem is, as hard as it is to predict the future, it is harder to predict farther into the future; and, once you set up a pot of "long term" honey, people have a chance to reorganize their affairs to siphon off said honey and if your idea is to not pay attention to their short term results, you set yourself up for a big long term surprise. Publicly traded companies are mostly companies that have products, markets, customers, service, etc. Generally, when they are losing money compared to other companies, it does not scream "we're pouring money into R&D, great things are around the corner!" This boils down to, statistically speaking, short term results are actually the best indicator of long term results. You'd be foolish (statistically) to overemphasize long term hypotheticals in the face of short term losses. TL;DR that financial markets are too tilted in favor of "short term" results is largely a myth. if it were not a myth, wealth would shift from the majority people who supposedly pay attention to short term results and toward people who ignore short term results leading to the end of the myth. edit (couple above and): I'm not saying that long term projects and ideas and thinking don't ever pay off; I'm saying that saying that they are undervalued and therefore represent an opportunity is a stretch and requires proof that you most likely will not find if you look because others have looked.
  - eightbit 10y ago
    Algorithmics would disagree with you: the greedy algorithm, or trying to find a global maximum from local maxima, usually fails as a method. It's usually a "stupider" way of doing things :P My own experiences, especially related to corporations, seem to corroborate this.
    - 10y ago

> I'm (further) convinced that healthy eating and corporate interests are completely opposed. I dunno- the longer you live, the longer I can sell shit to you.

by trentmb 10y ago

> I'm (further) convinced that healthy eating and corporate interests are completely opposed. I dunno- the longer you live, the longer I can sell shit to you.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

LionessLover 10y ago

Corporations - especially publicly traded ones - are not exactly known for their long-term planning. Quarterly reports on the other hand...

billmalarky 10y ago
It's a prisoner's dilemma. Lacking government regulation, investment will always flow to the food companies willing to sacrifice the longterm health of consumers in exchange for higher revenue. That is, food corporations that practice methods that increase consumption to unhealthy levels - high sodium, high sugar, low satiating and cheap to produce foods (high-carb, high-yield meat products due to growth hacks like bovine growth hormone). The food companies that choose not to play along are either niche health food companies, or they will go bust by not being able to compete in a commodity market. Sarah Palin (1) would have you believe we should have the "freedom" to eat what we want. However, for the vast majority of Americans that's a straight up pipedream. We are "free" to eat whatever is available, and baring government intervention what is available is subject to the forces described in my previous paragraph (ie garbage optimized to make us over-consume). The obesity epidemic WILL NOT be resolved until heavy government regulation comes into play in the food industry. Pretending otherwise is no different than those who pretend abstinence education prevents pre-marital sex. 1. Obviously I'm just using her here as poster child for a certain political ideology.
- combatentropy 10y ago
  > Sarah Palin would have you believe we should have the "freedom" to eat what we want. However, for the vast majority of Americans that's a straight up pipedream. I don't know, in every town there is a grocery store that sells produce, raw meat, and other unprocessed foods. If your argument is that the shopper is so overwhelmed by advertising that he just can't help but choose poorly --- well, that's the dividing line between conservatism and liberalism. Actually I believe that there is truth to both sides, but either side taken to the extreme leads to absurdity. Full faith in the individual, and full faith in government, are each flawed. > no different than those who pretend abstinence education prevents pre-marital sex May I suggest you look into that more?
  - billmalarky 10y ago
    >If your argument is that the shopper is so overwhelmed by advertising that he just can't help but choose poorly --- well, that's the dividing line between conservatism and liberalism. You're free to believe that most humans are capable of making healthy eating choices by their own free will if you want (not trying to be catty, and I'm not sure that was the point you were communicating, just how I interpreted your comment), but the data overwhelmingly suggests otherwise. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/USObesityRate1960-2004.svg/350px-USObesityRate1960-2004.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/US... At a certain point I believe it is important to protect people from themselves. Being too proud to admit that "humans can be taken advantage of using certain hacks/tricks" makes society as a whole weaker. >Actually I believe that there is truth to both sides, but either side taken to the extreme leads to absurdity. Full faith in the individual, and full faith in government, are each flawed. You and I agree on this point 100%. Currently I believe the FDA has allowed too much leeway with the food industry. I'm not foolish enough to think that it couldn't easily swing too far in the other direction as well.

nickbauman 10y ago

But long term returns almost always have a lower priority to short term returns in a company's balance sheets.

sheepleherd 10y ago
sigh... lemme tell ya what they taught us in finance theory class: rich investors are not stupider than average investors; in fact, if investing "for the long term" is the right thing to do, rich investors actually have the resources, wherewithal and the time to do it. The problem is, as hard as it is to predict the future, it is harder to predict farther into the future; and, once you set up a pot of "long term" honey, people have a chance to reorganize their affairs to siphon off said honey and if your idea is to not pay attention to their short term results, you set yourself up for a big long term surprise. Publicly traded companies are mostly companies that have products, markets, customers, service, etc. Generally, when they are losing money compared to other companies, it does not scream "we're pouring money into R&D, great things are around the corner!" This boils down to, statistically speaking, short term results are actually the best indicator of long term results. You'd be foolish (statistically) to overemphasize long term hypotheticals in the face of short term losses. TL;DR that financial markets are too tilted in favor of "short term" results is largely a myth. if it were not a myth, wealth would shift from the majority people who supposedly pay attention to short term results and toward people who ignore short term results leading to the end of the myth. edit (couple above and): I'm not saying that long term projects and ideas and thinking don't ever pay off; I'm saying that saying that they are undervalued and therefore represent an opportunity is a stretch and requires proof that you most likely will not find if you look because others have looked.
- eightbit 10y ago
  Algorithmics would disagree with you: the greedy algorithm, or trying to find a global maximum from local maxima, usually fails as a method. It's usually a "stupider" way of doing things :P My own experiences, especially related to corporations, seem to corroborate this.
  - 10y ago