ERICOPOLY

Would you have preferred Bernanke, Paulson and Geithner just minded their own business and let BAC, JPM, GS, GE, eventually WFC, BRK and most other leveraged financial institutions fail in 2008? Government can work, as long as they don't cater to special interests and actually have the country's best interest at heart. Cheers! What where the chances of BRK failing if the government didn't bail out the banks ? How attached was BRK to the rest of the system ? Warren already said that Berkshire would have fallen just like the rest of them. What won't make his checks clear? Ideology.

I first read about the idea in March 2009. John Mauldin was the source: http://www.zackvision.com/weblog/2009/03/buy-house-green-card/ Let’s assume one million new immigrants would buy homes. At an average price of almost $200,000, that would be $200 billion injected into the economy. And each of those homes has to be furnished, food has to be bought, clothing will be needed, local taxes will be paid. Airplane tickets to research potential areas, hotels needed during the interim period, and other related expenditures would add up. Over two years, this could easily be another $100 billion.

Thanks for the detailed answer. Note that Abe Wagner (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Abe-Wagner/94817528667) is also a pro MMA fighter, and his diet follows Mark Sisson's advice; I think we can probably find examples and counter-examples for just about any diet if we really look hard enough :) Twice I've gone nearly 100% meat/eggs/fish for a few days and twice I felt better when adding some veggies/fruits back in. I actually started watching that movie you mention last week-end but stopped when I heard the slant against meats - I guess I'm not ready for that :) I want to continue experimenting with the high fat / fairly high protein / low car diet until I see the results from my bloodwork at the very least. I value your opinion highly however and understand you are farther into the healthy eating journey than I am, so will keep your experience and beliefs in mind as I keep learning how my own body responds to diet. Thank you Mac Danzig is his name. He lists his vegan diet here: http://jasonferruggia.com/mac-danzigs-vegan-diet/

I don't disagree with your conclusion but I am always very skeptical when people start comparing our diet to the diet of different animals with the assumption that mammals are the same and have the same needs. Cattle have 4 stomachs and their entire digestive process is drastically different then ours, their needs are different then ours. That said I am in basic agreement with what you are saying. Cattle don't boil their barley however. Anyhow, there is a vegan guy in the movie who is extremely well muscled -- he is one of those Ultimate Fighter guys. He only has one stomach. Sure, maybe his is the Michael Jordan of digestion or something. And maybe he would be even more muscled if he ate cheese. I don't know. One person is certainly not a fair proxy for what all people can achieve, but personally I'm finding no problems whatsoever in putting on muscle, and I'm not eating animal products to achieve it and am doing so with only one stomache.

A lot less is wrong with it if it's grass fed&finished. I am doing some self experimentation -- to see how much better I feel if I eat vegan. So far, I do feel better. I was eating a lot of meat and dairy before. I'm one of those people who can't just have a tiny itty bitty portion of meat on the side of the plate. I get the taste of it and want more of it. But if I don't get the taste of it, I'm perfectly happy not to have it. So it's easier for me to go completely without than it is for me to have a rationed portion. Anyways, we're still going to have smoked duck once in a while. But just the ones from our yard. Maybe every once in a while I'll smoke a pork shoulder on my Big Green Egg. That's one of the problems. I make the most amazing pulled pork with that contraption -- about 17 hours at 225 and that pork falls apart like nobody's business, and it's still very moist. But I can't stop eating it -- I'm like a crack addict once I've had the first bite. So now I'm going to roast vegetables in there. No more pork shoulder for a long while. But maybe for 4th of July or something. Meanwhile, I hope to go at least 14 days between meat meals (the smoked duck) with no animal products in between. The Forks Over Knives movie -- I'm not sure how much of it is fact or just imagination. But the data suggests that diets low on animal protein lead to healthier outcomes. Maybe that's because those people also smoke less cigarettes, ingest less carpet cleaner, cook without plastic containers, eat less Tylenol, or sugar, or less artificial colorings. Probably all of the above. And as the movie points out, your arteries will heal when on a vegan diet -- the plaques clear out, the endothelial cells regenerate. You get restored to new again. But it takes about 3 years for a collapsed artery to completely reverse it's decline and get back to 100%. It's worth a watch, that movie. They actually cut an artery open and show you the yellow fat in there causing the blockage. But look, those arteries aren't just about heart attacks. They affect the flow of blood to your brain of course. And there is a lot of data to suggest that vegan diets result in less Alzheimers -- like 70% less. And maybe that's because you eat more anti-inflammatory foods -- who knows. But I know it's not the opposite -- people on a vegan diet don't have more issues. So anyways, the movie suggested that the animal protein in dairy (casein) was harmful in high doses. I've got no idea if that's really true, but populations who eat less dairy actually have less osteoporosis -- and that is true. The theory is that your body demineralizes your bones so that it can use the calcium to buffer the acidosis that results from ingesting too much casein. So I figure it must be common sense that if we evolved to behave this way in the face of too much dairy, then we shouldn't have too much dairy. I just find it easy enough to skip it altogether, although I'm sure a moderate amount would do absolutely no harm at all. But I feel great eating this diet (better than before) and it's delicious. I grew up in a household that didn't embrace spicy cooking and thus always had this association with fat and animal protein for flavor. That's sort of the British/northern European legacy -- boiled vegetables, iceberg lettuce with dressing, bland and boring. I'm lifting weights too and putting on muscle. I don't know whether I'd put on more muscle if I ate more cheese/eggs/fish. But I'm putting on muscle nevertheless. Think of the phrase "strong as an ox". Yet oxen are vegans. So I think the idea of animals (including humans) not getting enough protein from a vegan diet is a little bit far fetched.

My wife and I watched the Forks over Knives movie. That got us to agree to try the vegan diet for a while. But we're still on the no sugar added thing -- a vegan whole foods diet. And I try to avoid eating many sweet fruits -- this is easy because they are high GI foods so my wife now has a reason (diabetes) to avoid/moderate them anyway. But lemons, grapefruit, avocados are staples. Still on the Taubes recommendations too -- we use hulled barley instead of brown rice. Barley has the lowest GI index -- 25 for pearl barley so hulled barley must be even lower. Practically 1/2 the GI index of rice. I was surprised, hulled barley is actually very good and easy to eat. It's like chewing boiled corn, only without the sweetness. Taubes never said carbs were bad -- he just thinks the ones that raise your blood sugar are bad. Thus, eat the ones with the maximum fiber to slow the absorption rate. We don't eat plain green salads -- too bland. We make saag (from swiss chard, spinach, and kale), chana masala, spicy hot tabbouleh, roasted pepper & eggplant soup, sauteed chanterelle mushrooms, etc... Mediterranean dishes too -- olives, peppers, eggplant, garlic, etc... divine. We don't eat any tofu -- gross! That stuff tastes nasty. We look for dishes that never had dairy or meat in the first place -- thus no substituting with tofu. Dishes that were inherently vegan in the first place were designed with herbs and spices for flavor. We love Indian dishes. I can't do bland food. I like spicy hot with rich flavor. I still go and get my burritos, I just have them with rice/black beans/cilantro/onion/guacamole/pico de gallo/salsa/jalapenos. Basically, once you agree that chips, guacamole & salsa can be worth rolling in, then you can conceptualize that fruits and vegetables can be made to taste good.

That's certainly true. Does anyone think I should at least get an efficient water user subsidy? From Shalab's link: Producing 1 kg of animal protein requires about 100 times more water than producing 1 kg of grain protein I hear these rumblings about a water shortage looming. I wonder how much of this water is based on "water rights" -- and so do the animal feed growers really bear the costs of the excess water usage? Somewhere downstream there is an economic cost. But that would be yet another external cost not baked into the price of meat.

That's not necessarily true in all cases. Most feedlot placements are stockers (around 600 lb) or feeders (around 800 lb) and they are fed up to about a 1,300 lb undressed carcass weight. Some of this is fat, but much of the weight gain is actually meat, particularly when you place stockers. Health concerns aside, the fat is actually a positive quality attribute because that's what gives beef much of its flavour and its moist tenderness. While coarse grains (corn, sorghum, barley) dominate the ration, it also includes some forage and protein meal. The fossil fuel issue is an interesting question. What uses more fuel? To produce corn which enables feedlots to achieve a rate of gain of 3 lb/day for a steer, or producing hay so that cattle can overwinter at a rate of gain of 1 lb per day? It would be interesting to see the arithmetic! I agree that fat makes it taste better. Health concerns aside, sugar adds flavor to candy. My father grew up with bread fried in bacon grease -- it also improved the flavor. For some reason if the animal is slaughtered with all the fat already on it we think of it differently than, say, just soaking toast in it. Could you imagine if people were forced to consciously ask for more fat trimmings to be added to their lean grass-fed beef. I doubt they would do it. I mean, you can always ask for extra butter on your fish. Do you? It's more expensive in Australia to buy the marbled feedlot beef. True! They don't have a huge corn industry. So most of the beef is pastured, grass fed beef (and healthier).

Less smoking.

Regarding the subsidy: Even more baffling is that cattle aren't send to the finishing yards to put on protein. And they are fed corn at the finishing yards because of it's high fructose content (to put on fat quickly). Once taken off of their grass diet when sent to the finishing yards, the omega-3 content of their fat plummets (because they get their healthy omega-3 from eating grass). Omega-3 is in green leafy stuff -- not in grains. So you wind up with not only more fat, but more unhealthy fat. Omega-3 (from what I've read on lipid synthesis) is essential for regulating inflammation -- without it, you have more risk of heart disease (and you are deliberately pouring excess fat on this fire). The cattle are ready for the table before they even get to the finishing yards. Thus the fossil fuel energy expended to produce the corn is 100% wasted on fat production. And this is subsidized by the same government that wants to reduce health care entitlement deficits???

Incorrect, lactoovovegetarian is not a plant-based diet. You are including dairy and eggs. Is dairy a plant? vegan is a plant-based diet. So they have produced a meaningless study in terms of comparing plant-based diet to an animal-based diet. Question: Why do people believe that species A cannot be healthy be it not for the milk from species B? Do deer drink milk from cows in nature?

I wonder about all that farmland dedicated to growing food for the livestock -- does it drive up the price of fresh produce? Would you grow corn without the subsidy? Or would you be growing a higher sticker price item? In other words, would the price of fresh produce be boosted by scarcity of arable land? Ten calories of grain expended per calorie of meat produced.

I was sitting here thinking about what I saw at the grocery store today. Pork loin $2 per pound tomatoes $2 per pound cauliflower $3 a head Now, how is this even possible? Oh yes, the corn subsidy. I wonder what they feed to the pigs? How about dropping corn and instead instituting a broccoli subsidy or a tomato subsidy, huh? As long as the government is on the hook for health care costs, perhaps it ought to encourage better behavior with the subsidies. I read that this country's greenhouse gas footprint from transportation is smaller than the greenhouse gas footprint from livestock. So why are we subsidizing animal feed? Seems backwards. The cheaper the corn, the more livestock we'll eat. The more livestock we'll eat, the more health costs go up. The more livestock we'll eat, the less we can drive our cars. Seems like bad policy.

Well the kids are going to be fine. My daughter pulled some tail feather out of "bear" while he was hanging by his feet. Now she's taped them to her bottom and she is pretending to be a rooster. Life is really funny. My wife laughed at the Sarah Palin joke. We don't have wild boar on the island but too many deer (that eat what we plant in the garden). And it's deer season right this very minute as a matter of fact -- just need to buy a license online. Only legal methods are modern firearm or archery -- not sure if strangulation is considered poaching. That would be fun to contest in the courts -- enough publicity to launch her campaign?

I just walked outside and there's two more roosters flopping around on the lawn. She's in there wringing their necks bare handed right in front of the kids! That's more than I was willing to do. "I'm doing all of them (the roosters) I just decided" she says. I tell you... I married a tough lady.

I couldn't agree more. My wife is 44 and we found out this year that she is diabetic (type II). She's not going to make it to 100 on candy bars. Now we're finding out about using hulled barley as a rice substitute. Fun stuff. But I agree on not cutting corners on the food bill if you can afford it. We're having chanterelle mushrooms for dinner tonight -- I hate those white button mushrooms even though they are 1/4 the cost.

By the way, if anyone wants a peking duck we have 24 of them running around our yard. And two geese in the freezer. Before going vegan we were raising our own meat. So we will still have meat sometimes, it's just going to be once every two weeks. Last week I smoked a goose and we made momos out of it. So every couple of weeks we eat a bird. The funny thing is, I just put a .22 hole in the back of the head of our alpha rooster about 45 minutes ago. My wife is outside with the children this very minute and plucking it. My daughter got off the bus about 15 minutes after I shot it, then was walking back down the drive with me (two of the neighbor's kids were also walking with us). So my wife says "hey kids do you want to see a dead rooster, I'm justing hanging it up now". My daughter then says "Oh no, it's "bear", that one was my favorite". Trouble was brewing -- we had three roosters and they are now competing for dominance. "Bear" tried to attack my 3 yr old this afternoon when he was collecting eggs (which he then sells to his pre-school teacher to get cash to buy toys). So a few life's lessons: 1) sell eggs to get money. Money buys toys 2) retribution -- .22 in the back of the head if you get attacked 3) meat doesn't come from the grocery store 4) Rules can be broken when you make up the rules -- we're not vegan tomorrow night

Damn, the lemons were 98 cents each today. You can't make tabbouleh without lemon though, so I just grin and bear it. $4 a pound for asparagus $3 for a head of cauliflower $2 a pound for tomatoes Get the picture? Eating healthy is more expensive. Pork loin was $2 a pound (didn't buy any, we went vegan for health reasons) World is crazy. I should get a discount from my health insurer. Either that or Coca Cola should pay the health insurance for the people they're killing instead of my subsidizing them -- talk about external costs.

You live on $1.65 per day? ($50 per month) Is that like 32 cents on breakfast, 33 cents on lunch, and for dinner you pull out all the stops and spend $1? Do you find food scraps in dumpsters? Ate the neighbor's pets? Trapping raccoons? Stealing the neighbor's lemons off the tree? What is your secret? I bought two lemons yesterday and it cost me a dollar. That's 2/3 of your daily budget but you can't survive on 3 lemons a day. Hey! The best food staples are dirt cheap: rice, beans, corn etc. Throw in a few leftovers from mom's table, and you've probably got a diet better than nine out of ten Americans. :) I agree but I still don't think I could eat those staples combined with FRESH fruits and veggies for 55 cents a meal. You should see what an avocado costs in Seattle. So anyways I want to hear what he says. There is no need for meat in the diet though -- I think that can be eliminated to save money. It costs 10 calories of grains to produce 1 calorie of animal meat for the table. That's terrible economics (not to mention driving up the price of food/grains) yet people get upset about using corn for ethanol production. I'm not even counting the money saved on the heart bypass surgery you won't need.

You live on $1.65 per day? ($50 per month) Is that like 32 cents on breakfast, 33 cents on lunch, and for dinner you pull out all the stops and spend $1? Do you find food scraps in dumpsters? Ate the neighbor's pets? Trapping raccoons? Stealing the neighbor's lemons off the tree? What is your secret? I bought two lemons yesterday and it cost me a dollar. That's 2/3 of your daily budget but you can't survive on 3 lemons a day.

This is true. They should start more "Newman's Own" corporations where all the profits go to charity. Start a bank where all the profits go to charity, instead of bitching about banks. Have a rule in the corporation where the top executive is paid no more than 5x the lowest employee. Whatever. The products of such corporations may develop a cult following and loyalty. Anyways, that's always something that could be tried. Weet-bix is a very popular breakfast cereal in Australia. The company that produces it, Sanitarium, is a non-profit. Don't have a job? Start one of these companies -- the people out on the streets protesting will buy the product. You can call it "F* Wall Street" or something like that. Naturally it won't make you a billionaire, but you can make 5x the lowest employee and be famous -- maybe Poppy Harlow will still talk to you. Pay the guy at the bottom $70k and you'll take home $350k yourself. Employ your wife as another top executive and you've got $700k total household income. The Christmas parties will be fun because the rest of the employees won't despise you -- you can cut the bodyguards from your budget.

This is an awesome statistic: Australian Tax Office statistics from 2008-09, analysed by AAH, showed that after landlords took in $24 billion in rental income, they claimed $30 billion in losses, allowing them to write off about $6.5 billion in taxes. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/housing-group-wants-tax-breaks-addressed-20111003-1l4sb.html#ixzz1b3JglADB

I don't think I can say it better than this so I'm leaving it at this now. Your last post had absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying in any part. The point of my last post was to demonstrate that you are comparing apples to oranges. You can't conveniently pick what you want from the 19th century without bringing the context along with it. Perhaps you can, but I will cry foul. Look, that is the 19th century is totally inconsequential, that's just something I drew out of my arse to be reasonably sure that it corresponded with reality, but the fact that it does (?) doesn't matter. Reread my posts and maybe you see what I'm trying to say. The only thing I am saying is that the argument from history IS NOT VALID. It's not valid if you say something was this and that in the 19th century, in the Roman empire, in the stone age or 8 years ago and therefore should be so now. I'm NOT defending the policies of the 19th century by pointing that out. Now, if you in some way can show that it worked better (and this can be highly subjective, like that it was fairer), then it's an empirical argument, but merely pointing out that something was different x number of ago is not and will never be an argument. I think it would help to stop pretending that 2003 was an arbitrary point in time. The law is the law no matter how hard you try to make it just another point in history. Maybe if you are not a US national you don't realize how the tax cut was legislated. The reason why we are discussing 8 years ago vs any other time line is that in 2003 congress agreed to temporarily cut the capital gains tax, reverting back to the prior tax levels at the end of 2010. Since then, another short term extension was voted in favor of the cuts -- political bargaining. You aren't a resident of the US and I'm giving you a mulligan as I in turn know nothing about the Swedish tax provisions. But going on and on pretending like I'm pulling 2003 out of thin air is getting very tiresome if you truly understand that the law requires action in order to extend it. Status quo could be viewed as just to do nothing -- let it expire. Treat it for what it was legislated to be -- temporary. There are many people who don't think it brought the jobs it was promised to bring, and it's not hard to see their point. I think though the Reagan tax cuts were a big hit and I've heard many people claim that all tax cuts will bring more prosperity. However if one looks at the inflation adjusted tax rates immediately prior to the cuts, the people at the bottom (or nearer the middle where they actually have lots of money to spend after buying essentials) were being taxed very heavily. Something like a 35% tax rate on $80,000 (present dollars) of income. This came about because of the high inflation rates over the prior decade. The tax brackets hadn't been adjusted for inflation. Thus there was a lot of bracket creep. People who spend most of their income suddenly were paying very high tax rates. Thus they had reduced disposable income and we had anemic growth. The tax cuts that Reagan brought in not only cut taxes for the wealthy, but they also cut taxes dramatically at the bottom. Thus there was a very sudden broad based enormous boom in real disposable consumer income and the economy took off. Well, of course it did -- final demand took off! This of course set off a massive boom in both tax revenues and job growth. Now, compare that to the Bush tax cuts which didn't dramatically increase the disposable income for the people at the bottom. It doesn't surprise me that we never got the lasting boom in economic growth and tax receipts that were promised. The investor class pocketed the tax cut because there was little increase in final demand as a result of the tax cuts doing relatively little for the consumer class. Now, had there been a huge increase in final demand they certainly would have invested it as they did in the 1980s after the Reagan tax cuts. Others argue that in the 1980s the top tax brackets were too high to encourage investment. I think that's a half-truth. I believe they wouldn't have reinvested their tax cut if final demand had not increased along with the tax cut. As Buffett says, cutting his taxes won't make him build more factories and hire more workers if final demand isn't there.

I don't think I can say it better than this so I'm leaving it at this now. Your last post had absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying in any part. The point of my last post was to demonstrate that you are comparing apples to oranges. You can't conveniently pick what you want from the 19th century without bringing the context along with it. Perhaps you can, but I will cry foul. You stated that in the 19th century all torture was prohibited. No it wasn't. It was just assigned to different variables. Instead of being assigned to the tax variable, it was assigned to the variables such as "no public highways, no labor laws, legalized insider trading, no national parks, vigilante justice"... etc.. etc... This is why I am saying your argument is deceptive. Over the past 111+ years many of the "torture" values previously assigned to other variables have been reassigned to the "tax" variable. Your argument makes sense if we don't think about these other variables to which torture was previously assigned. However I do think about them. Keeping out these variables you construct a straw man that you knock down. You develop an equation with a single variable, but the problem is multivariate.

No, it has nothing at all with the actual contents of the policies discussed to do. "Policy x was made into x/2 8 years ago" "In the 19th century x was prohibited" This is the form of the argument. Now x might be considered anything. For the sake of making the argument clear we might call x torture and x/2 flogging (half as bad as allowing all torture, humour me). Now where do we get? "Torture was repealed, but flogging kept legal 8 years ago" "In the 19th century all torture was prohibited" Do you see? And also we might call the 19th century 10 years ago, it doesn't matter one iota. You are pointing out that a long time ago in history there was no capital gains tax. Is that it? There were no labor laws either. No limits on hunting wildlife. No national parks. No FAA. No paved highways. No public libraries. There was vigilante justice in California. Insider trading was legal. Today taxes pay for these things. So you want to get rid of the barbarism or "torture"? I think taxes already did that. It's referred to by some as the "price of civilization". Let's get rid of the taxes but keep the amenities. I think we signed up for that under the tag line "deficits don't matter".