The psychological aspect is mostly tied to the concept of utility. It's rather dubious but only a subset of what's taught of traditional Microeconomic theory. The rest leans towards Philosophy.
I'd argue "much of the trouble" is due to politicians misquoting, misunderstanding and inappropriately applying outdated neo-classical Economic theories in their arguments. For the Right, namely. Economists namely debate amongst themselves. Few reach the stardom to regularly appear in media, and those that do are always leftists.
It's true you can't separate politics from Economics but there's a wealth of influential work that isn't partisan, except perhaps in the sense that it's done in the spirit of protecting Capitalism from itself. E.g. the Solow Growth Model, Interest Rate Parity, etc.
I think you mean the other Social Sciences since Economics is one. It's the main reason the Left likes to trash the discipline as unscientific (whilst championing popular figures like Stiglitz, Krugman and Piketty). In truth they're all scientific: in part. They're equally comprised of philosophy.
The widespread glee and initiatives shared by nearly all relevant tech companies points to suppressing wages in the long-term, and looking good doing it. Money is the only motivation for this level of manufactured enthusiasm.
I think Neal Stephenson predicted correctly in the Diamond Age when he depicted engineers as low-level grunts.
I'd venture he'd make a better defense against commies. Destabilize too much and that's the kind of push-back you get. If you remember, following the Depression the General Theory of Economics was written in part to prevent a Communist revolution.
Seems the opposite is in effect, which speaks of inexposure.
Huff is a center-left/liberal mouthpiece with the usual fluff pieces. The U.S. and U.K. doesn't have much of a Left pov. The Nation or Jacobin are some, though not for a large readership. Then again, as far-right goes I only know of Reason, not to say conservative news sources are immoderate, except for maybe the Economist.
You may underestimate the extent to which data is misrepresented. This is all the more prevalent when investigating a topic in bad faith, with money thrown at it to boot. Don't misunderstand, everyone has a bias, which in itself isn't unethical. A rigid scientific method protects against this in good faith.
Of course we're free to research whatever we want. I never meant to imply "make it illegal" - To be specific I would think the public and news media should be more vigilant about source since as it is public consciousness about health is for sale, or a matter of opinion. In this case, Coca-Cola openly researching to support one pre-determined conclusion, which, considering the serious body of evidence already available, could require lying by omission and statistical manipulation. That's yet to be determined - however, "No compelling evidence" is a blatant lie they've already settled on before their work has even begun.
Big tobacco companies hired scientists to lie and they've been forced to admit it. I don't see why Coca-Cola wouldn't be doing the same. In the case of corporate interests manipulating results it would be grand if 3rd party verification were due process.
More mindless rhetoric. Nothing I said suggests that.
Health science ought not be hijacked, lobbied and twisted for corporate interests. Lies have no place in science. - that would, indeed, be a detriment to freedom. Only an idiot or shill would think otherwise.
Are you aware of what a Red Herring is?
I'm already "not buying it" pretty hard, thank you. Information guides purchasing -- the point very much is for consumers to be mislead into buying into unhealthy products, which bothers me from a sociological standpoint. A gander at slashdot comments is enough to tell you that misinformation works. People seem to throw up their hands at the prospect of optimal health when it really shouldn't be that complicated of an issue.
Uh, how does "banning" follow in theoreticals here? Tobacco isn't banned. The likely scenario is junk food tax, which is what companies want to dissuade. It's tried and true, works to curb alcohol and cigarette consumption, and provides much needed revenue for health care for those assholes who expect to be taken care of and do nothing to improve their health.
Fibre is woefully outmatched in this instance. This would be true were one consuming an orange, not orange juice. Fibre reduces the level of insulin needed to process sugars.
"I just think most of them have been brought upon herself for the purpose of garnering attention, sympathy and money" - and why presume that when it's something you can't really ever know? There's no point in projecting motive except to discredit someone from the start, which doesn't look good. She ought to be criticized on the virtue of her views and actions only.
Slashdot Mirror
The psychological aspect is mostly tied to the concept of utility. It's rather dubious but only a subset of what's taught of traditional Microeconomic theory. The rest leans towards Philosophy.
Where's the Math, let alone the sketchy sort, in any of the examples provided above?
I'd argue "much of the trouble" is due to politicians misquoting, misunderstanding and inappropriately applying outdated neo-classical Economic theories in their arguments. For the Right, namely. Economists namely debate amongst themselves. Few reach the stardom to regularly appear in media, and those that do are always leftists. It's true you can't separate politics from Economics but there's a wealth of influential work that isn't partisan, except perhaps in the sense that it's done in the spirit of protecting Capitalism from itself. E.g. the Solow Growth Model, Interest Rate Parity, etc.
I think you mean the other Social Sciences since Economics is one. It's the main reason the Left likes to trash the discipline as unscientific (whilst championing popular figures like Stiglitz, Krugman and Piketty). In truth they're all scientific: in part. They're equally comprised of philosophy.
Match likes to boast about subscribers when most accounts are completely dead. No idea about bots, never used it so I don't have an impression.
Y'all really, really need to read the Prize by Daniel Yergin.
They could throw all the cash they want at it and it would still always be 30 years away.
The widespread glee and initiatives shared by nearly all relevant tech companies points to suppressing wages in the long-term, and looking good doing it. Money is the only motivation for this level of manufactured enthusiasm. I think Neal Stephenson predicted correctly in the Diamond Age when he depicted engineers as low-level grunts.
I'd venture he'd make a better defense against commies. Destabilize too much and that's the kind of push-back you get. If you remember, following the Depression the General Theory of Economics was written in part to prevent a Communist revolution.
I can think of one that doesn't fit that bill.
Seems the opposite is in effect, which speaks of inexposure. Huff is a center-left/liberal mouthpiece with the usual fluff pieces. The U.S. and U.K. doesn't have much of a Left pov. The Nation or Jacobin are some, though not for a large readership. Then again, as far-right goes I only know of Reason, not to say conservative news sources are immoderate, except for maybe the Economist.
Agreed, that was an excellent article.
Far-left? Are you high?
You may underestimate the extent to which data is misrepresented. This is all the more prevalent when investigating a topic in bad faith, with money thrown at it to boot. Don't misunderstand, everyone has a bias, which in itself isn't unethical. A rigid scientific method protects against this in good faith. Of course we're free to research whatever we want. I never meant to imply "make it illegal" - To be specific I would think the public and news media should be more vigilant about source since as it is public consciousness about health is for sale, or a matter of opinion. In this case, Coca-Cola openly researching to support one pre-determined conclusion, which, considering the serious body of evidence already available, could require lying by omission and statistical manipulation. That's yet to be determined - however, "No compelling evidence" is a blatant lie they've already settled on before their work has even begun. Big tobacco companies hired scientists to lie and they've been forced to admit it. I don't see why Coca-Cola wouldn't be doing the same. In the case of corporate interests manipulating results it would be grand if 3rd party verification were due process.
More mindless rhetoric. Nothing I said suggests that. Health science ought not be hijacked, lobbied and twisted for corporate interests. Lies have no place in science. - that would, indeed, be a detriment to freedom. Only an idiot or shill would think otherwise.
Are you aware of what a Red Herring is? I'm already "not buying it" pretty hard, thank you. Information guides purchasing -- the point very much is for consumers to be mislead into buying into unhealthy products, which bothers me from a sociological standpoint. A gander at slashdot comments is enough to tell you that misinformation works. People seem to throw up their hands at the prospect of optimal health when it really shouldn't be that complicated of an issue.
Uh, how does "banning" follow in theoreticals here? Tobacco isn't banned. The likely scenario is junk food tax, which is what companies want to dissuade. It's tried and true, works to curb alcohol and cigarette consumption, and provides much needed revenue for health care for those assholes who expect to be taken care of and do nothing to improve their health.
Fibre is woefully outmatched in this instance. This would be true were one consuming an orange, not orange juice. Fibre reduces the level of insulin needed to process sugars.
Copious levels of refined sugar is possibly the most detrimental aspect of the shitty Western diet, moreso than isolated fats.
Lying fucking cocksucking pieces of shit. Why do we still allow this? Our health ought not be for sale.
I haven't seen much discussion over the ad-potential of HTML5. It must be there, else we wouldn't be seeing transition as it is now.
Loved this one.
HR gets indoctrinated with certain ideas about that.
"We're not assholes" - well it's not up to you.
"I just think most of them have been brought upon herself for the purpose of garnering attention, sympathy and money" - and why presume that when it's something you can't really ever know? There's no point in projecting motive except to discredit someone from the start, which doesn't look good. She ought to be criticized on the virtue of her views and actions only.