lfjmfkekdk

6 ms·

1.
by lfjmfkekdk 10y ago
Your post is economically illiterate and no economist in their right mind would claim that school tuition spike is the result of privatization and deregulation. Car loans are privatized too. That didn't drive up the prices for cars bec
2.
by lfjmfkekdk 11y ago
Crack wasn't even targeted in the War on Drug policies until the 80s. The drug was relatively unknown to the general public compared to the other drugs that were targeted. Even Newsweek reported in 1977 that cocaine was safer than ciga
3.
by lfjmfkekdk 11y ago
The crack epidemic had its origins in the 1970s and became widespread in the 1980s[1]. Crack was finally targeted in 1986 with laws that heavily punished crack dealers. This happened after crack became widespread throughout major American c
4.
by lfjmfkekdk 11y ago
"In a hundred years from now people are going to look back at things like the war on drugs as one of the most barbaric, absurd and useless pieces of legislation ever to have been implemented." How do you explain the rampant crack
5.
by lfjmfkekdk 11y ago
Tumblr was created by a high school dropout so...
6.
by lfjmfkekdk 11y ago
You do make a great point. It does baffle me that Obama's daughters would theoretically get special privileges for YC's office hours over, say, an immigrant kid from China whose family earns below the poverty line.
7.
by lfjmfkekdk 11y ago
That's not true. There is a scientific consensus on cigarettes and lung cancer. There is certainly no scientific consensus on sugar and diabetes/cancer. If the first amendment should apply to corporations, should the New York Time
8.
by lfjmfkekdk 11y ago
Well if you wanted a ban on advertising sugary cereal to kids, you would have to pass the "Central Hudson" test. You would have to prove a compelling government interest to ban the ads to children. The ADA chief medical scientist
9.
by lfjmfkekdk 11y ago
Well, not exactly. Tobacco advertising bans, aside from TV and radio, were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92990&page=1 You can ban it from TV and radio if there'
10.
by lfjmfkekdk 11y ago
There is no conclusive proof that eating too much sugar causes diabetes. http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/24/five-diabetes-myths...
11.
by lfjmfkekdk 11y ago
Well, you may have an increase (no definitive causation) although the chances of developing pancreatic cancer if so is still very unlikely. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65E5H420100615
12.
by lfjmfkekdk 11y ago
Yeah, was the same like like you as a kid. Was super skinny. Even as an adult, I'm not nearly as active but I do count my calories. IMO, banning things like cereal is not the answer when the more effective approach is to teach kids how
13.
by lfjmfkekdk 11y ago
That will certainly not pass the first amendment test.
14.
by lfjmfkekdk 11y ago
I have a large bowl of cereal every morning. Yes, I eat those kids' sugary cereals. My BMI is below 20.
15.
by lfjmfkekdk 11y ago
Forbes 400 lists only Americans. It has nothing to do with Middle East billionaires or foreign government billionaires, who are listed under a different category.
16.
by lfjmfkekdk 11y ago
Well, the numbers are similar for millionaires. This is for individuals deemed in the ultra high net worth category, which is $30 million and up.... "Sixty-five percent of the ultra-rich made their own money, while an additional 16 per
17.
by lfjmfkekdk 11y ago
30% of Forbes 400 billionaires inherited their wealth, 70% did not. What exactly are you using to claim that the super rich derive their wealth from inheritances?