So, I say to Mr. Buffett and his "coddled" friends, please remit your donations to the FMS as soon as you are ready and able.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Warren Buffett Says: Stop Coddling the Super Rich
Warren Buffett had an op-ed piece today in the New York Times where he addresses taxation of the very wealthy. While he makes a few good points, his main argument, at least to me, has been flawed since he first started making it long ago. The idea that these "coddled" super-rich must await an act of Congress to give money to the government is simply wrong. Most Americans, politicians, and perhaps Buffett himself do not know that the Treasury actually has a bureau already set up to take donations "from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States." That's a direct quote from the Treasury's Financial Management Service Bureau's website: http://www.fms.treas.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Is Health Care A Right?
Two levels on which I don't agree that health care is a right. The first level is that, if it is a right, it is definitely not a protected right under the constitution. If we as a nation define it as a right by adding it as an amendment or addition to the Bill of Rights, then it would become protected. When the Bill of Rights was written as a compromise for those who questioned the Federalist notion of a constitution and a central government, hospitals and doctors existed. If the non-Federalists had felt that healthcare was an inalienable right they would have asked for its inclusion into the Bill of Rights, because they basically asked for everything else they could think of. Good thing they did; Imagine being without the Bill of Rights, which is what the Federalists wanted until it was obvious they needed a compromise.
The second level is on what constitutes a right. What are rights, and where do they come from? I have always questioned that, and recently questioned it again in regards to whether I should think health care is a right or not. If it is, I want to be behind it as a defender of rights. If it is not, I want to explain why not.
Fundamentally:
What we know:
True rights do not infringe on another person's rights. My right in the pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to an attorney, right to a fair trial, or any other, should not and do not take away from another's same rights.
If health care was, or could be, a right, how could it be so without taking away the rights of others?
As stated above, I currently have the right to an attorney, but I have to pay for it out of pocket or request one (the act), and the right is given to me to defend me from accusation of my peers (The People, who are under that obligation). If the People of my State decide to accuse me, I should (and do) have the right to defend myself against them.
However, in the case of a medical need, it usually occurs by natural cause. The People did not inflict the medical need upon me, so I have no right for a doctor to be provided (there is no act and no obligation). But I do have the right to hire (a right) one and receive treatment if I have obtained the ability (a right) to do so.
Of course, there are always a few exceptions and further explanations and arguments to these types of philosophies which would take much more time to write than I have. Such as what happens when The People do inflict harm on someone - then does that person have a right to receive care? Most judges or juries would rule yes and I agree with that. Notice, however, that the right is usually alienable, meaning it can be transferred, or it is only for the duration of the treatment of the harm caused. It normally would not include any and all medical care, as the alienable right was given because The People infringed on that person's right to be left alone. (See Francis Hutcheson)
One last example, my right to legal representation can still be exercised (therefore it is inalienable) even if all of the lawyers were to leave the world, and none were available to represent me. In that case, I become my own advocate and represent myself. The right has not been reduced or transferred from me based on the lawyers' decisions to leave. On the other hand, if all of the doctors were to leave the world, how would I exercise my right to health care, beyond the rights I already have to take care of and make decisions for myself?
The fact that health care is not a right does not mean we should not be charitable and help where we are able. It means we should be careful about what types of weighty responsibilities we add to the burdens we share as Americans. Balance is a notion that we tend to forget about but is symbolically everywhere in the foundations and inner workings of our country. I believe there is good wisdom in that.
The second level is on what constitutes a right. What are rights, and where do they come from? I have always questioned that, and recently questioned it again in regards to whether I should think health care is a right or not. If it is, I want to be behind it as a defender of rights. If it is not, I want to explain why not.
Fundamentally:
- A right is rooted in, and constituted of, principles defining the ability to act.
- Rights come from the obligation of others to keep themselves from violating your ability to act. In other words, rights are negative obligations - weighty responsibilities.
What we know:
- The need for health care in a time of sickness is not an act.
- Society has only defined certain obligations of doctors in times of emergency, sickness, or need - and complete health care is not one of them.
True rights do not infringe on another person's rights. My right in the pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to an attorney, right to a fair trial, or any other, should not and do not take away from another's same rights.
If health care was, or could be, a right, how could it be so without taking away the rights of others?
As stated above, I currently have the right to an attorney, but I have to pay for it out of pocket or request one (the act), and the right is given to me to defend me from accusation of my peers (The People, who are under that obligation). If the People of my State decide to accuse me, I should (and do) have the right to defend myself against them.
However, in the case of a medical need, it usually occurs by natural cause. The People did not inflict the medical need upon me, so I have no right for a doctor to be provided (there is no act and no obligation). But I do have the right to hire (a right) one and receive treatment if I have obtained the ability (a right) to do so.
Of course, there are always a few exceptions and further explanations and arguments to these types of philosophies which would take much more time to write than I have. Such as what happens when The People do inflict harm on someone - then does that person have a right to receive care? Most judges or juries would rule yes and I agree with that. Notice, however, that the right is usually alienable, meaning it can be transferred, or it is only for the duration of the treatment of the harm caused. It normally would not include any and all medical care, as the alienable right was given because The People infringed on that person's right to be left alone. (See Francis Hutcheson)
One last example, my right to legal representation can still be exercised (therefore it is inalienable) even if all of the lawyers were to leave the world, and none were available to represent me. In that case, I become my own advocate and represent myself. The right has not been reduced or transferred from me based on the lawyers' decisions to leave. On the other hand, if all of the doctors were to leave the world, how would I exercise my right to health care, beyond the rights I already have to take care of and make decisions for myself?
The fact that health care is not a right does not mean we should not be charitable and help where we are able. It means we should be careful about what types of weighty responsibilities we add to the burdens we share as Americans. Balance is a notion that we tend to forget about but is symbolically everywhere in the foundations and inner workings of our country. I believe there is good wisdom in that.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Follow-up: How To Short Sell The Oil Companies
In a previous article, I wrote about how we can collectively work against the oil companies to help improve gasoline prices. (See the previous article before reading further if you haven't read it already. Then come back to this article.) We should keep doing that, as now traders and firms like Goldman Sachs are seeing that demand might not be meeting with supply, and oil has been off its highs so far this week. Keep it up America!
In full disclosure, I am not currently short on oil. In fact, I am actually long DBO ETFs in one of my portfolios, and have no plans to change my position anytime soon. I think energy long term is a good play. But gasoline prices are too high, and unsustainable (in my view) at these levels, and I believe could impact the economy come summer time (like we saw in the perfect market storm of 2008). I do have another interest in seeing fuel prices decrease, and that is I need to book some flights to Hawaii soon and would love to see some benefits in reduced airfare from lower aviation fuel prices. Long shot, I know, but I can hope!
I also have seen other researchers write similar things about other commodities, such as food related goods. Below is what Smartmoney.com had to say on the topic of stockpiling (which is what are doing in effect when we fill our tanks to the brim instead of just filling with a half tank more frequently).
Consider this example. There are over an estimated 247 million registered vehicles in the US. The average tank size is around 20 gallons. That means, if we are keeping our tanks above half full, we are storing between 4.94 billion (at full) and 2.47 billion (at half full) gallons of gasoline, at our cost, not the oil companies' cost. We are storing billions of gallons of gasoline for FREE, so that we can drive around town for a week without filling up (even though most cities and towns have a plethora of fueling stations along the routes we drive). Imagine what would happen if we were storing a half tank or less of gasoline (less than or equal to 2.47 billion). We would immediately stick almost 2.5 billion gallons of product back on the oil companies' "shelves", since their numbers are set to meet the demand at that rate of draw. How's that for some perspective?
Smartmoney.com:
...
Additional notes: When gasoline is sitting in your tank, it is evaporating. Why pay out of your pocket just to let more droplets of gasoline disappear on your dime. Make the oil companies pay that expense themselves by buying less gasoline at each fuel-up, which forces them to store more gasoline and worry about their own storage tanks' evaporation rates. While many articles show that the evaporation rates are pretty negligible (less than 1 gallon per year at 60 degrees Fahrenheit), I still need to do some more research on what the rates are like when it is over 90 degrees like most of America is during the summer months. Also, when liquids slosh around, there is more evaporation. There are also arguments about cars that have evaporation collection systems which reuse gasoline that might help mitigate your losses. Additionally, E10 or higher Ethanol gasoline is said to evaporate even more due to the alcohol content.
However, even if you are not benefiting from less evaporation, you may stand to benefit from increased gas mileage by not hauling around so much liquid in your tank. As the power of your engine increases (4 cyl, V6, V8) the benefits decrease: meaning you'll see better gas mileage for half tanks in a 4 cyl than you will in a V8. But remember, these are just added benefits, so if you don't receive these benefits because your car is bigger or has cool vapor catching gizmos, it doesn't matter. The bigger benefit is short selling the oil companies, over-supplying them with excess inventory, by not filling up a full tank when you go to the pump. They will soon see that they have too much gasoline product on hand and reduce the price to get rid of it.
If interested, you can read more on efficiencies here:
http://www.creditinfocenter.com/wordpress/2008/07/24/increase-mileage-gas-tank-full-or-half-empty/
In full disclosure, I am not currently short on oil. In fact, I am actually long DBO ETFs in one of my portfolios, and have no plans to change my position anytime soon. I think energy long term is a good play. But gasoline prices are too high, and unsustainable (in my view) at these levels, and I believe could impact the economy come summer time (like we saw in the perfect market storm of 2008). I do have another interest in seeing fuel prices decrease, and that is I need to book some flights to Hawaii soon and would love to see some benefits in reduced airfare from lower aviation fuel prices. Long shot, I know, but I can hope!
I also have seen other researchers write similar things about other commodities, such as food related goods. Below is what Smartmoney.com had to say on the topic of stockpiling (which is what are doing in effect when we fill our tanks to the brim instead of just filling with a half tank more frequently).
Consider this example. There are over an estimated 247 million registered vehicles in the US. The average tank size is around 20 gallons. That means, if we are keeping our tanks above half full, we are storing between 4.94 billion (at full) and 2.47 billion (at half full) gallons of gasoline, at our cost, not the oil companies' cost. We are storing billions of gallons of gasoline for FREE, so that we can drive around town for a week without filling up (even though most cities and towns have a plethora of fueling stations along the routes we drive). Imagine what would happen if we were storing a half tank or less of gasoline (less than or equal to 2.47 billion). We would immediately stick almost 2.5 billion gallons of product back on the oil companies' "shelves", since their numbers are set to meet the demand at that rate of draw. How's that for some perspective?
Smartmoney.com:
...
There's also an unintended consequence of stockpiling, says David Bell, a professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business: You'll actually end up using more of what you've stockpiled than you would otherwise. In theory, doubling the number of soda cases bought would result in a supply that lasts twice as long, but it's more likely that you'll go through it faster, or simply be less frugal about its use with extra on hand. You could even end up throwing out food that expires, rejecting out-of-fashion items, or simply forgetting about the cans of corn stashed behind the hats and mittens in the basement.
Still, buying before prices rise can be smart – in small doses. Most supermarket and drugstore items go on sale just once every 10 to 12 weeks, says Teri Gault, founder of The Grocery Game. If you're loyal to a certain brand, buying extra when you spot a sale is smarter than paying full price the following week when you're actually out. On fashion, retailers sneak in bigger price increases on trend items because consumers can't easily monitor cost like they do for wardrobe staples such as trousers and T-shirts, says Tennant. Many of those items are available now at end-of-season clearances, and can be picked up for a song. And avoiding hyped-up eBay ( EBAY: 29.98*, -0.46, -1.51% ) prices on discontinued items by stocking up is usually a sound strategy, too.
Ultimately, the decision may come down to cash flow. If charging six months worth of dry goods means paying extra interest charges on credit card debt, it's not worth the savings, says Randy Allen, an associate dean for The Johnson School at Cornell University.
Read more: Will Stockpiling Save You Money? - SmartMoney.com http://www.smartmoney.com/spending/budgeting/will-stockpiling-save-you-money-1298583519761/#ixzz1Gm8Ox5Y4
Additional notes: When gasoline is sitting in your tank, it is evaporating. Why pay out of your pocket just to let more droplets of gasoline disappear on your dime. Make the oil companies pay that expense themselves by buying less gasoline at each fuel-up, which forces them to store more gasoline and worry about their own storage tanks' evaporation rates. While many articles show that the evaporation rates are pretty negligible (less than 1 gallon per year at 60 degrees Fahrenheit), I still need to do some more research on what the rates are like when it is over 90 degrees like most of America is during the summer months. Also, when liquids slosh around, there is more evaporation. There are also arguments about cars that have evaporation collection systems which reuse gasoline that might help mitigate your losses. Additionally, E10 or higher Ethanol gasoline is said to evaporate even more due to the alcohol content.
However, even if you are not benefiting from less evaporation, you may stand to benefit from increased gas mileage by not hauling around so much liquid in your tank. As the power of your engine increases (4 cyl, V6, V8) the benefits decrease: meaning you'll see better gas mileage for half tanks in a 4 cyl than you will in a V8. But remember, these are just added benefits, so if you don't receive these benefits because your car is bigger or has cool vapor catching gizmos, it doesn't matter. The bigger benefit is short selling the oil companies, over-supplying them with excess inventory, by not filling up a full tank when you go to the pump. They will soon see that they have too much gasoline product on hand and reduce the price to get rid of it.
If interested, you can read more on efficiencies here:
http://www.creditinfocenter.com/wordpress/2008/07/24/increase-mileage-gas-tank-full-or-half-empty/
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Economics of Gasoline - How To Short Sell The Oil Companies
High gas prices are back. It's time to review ways to save money on gas.
But I don't intend to talk about conserving gas through substitution to biking, running, or riding the bus to work. The problem of high fuel prices goes far beyond that, and could easily cause setbacks in the US economic recovery - if there really is one.
Let's start with good ol' reliable supply and demand. Prices are higher right now because the traders who buy oil on the commodities exchanges are saying with their pocket books that the supply of safe, reliable production of oil is heading lower relative to demand. Whether we agree with their assessment is irrelevant. But what is clear is that we need to shift the supply curve to the right to get prices to come down. If the traders won't do that, how can we as consumers do it?
Before I go further, I'll point to some interesting info regarding the last time oil had a huge run. In 2008 saw oil a peak price at $145.29 on July 3. Just 10 days later, President George W. Bush announced a repeal of the offshore drilling ban, and oil made a steep and steady decline (along with the economy) to well below $50 per barrel by December 2008. I don't believe for a second that Bush intended to allow drilling - it was simply a bluff, an ace in the back pocket. Even if he did intend to allow drilling, it would have taken years to get production on line. However, the mere chance that more supply could be coming on line in future years was enough to help the price come down; way down.
Remember, oil is traded in futures contracts. The futures are trying to predict what the price of oil should be in the coming months.
So, again, how can we as consumers get the price of oil to fall? Answer: we can use the properties of distribution models and futures trading against the oil companies, and force them to sell gas at lower prices.
Distribution models are everywhere, and these days they are run with high efficiency. Imagine a tanker filling up with oil right now at a port in Alaska. There is a port somewhere in Texas expecting that tanker to come to port in the near future. At that port in Texas, there is a pipeline company expecting to transport the oil from the tanker, and eventually route it to an oil refinery somewhere in the mid-west. That oil refinery is expecting the oil to come in so they can make gasoline and other products. There is a distributor expecting to haul that gasoline to nearby stations, and stations that are expecting to sell the gasoline at a certain volume per week. All of this is done with "just in time" precision to ensure that enough gasoline is on hand to the members down the chain at a time when it is needed.
That's where we come in.
Instead of filling our cars full of gasoline every time we stop to fill - and hauling it around while using it slowly, meanwhile letting the oil companies take our money for gasoline we will not use until sometime in the future - fill up with a half tank of gas, or better, a set dollar amount (that is at or below a half tank), keeping more of your money in your pocket, and paying less upfront for future consumption. We will be placing "puts" on their future price of oil by paying less in advance for gasoline we'll burn in the future.
Our tank shorting will do two things immediately. One, it will immediately increase the amount of gasoline inventory every station has on hand relative to their normal draw rates. When the distribution company comes to fill the tanks for the station, they will not dump as much gasoline off their tanker trucks. With less gasoline leaving the storage tanks of refineries, they will have to slow production (or pay money to someone else to store the excess gasoline). Reduced production would mean less oil draw from their pipelines, which would mean the pipeline companies would have to store more offloaded oil from tankers (or pay someone else to store it). Rather than do that, they offload less oil from the tanker. The tanker sits in port longer now, since the offloading rate is slowed. Meaning the tanker company now starts a dispute with the purchaser of the oil over who will pay the costs of the extended stay at port. Meantime, another ship is already on its way to port with more oil. That tanker arrives while the other tanker is still docked. Now the tanker company has to pay to dock the second tanker, effectively "storing" the oil.
Two, rather than allow this backlog to happen and disrupt the supply chain, the oil companies will try to entice us back to the pump by reducing the price of gasoline in an attempt to ease the onslaught of higher inventories. This action would effectively take some wind out of the sails of the futures prices of oil, which would further reduce the price of gasoline over time.
Let's get started America.
But I don't intend to talk about conserving gas through substitution to biking, running, or riding the bus to work. The problem of high fuel prices goes far beyond that, and could easily cause setbacks in the US economic recovery - if there really is one.
Let's start with good ol' reliable supply and demand. Prices are higher right now because the traders who buy oil on the commodities exchanges are saying with their pocket books that the supply of safe, reliable production of oil is heading lower relative to demand. Whether we agree with their assessment is irrelevant. But what is clear is that we need to shift the supply curve to the right to get prices to come down. If the traders won't do that, how can we as consumers do it?
Before I go further, I'll point to some interesting info regarding the last time oil had a huge run. In 2008 saw oil a peak price at $145.29 on July 3. Just 10 days later, President George W. Bush announced a repeal of the offshore drilling ban, and oil made a steep and steady decline (along with the economy) to well below $50 per barrel by December 2008. I don't believe for a second that Bush intended to allow drilling - it was simply a bluff, an ace in the back pocket. Even if he did intend to allow drilling, it would have taken years to get production on line. However, the mere chance that more supply could be coming on line in future years was enough to help the price come down; way down.
Remember, oil is traded in futures contracts. The futures are trying to predict what the price of oil should be in the coming months.
So, again, how can we as consumers get the price of oil to fall? Answer: we can use the properties of distribution models and futures trading against the oil companies, and force them to sell gas at lower prices.
Distribution models are everywhere, and these days they are run with high efficiency. Imagine a tanker filling up with oil right now at a port in Alaska. There is a port somewhere in Texas expecting that tanker to come to port in the near future. At that port in Texas, there is a pipeline company expecting to transport the oil from the tanker, and eventually route it to an oil refinery somewhere in the mid-west. That oil refinery is expecting the oil to come in so they can make gasoline and other products. There is a distributor expecting to haul that gasoline to nearby stations, and stations that are expecting to sell the gasoline at a certain volume per week. All of this is done with "just in time" precision to ensure that enough gasoline is on hand to the members down the chain at a time when it is needed.
That's where we come in.
Instead of filling our cars full of gasoline every time we stop to fill - and hauling it around while using it slowly, meanwhile letting the oil companies take our money for gasoline we will not use until sometime in the future - fill up with a half tank of gas, or better, a set dollar amount (that is at or below a half tank), keeping more of your money in your pocket, and paying less upfront for future consumption. We will be placing "puts" on their future price of oil by paying less in advance for gasoline we'll burn in the future.
Our tank shorting will do two things immediately. One, it will immediately increase the amount of gasoline inventory every station has on hand relative to their normal draw rates. When the distribution company comes to fill the tanks for the station, they will not dump as much gasoline off their tanker trucks. With less gasoline leaving the storage tanks of refineries, they will have to slow production (or pay money to someone else to store the excess gasoline). Reduced production would mean less oil draw from their pipelines, which would mean the pipeline companies would have to store more offloaded oil from tankers (or pay someone else to store it). Rather than do that, they offload less oil from the tanker. The tanker sits in port longer now, since the offloading rate is slowed. Meaning the tanker company now starts a dispute with the purchaser of the oil over who will pay the costs of the extended stay at port. Meantime, another ship is already on its way to port with more oil. That tanker arrives while the other tanker is still docked. Now the tanker company has to pay to dock the second tanker, effectively "storing" the oil.
Two, rather than allow this backlog to happen and disrupt the supply chain, the oil companies will try to entice us back to the pump by reducing the price of gasoline in an attempt to ease the onslaught of higher inventories. This action would effectively take some wind out of the sails of the futures prices of oil, which would further reduce the price of gasoline over time.
Let's get started America.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Response In Favor of Utah's Immigration Compact - Specifically HB116
The title of this article includes a link to a youtube post I did were I talk further of my support for the Utah Immigration Laws that were passed today. Be sure to listen to parts one, two, and three. In case you need them, each of the links are also provided below.
I will say this as a lead in to the discussion. The Utah Republicans had better think before they cause an uproar within the Utah Republican Party over this by using the primaries to oust politicians that supported this bill. The last time something similar happened, and on a national scale, was when the Immigration Reform Act created a huge divide within the Repubs in May of 2006. That fall, the divided Republicans couldn't overcome their stronger Democratic counterparts, and lost big time. The momentum carried into the Presidential Election, and Obama was elected in.
If Utah Republicans are not careful, we may see something similar happen where less-conservative-more-moderate people like me relinquish support of the party as these party line delegates push their ultra-right candidates through the primaries. That would likely lead to our first Democratic governor in quite some time, and possibly a Democratic legislature.
But beyond that, this issue is about doing what's right and an enforcement policy mixed with a guest worker program is a great solution, and says to Washington, wake up, or let the States decide on the issues you fail to take up!
I will say this as a lead in to the discussion. The Utah Republicans had better think before they cause an uproar within the Utah Republican Party over this by using the primaries to oust politicians that supported this bill. The last time something similar happened, and on a national scale, was when the Immigration Reform Act created a huge divide within the Repubs in May of 2006. That fall, the divided Republicans couldn't overcome their stronger Democratic counterparts, and lost big time. The momentum carried into the Presidential Election, and Obama was elected in.
If Utah Republicans are not careful, we may see something similar happen where less-conservative-more-moderate people like me relinquish support of the party as these party line delegates push their ultra-right candidates through the primaries. That would likely lead to our first Democratic governor in quite some time, and possibly a Democratic legislature.
But beyond that, this issue is about doing what's right and an enforcement policy mixed with a guest worker program is a great solution, and says to Washington, wake up, or let the States decide on the issues you fail to take up!
Friday, January 28, 2011
Taco Bell's Hellish Heat
Some have jokingly called Taco Bell "Taco Hell" for some time, and now it seems like the company may be in trouble as litigation over the question of "what beef is" catches America's attention.
But before we get all riled up about something corporate, I want to pose a question. Is it really that big of a deal? Allow me to explain my reasons for questioning.
It's not that I think fast food is great and that people, restaurants, and food producers shouldn't do more to ensure that there is nutritional value to food. That is especially the case now that we have the real possibility of universal health care. If we all have to pay in, I want to be sure that Joe Plumber is eating foods that will sustain him and his health so that he's not overusing the health system.
But the question is, does Taco Bell's beef, or lack thereof, really pose a health issue? Or a false advertising issue at that? Take a minute and think about it. How many mom's since the invention of meatloaf have used "extenders" when making meat based foods? How many restaurants initially used "french" in french fries, french toast, etc. to make the food name sound exotic when it wasn't. Isn't that false advertising?
Meatloaf itself has all kinds of stuff in it, that isn't meat, but you don't see lawyers lining up to say that it can't be called 'meat' loaf anymore. Think of the ingredients: eggs, milk, butter, bread crumbs, seasonings, oils, etc., none of which are even close to the meat department. Sounds like it should be called breakfast-for-dinner loaf instead. Isn't all Taco Bell is doing with things like maltodextrin (sweetener), and soy lecithin, isolated oats similar to what your mother does with meats she prepares?
So the plaintiffs want Taco Bell to have to call their whatever-you-call-it something more like "Taco Meat Filling" instead of beef. Sound's appetizing doesn't it? I knew that fast food menu's took after the Chinese menu, but I thought it was the numbering part, not the bad way of explaining what it is you're eating part.
I think most Americans are thinking along the same lines... at least non-scientific polls seem to be showing that. It also seems that Taco Bell knows that as well, and is adding some humor to the situation by releasing this ad.
Come on America, let's focus on other issues at hand. Sure, we need to be healthy. But food is one of those things that man has been experimenting with for a long, long time. And the whole point of it is to mix things together that make the prepared food much better than it was naturally. Humans have been eating "badly" by our current definitions for millennia, but we've gotten to this point, haven't we? Lets move on.
But before we get all riled up about something corporate, I want to pose a question. Is it really that big of a deal? Allow me to explain my reasons for questioning.
It's not that I think fast food is great and that people, restaurants, and food producers shouldn't do more to ensure that there is nutritional value to food. That is especially the case now that we have the real possibility of universal health care. If we all have to pay in, I want to be sure that Joe Plumber is eating foods that will sustain him and his health so that he's not overusing the health system.
But the question is, does Taco Bell's beef, or lack thereof, really pose a health issue? Or a false advertising issue at that? Take a minute and think about it. How many mom's since the invention of meatloaf have used "extenders" when making meat based foods? How many restaurants initially used "french" in french fries, french toast, etc. to make the food name sound exotic when it wasn't. Isn't that false advertising?
Meatloaf itself has all kinds of stuff in it, that isn't meat, but you don't see lawyers lining up to say that it can't be called 'meat' loaf anymore. Think of the ingredients: eggs, milk, butter, bread crumbs, seasonings, oils, etc., none of which are even close to the meat department. Sounds like it should be called breakfast-for-dinner loaf instead. Isn't all Taco Bell is doing with things like maltodextrin (sweetener), and soy lecithin, isolated oats similar to what your mother does with meats she prepares?
So the plaintiffs want Taco Bell to have to call their whatever-you-call-it something more like "Taco Meat Filling" instead of beef. Sound's appetizing doesn't it? I knew that fast food menu's took after the Chinese menu, but I thought it was the numbering part, not the bad way of explaining what it is you're eating part.
I think most Americans are thinking along the same lines... at least non-scientific polls seem to be showing that. It also seems that Taco Bell knows that as well, and is adding some humor to the situation by releasing this ad.
Come on America, let's focus on other issues at hand. Sure, we need to be healthy. But food is one of those things that man has been experimenting with for a long, long time. And the whole point of it is to mix things together that make the prepared food much better than it was naturally. Humans have been eating "badly" by our current definitions for millennia, but we've gotten to this point, haven't we? Lets move on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)