“For many years leading up to the various abolitions of slavery, economists were generally critics of slavery and advocates of people’s natural equality”
Up until relatively recent times (~150 years), scavenging enough food to survive was a major preoccupation for people. Cavemen likely ate mostly roots, berries and things they caught or found. Meat was eaten sporadically, when possible after game was killed. There were no preservatives; drying or salting (if possible) was the only method. Eating rotted, putrefied foods — up until all the nutritional value was gone — was very common. School kids learn about the Age of Discovery and the explorers. They are often not told the primary goal was to reach the Spice Islands (mainly Indonesia and India) where black pepper was found in abundant supply. After the Muslim conquests of the Middle East, pepper was very expensive. Pepper was sought after partly because it helps mask the taste of spoiled foods.
That said, complex carbohydrates and refined sugars were not common in antiquity (honey was a pricey sweetener). That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t eat them. It just means we can satisfy our nutritional requirements in a matter of minutes each day; effort that would have taken all day in antiquity. We should consume accordingly.
“unrestricted immigration could create tens of trillions of dollars in economic value, as captured by the migrants themselves in the form of higher wages in their new countries and by those who hire the migrants or consume the products of their labour”
I would go with option c, which is everyone is being hypocritical. The truth is, when one is dealing with something as complex as the American economy, and trying to implement policies that balances the budget is never going to be the result of extremist political and economic principles, rather, it is going to be a mixed bag: policies from the left and right side philosophies. And so, Ryan is acting like other politicians have done in the past, publicly proclaiming something, but in reality, practicing something else.
Humans take thousands upon thousands of years to evolve. The modern diet was non-existent a few thousand years ago. I’m not about to go foraging for berries but like always, the key is moderation.
I think this because it is easier to understand economic principles through a Libertarian mind-set. By extension, most economic principles and “theories,” as argued by most economists, tend to play out most effectively in an environment that adopts libertarian notions.
As quoted in the article, “Studying how we lived in the past can’t teach us how to live now.” I think this is such an important view to keep in mind. At times, I am very skeptical of all these “being one with mother nature diets,” sometimes, I think this mind set is very dangerous. The solutions to our current health problems can be realized by recognizing contemporary societal challenges, and engineering the right set of programs that keeps in par with adopting to current challenges, not deny them. We must adapt to overcome, not avoid these complexities.
Yes, I agree, most serious economist don’t care about political and social preferences, and they do make a lot of assumptions. One of the most fundamental assumption economists make is that we are all rational beings. At levels, I questions this fundamental assumption. I think it is irrational to assume that people are going to be rational for every decision they make. Thankfully, with the emergence of neuro-economics, this view is changing.
I think the missing point here is that a varied natural-based diet in modertion of its different nutritional components has been consistently backed up by modern science, and, personally, has been tested and works. Variety, consistency, and natural (or as natural as possible in today’s society) is key.
I agree with Sandeep Kumar’s view on the cave man diet. I too am very skeptical of all these “whole-food” and “all natural” diet fads. If we can make processed foods, supplements, and medicines that helps one to be functioning at their peak, I welcome it. Certainly going back to an all natural & tree hugging lifestyle, which the liberal elites embrace and advertise, is not practical and available for most of us.
@Sandeep How is returing to a healthy pre-modern diet dangerous? Processed foods today cannot be enriched with enough vitamins and minerals to make up for the lack nutrients in the modern diet. Raw food, like the cavemen eat, has more nutrients than cooked food. Eating red meat sparingly has beneficial effects. A diet cannot be designed in a lab and pre-packaged for consumption. It is exactly that mentality that causes many of our current health solutions. Therefore, it cannot be the solution.
I buy from Whole Foods and I don’t consider myself to be a liberal elite. Stereotyping a whole movement of people, who are bringing diverse insights and providing various creative solutions to the current health crisis, is intellectually sloppy. Surely Desai, you don’t think all these people are disingenuous in their intellectual pursuit to find answers.
It’s telling that Forbes ends up essentially concluding that the ACA is actually very centrist legislation. I think ideology and politics has played far too strong a role in what should be an apolitical, technocratic issue.
The example of the spread of the ability to digest dairy is interesting, I wonder what specific genetic alerartions are ongoing in humans/if genetic science is even at the point where this question is really answerable.
Last link:
The diet is all wrong, but who can argue with brutality, rape and no discernible retirement planning?
“For many years leading up to the various abolitions of slavery, economists were generally critics of slavery and advocates of people’s natural equality”
Feels good to be in the “dismal science”.
The cave man diet isn’t recommended after all.
Up until relatively recent times (~150 years), scavenging enough food to survive was a major preoccupation for people. Cavemen likely ate mostly roots, berries and things they caught or found. Meat was eaten sporadically, when possible after game was killed. There were no preservatives; drying or salting (if possible) was the only method. Eating rotted, putrefied foods — up until all the nutritional value was gone — was very common. School kids learn about the Age of Discovery and the explorers. They are often not told the primary goal was to reach the Spice Islands (mainly Indonesia and India) where black pepper was found in abundant supply. After the Muslim conquests of the Middle East, pepper was very expensive. Pepper was sought after partly because it helps mask the taste of spoiled foods.
That said, complex carbohydrates and refined sugars were not common in antiquity (honey was a pricey sweetener). That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t eat them. It just means we can satisfy our nutritional requirements in a matter of minutes each day; effort that would have taken all day in antiquity. We should consume accordingly.
More from the economists article:
“unrestricted immigration could create tens of trillions of dollars in economic value, as captured by the migrants themselves in the form of higher wages in their new countries and by those who hire the migrants or consume the products of their labour”
@ The Ryan being hypocritical
I would go with option c, which is everyone is being hypocritical. The truth is, when one is dealing with something as complex as the American economy, and trying to implement policies that balances the budget is never going to be the result of extremist political and economic principles, rather, it is going to be a mixed bag: policies from the left and right side philosophies. And so, Ryan is acting like other politicians have done in the past, publicly proclaiming something, but in reality, practicing something else.
Humans take thousands upon thousands of years to evolve. The modern diet was non-existent a few thousand years ago. I’m not about to go foraging for berries but like always, the key is moderation.
@ Economist being Libertarians
I think this because it is easier to understand economic principles through a Libertarian mind-set. By extension, most economic principles and “theories,” as argued by most economists, tend to play out most effectively in an environment that adopts libertarian notions.
“Economists have been historically libertarian”
– Economists dont care about social or political preferences, UNLESS, they are making an “assumption”.. Which they do often.
@ The Caveman Diet Article
As quoted in the article, “Studying how we lived in the past can’t teach us how to live now.” I think this is such an important view to keep in mind. At times, I am very skeptical of all these “being one with mother nature diets,” sometimes, I think this mind set is very dangerous. The solutions to our current health problems can be realized by recognizing contemporary societal challenges, and engineering the right set of programs that keeps in par with adopting to current challenges, not deny them. We must adapt to overcome, not avoid these complexities.
@ Timmy’s comment about economist
Yes, I agree, most serious economist don’t care about political and social preferences, and they do make a lot of assumptions. One of the most fundamental assumption economists make is that we are all rational beings. At levels, I questions this fundamental assumption. I think it is irrational to assume that people are going to be rational for every decision they make. Thankfully, with the emergence of neuro-economics, this view is changing.
“The cave man diet isn’t recommended after all.”
I think the missing point here is that a varied natural-based diet in modertion of its different nutritional components has been consistently backed up by modern science, and, personally, has been tested and works. Variety, consistency, and natural (or as natural as possible in today’s society) is key.
I agree with Sandeep Kumar’s view on the cave man diet. I too am very skeptical of all these “whole-food” and “all natural” diet fads. If we can make processed foods, supplements, and medicines that helps one to be functioning at their peak, I welcome it. Certainly going back to an all natural & tree hugging lifestyle, which the liberal elites embrace and advertise, is not practical and available for most of us.
“Is Ryan hypocritical? Are his critics hypocritical? Or, is everybody being hypocritical?”
I find it curious when we expect transparency in politics, ie advancing beneficial legislation in exclusion of political gain…that’s an impossibility.
@Sandeep How is returing to a healthy pre-modern diet dangerous? Processed foods today cannot be enriched with enough vitamins and minerals to make up for the lack nutrients in the modern diet. Raw food, like the cavemen eat, has more nutrients than cooked food. Eating red meat sparingly has beneficial effects. A diet cannot be designed in a lab and pre-packaged for consumption. It is exactly that mentality that causes many of our current health solutions. Therefore, it cannot be the solution.
@ Desai
I buy from Whole Foods and I don’t consider myself to be a liberal elite. Stereotyping a whole movement of people, who are bringing diverse insights and providing various creative solutions to the current health crisis, is intellectually sloppy. Surely Desai, you don’t think all these people are disingenuous in their intellectual pursuit to find answers.
Ryan article,
It’s telling that Forbes ends up essentially concluding that the ACA is actually very centrist legislation. I think ideology and politics has played far too strong a role in what should be an apolitical, technocratic issue.
caveman diet article,
The example of the spread of the ability to digest dairy is interesting, I wonder what specific genetic alerartions are ongoing in humans/if genetic science is even at the point where this question is really answerable.