Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Public health people care. Those in areas suffering from significant stunted growth certainly care.
I dont know what you think you are doing by pretending to be uninformed. Being as tall you as you possibly be has nothing to do with how healthy you are. Being shorter does not mean you are unhealthy. You know gorging yourself on too much food is not going to make anyone grow taller. Eating at a buffet everyday just going to turn you into hippo. In fact its detrimental because it makes you heavier, affects your liver, get diabetes etc etc.
PUBLIC HEALTH PEOPLE LOLOLOLOLOL
Last edited by NJ Brazen_3133; 12-16-2022 at 02:01 PM..
Lower height and obesity are both well proven results of poor nutrition.
I hope our country can arrest the degradation of our valuable middle class which has been moving into lower wages over recent years.
I don't trusts economists to be right about anything.
I trust the voters, even when I dislike the election outcome.
We need to protect the integrity of elections and make voting less onerous and more available.
Senior citizens, those working 2 or more jobs, mothers taking care of small children, and many others should be able to vote easier than it is right now.
I dont know what you think you are doing by pretending to be uninformed. Being as tall you as you possibly be has nothing to do with how healthy you are. Being shorter does not mean you are unhealthy. You know gorging yourself on too much food is not going to make anyone grow taller. Eating at a buffet everyday just going to turn you into hippo. In fact its detrimental because it makes you heavier, affects your liver, get diabetes etc etc.
PUBLIC HEALTH PEOPLE LOLOLOLOLOL
You are clueless. And I mean that almost literally.
So, I know this is a thing in other countries, and I believe it should be for us in the USA, but I just cannot see it happening. Not with Big Business controlling the Government and people blindingly committed to tradition and technology. Still, I would love to have someone here give me some hopeful information.
OP, here's some helpful information for you. In the US today, we live in an age of incredible prosperity. Look around you, man! You can own any kind of car or truck that you want. You have freedom of travel where you can choose to live and visit wherever you want. You can rent or own a home wherever you want. You have access to some of the best health care and education options this world has to offer. You can take a vacation, go on a cruise, and enjoy all of the "experiences" you want. Just hop on a plane and you can be wherever in the world you want to be in a matter of hours. There are stores of all kinds you can shop at and buy all the worthless crap you want. You can go out to eat at hundreds of restaurant choices - and that's just in your own local area!
Even the lower classes here in the US have running water, indoor plumbing, plenty of easy access to food, I mean there's a grocery store on every corner! You can control the temperature in your environment with the simple flip of a switch. Too cold? Turn the heat on. Too hot? Crank up the AC. These are things that we all take for granted here but are not readily available in some parts of the world.
And luxuries? The US is one of the few places in the world where so many people have huge flat screen tv's, $1,000 plus cell phones, and nice new shiny cars and eat out many times per month, and still run around screaming poor. The standard of living for so called poor people here in the US is many, many times higher than other countries. How would you like to be poor in Afghanistan, India or most of Africa or Central and South America? Why do you think millions of people in those areas want to come here??
Oh, there is one catch though - you have to earn it. That part is on you, my friend. Forget the socialistic utopian college campus nonsense. Turn off MSNBC and FOX News and delete Twitter and TikTok from your devices. Stop hanging out here on CD in the economics forum, and maybe spend more time in the personal finance, investing and frugal living threads. You might learn something.
"For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible."
...Oh, there is one catch though - you have to earn it. That part is on you, my friend. ...
One supposes that the OP doesn't deny that the things that you enumerate, are possible and accessible... neither does it follow, that he himself has been unable to attain them, and now pleads sour grapes. Rather, it seems that he deliberately advocates for self-abnegation and impoverishment, not because one lacks the ability or the verve to do better, but because, it's somehow immoral to try.
So the exhortation might be, that you should feed your children less meat, so that their growth is stunted, because that's good for the environment, or leaves more resources untapped for the future generation. I don't have any children (for personal reasons; not environmental ones), but if I did, I'd view such "advice" to be barbarous and vile.
You are clueless. And I mean that almost literally.
Max height potential, are you babbling on about? How you even determine it? I am pretty sure I should be 6'3" (in my dreams). I guess I did not play enough basketball or stretch enough.
You know Lou Ferrigno? He was 6'5" at his prime. His son Lou Jr is an actor listed at 6'2" and 230lbs of muscle. Oh no, we must rethink everything now. A son should never be 3in shorter than the father.
Last edited by NJ Brazen_3133; 12-17-2022 at 03:05 PM..
Lower height and obesity are both well proven results of poor nutrition.
I hope our country can arrest the degradation of our valuable middle class which has been moving into lower wages over recent years.
I don't trusts economists to be right about anything.
I trust the voters, even when I dislike the election outcome.
We need to protect the integrity of elections and make voting less onerous and more available.
Senior citizens, those working 2 or more jobs, mothers taking care of small children, and many others should be able to vote easier than it is right now.
The communist manifesto sounds good on paper too.
But it expounds an ideology that ultimately makes everybody equally poor.
To be fair, the CM's criticism of capitalism wasn't that "growth was bad" but that capitalism naturally self-destructs. Marx was right about that!... which is why capitalism in every developed country is heavily regulated and modified to ensure that wealth created by increasing productivity (really the only thing in the game) is shared... and a reasonably fair and competitive playing field is maintained by law. Marx being a smart guy, would probably approve of how things turned out.
Communism's biggest problem is that the system seems to be more prone to corruption. Corruption will kill anything... even capitalist-democratic systems.
The article linked in the OP is a confused muddle. Like many ignorant people, they confuse economic growth with consumption. They are not the same thing at all.
Lol, no need to jump on the anti-socialist bandwagon so quick!
This has been a longstanding debate in economics. Here's the basic tenants:
1. The economy lives within the environment, which provides the raw materials for the economy. If the economy is too focused short changes the environment and destructs it, then in the long run the economy falls apart because there's no more inputs available. That's 'ecological economics'. This definitely happened in the past in Mesoamerican civilizations and is something we have to be aware of with the modern economy.
2. GDP is a measure rate of output production, not utilization. To use an analogy, it's the RPMs of the cars engine, not the speed it's running at. People use outputs to generate wellbeing, but generating outputs does not guarantee wellbeing. Classic example is hurricanes, they generate additional GDP be requiring goods and services to be built to replace what used to be there, but this in no way makes any one better off.
I don't necessarily agree with the solutions in the article, but it's pretty well agreed upon within economics that GDP is very overused as a measure of success - that wealth, durability, distribution, and usefulness need to be better captured in whatever future metrics we use.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
