Oops, double dupe.

Save your upvotes for:
http://videosift.com/video/Affluenza-caused-by-affluence-symptoms-include-murder

Your video, Affluenza - caused by affluence, symptoms include murder, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

My black dog will fuck your black dog up son!

Idk about the brain chemistry bit. Its my suspicion that depression is not really very well defined; that its symptoms, causes and treatment vary for each case. I don't think having suffered/being a sufferer of depression gives me any unique insight into the colour and shape of others' demons. It's horrible to see somebody suffering, know exactly how it feels and still not know what to say to help them. Having support from friends and family helps, but still its a lonely battle indeed.

Anyway. The shame is awful and I'm glad videos like this exist because I think it goes some way to fixing that.

This is where my thoughts immediately went -- maybe $15/hr sounds so high because we're so far behind the inflation curve -- but I wasn't sure, so I pulled up this list of historic minimum wages and this inflation calculator and started doing some conversions.

1950: $0.75 = $7.30 today
1960: $1.00 = $7.81 today
1970: $1.60 = $9.74 today
> 1978: $2.65 = $9.80 today -- @enoch: How are you getting $22?
1980: $3.10 = $9.28 today
1990: $3.80 = $6.92 today
2000: $5.15 = $7.03 today
2010: $7.25 - $7.71 today

@Yogi is probably right; These people are probably asking for $15 and hoping for $10 (and $10 seems reasonable based on historic rates above).

Cranking up minimum wage much higher than that might be treating the symptoms rather than the sickness. Entry level jobs not paying enough is not the root cause; the root cause is that people are trapped in entry level careers. By all means, bump minimum wage up to $10, maybe $12 an hour, but then start taking action so that, when inflation catches up to those rates, there's more job mobility.

@bmacs27: GOD I fucking hate when people use the word "CLEARLY!" CLEARLY this blah blah blah and CLEARLY...Stop it...makes you sound like a pretentious idiot.

Look-All this ineffectual spit-poppin' on this thread:

Guy goes to school to pick up his kids and is harassed by bullshit rules and bullshit police. SIMPLE

THAT'S COMPLETE BULLSHIT-HE GOD FUCKED UNDESERVEDLY


The incident is complete bullshit, and a symptom of the insanity of shit like homeland security that relentlessly inept citizenry (insert blog-bitcher here) have let complete agenda-oriented cabals of politicians and their keepers, hustle you for.

Didn't Ben Fucking Franklin warn that anyone who sacrifices freedom for security deserve neither??

Ya buncha fucking idiots...

You'd be treating the symptom, not the cause.

Besides, he already had the opportunity to do that out in the desert, and he chose his path. Unless of course you think that necessary evil is better than the gun runners' necessary evil.

Well I will say that the cop probably didn't intend to have woman's face smashed up, which is why he tried to cover it up.

Regardless though, that level of force is unacceptable. Yet another person who seems to forget we live in the internet age and if there is a camera, it's going to get out.

Hell, I find it odd the bench was concrete. Who approved the design of that holding area? hard edges and drunk people rarely go well together even if police brutality wasn't a factor.

I suppose it's another symptom of lowest bidder contracting

How? By this guy using his engineering degree to... create a cure to Parkinson's?

No offense, but that's a pretty silly comment. It somewhat undermines the effort of people actually actively looking for cures. In the meantime, it's fantastic that someone is creating some technology to ease people's symptoms.

if only we could apply this sort of ingenuity to solve the actual problem instead of the symptoms

Atypical antipsychotics like Seroquel and Zyprexa actually have a pretty good record on controlling hallucinations and delusions like this, with success rates around 60% (meaning that if they try them all, 60% of victims will find a med that controls these symptoms). The side effects can be awful, and the fact that finding which works for you is a matter of trial and error make the drugs almost as bad as the problem they treat. Almost.


The only thing worse than the drugs is no treatment at all...nobody should have to live with that kind of terror.

To me, the clustering of these cases is the interesting point. It suggests that there may be some environmental trigger to be found in the region.

Funny.

My doctors had the same answer (minus the finger part) even with insurance.
I find it painful to even go to them. So tired of being 'passed along' soon as I get in there.

"Ah, you have symptoms. Well, they don't sound like the usual stuff, so we don't know. Get rest, take some Tylenol, hope you feel better. NEXT."

-scheherazade

Tags for this video have been changed from 'doctor, america, insurance, symptoms' to 'doctor, america, insurance, symptoms, tada' - edited by calvados

Thanks for all the personal attacks and presumptions. It's... distracting.

If the term 'controlled' is more fitting for you, then so be it. But yes, even type 1 diabetes can be eliminated. Look into the placebo effect - the power of a peron's beliefs. It is a very real, demonstrable, repeatable effect. And it has far more efficacy than most medications being produced.

In a way, the diabetes isn't the problem, but is one more symptom of the actual root of the problem. Runny noses, fevers, sore throats, lesions, pain - even traumas such as broken bones, cuts, and bruises - none of these are the problems themselves, but mere symptoms which point to something the individual should learn about how to live their lives.

Diabetes is no exception. Nor is cancer.

If you treat the 'issue' as something that's intrinsic, genetic, inevitable, and beyond the power of the individual to control or cure, you've essentially doomed that person to blind random fate. I prefer to place the power and thus responsibility for healing squarely on the shoulders of the one who's experiencing the problem. That makes far more sense to me than placing that power and responsibility into the hands of insurance companies, governments, congressmen, doctors, or choas.

Oh, and since you bring it up, Cacao (not chocolate) may in fact help diabetic symptoms! :-D Not really sure, haven't done much research on that one.

His symptoms sound like side effects from a pharmaceutical commercial.

Oops! I posted to the wrong profile. Sorry about that! Glad we were able to continue our dialogue.

My comments/responses interspersed:

> "economics has never been my strong suit."

I know, my friend, I know. As soon as I hear some defense of "socialism," I know.

> "but i AM quite literate in history and government and of
> course politics."

Yes, my dear friend, but history is tied to economics, and these days, unfortunately, politics too.

> "while you are correct that a socialist state can become a
> fascist one,so too can a democracy."

Again, we agree! Yes, in fact, fascism is the offspring of democracy. And while not strictly a fascist, was not Hitler elected?
Is there here some assumption that I regard "Democracy" as some sort of "holy cow?" On the contrary, "democracy" is a type of "soft" socialism.
At least as practiced and typically defined.
Not market democracy, however, which is the same as the free market, and not problematic. But pandering political democracy is something else.

> "it is really the forces of ideology"

Yes, in fact the book I am now reading makes this point throughout. So did Mises. But I will say that Mises was not altogether correct in dismissing Marx' assertion that systems and structures influence ideology and not the other way around. Mises was mostly correct, ideology creates systems and structures and institutions, but Marx was a little bit correct, there is also some influence in the other direction.

> "i do apologize for my oftentimes rambling.maybe because i
> am a little out of my comfort zone when it comes to
> economics"

Do not worry my friend, this is the case with most people who have strong political/economic opinions. It has been called afterall the "dismal science." If people knew about economics, we'd have a totally different system of government or no government at all.

> "your last post really cleared so many misconceptions i was
> having during this conversation."

Glad to hear. Some of my other "debaters" get very little out of our debate so it is a refreshing situation.

> "i knew we were more in agreement than disagreement.
> and we are."

I think most people are actually in agreement about goals, they just disagree about means, mostly because of lack of economic education. But once that is cleared, the agreements become more evident.

> "the banks need to held accountable."

1. yes banks need to be held accountable for fraud, like any other business or person.

> "which by inference means the governments role should be
> as fraud detector and protector of the consumer."

2. if you still want a government, meaning you still want a monopolist to do this. But a monopoly is inefficient (this is one of those "economics" laws, but one I think is almost self-evident). So asking a monopoly run by kleptocrats to do this is like asking the wolves to look over the sheep.

> "you didnt mention it but i hope you agree the corporate
> charter needs to be rewritten in a way where they are NOT a
> person and therefore shall be removed from the political
> landscape."

3. Since I don't think government (monopolist) are necessary, I don't think it should be inventing legal entities and forcing those on everyone else. Corporations are the creation of the state. Without a state monopoly, they would look much different than they do at present. In actuality, regardless of legal definitions, a corporation is a group of persons, like a union or social club or a partnership.

> "this will (or should) re-balance our political system (which is
> diseased at the moment)."

4. Corporations are a symptom, not the cause of all our social ills. Lack of economic calculation is much more problematic on all levels. In short, government is not a solution, but the major contributor to the problem. And we still have not gone into the whole issue of how the government is not "we" or "the people" in any meaningful way and how having coercive rulers is a problem.

> "which will return this country to a more level playing field and
> equate to=more liberty."

5. I don't know that we agree here. Corporations are not the cause of lack of liberties. Government is. Corporations won't throw you in jail for not obeying the rulers; government will. Corporations will not garnish your wages. Government will.

> "this will open innovation,progress and advancements in ALL
> fields AND due to competitive forces ,will lower prices."

6. Things like getting rid of IP laws will do so. So will getting rid of most/all taxation and arbitrary regulation.

> "how am i doing so far?"

Doing great!

> "what is governments role"?

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
I don't want government to do anything for me, and I don't want it to force me at gunpoint to do anything at all.
A monopoly cannot do anything good that a free competitive market cannot do better.

> "the anarchist finds it perfectly acceptable to tear down that
> government to build a new one."

If you want someone to rule over you by force, you are not an anarchist. What kind of government would you consider "anarchy?"

> "if something aint working the way it was meant to,get rid of
> it and try another."

What if I don't want you or anyone else imposing rulers on me? What if I believe I have a right to self-ownership and voluntary interactions and property?
What if I don't want your form of "government?' Then what? You still want to impose it on me?
I thought you were my friend.

> "well in an unrestricted market and pesky government out of
> the way what do YOU think is going to happen to a system
> driven by self interest and profit?"

Everything will improve. But government had to be totally out of the way. btw, where do you get that government is not driven itself by self-interest and profit?

> "and i am ok with that."

Well, the difference between what you want and what I want is that what I want is not to be imposed on you but what you want is to be forcefully imposed on me, violently too, if I don't comply.

> "illegal to have an employee owned business."

Like I said, government is a problem.

> "i dont know why it was illegal in this area and i dont see how
> employee owned companies would threaten a free market."

In a free market anyone can own any business they want or else it is not a free market.

> "but as you figured out.
> economics is not my strong suit."

Just because there is a law prohibiting co-op ownership of a bar, it does not mean that it is there for some reason that makes economic sense. It actually makes no economic sense so it must be there for some political reason or because someone somewhere profits from this restriction, as is always the case with regulations.

> "and my man,cant tell ya how grateful i am to have had this
> conversation with you.i learned tons,about you and your
> views and even some about free markets."

Remember, a free market means free, not "semi" free. Not privilege for some, like regulations tend to do.
Always a pleasure.