Jeremy Paxman vs Russell Brand
Discussion
CamMoreRon said:
Ooo.. controversial. I'm not a massive believer in there being a deliberate organisation behind things like that, I reckon it's just chaos at work. Sh*t food is cheap because it's sh*t / sh*t because it's cheap, and people buy it because they want something cheap and / or sh*t.
I think the way the world works is much more disorganised, with the powers that be frantically grasping to try and keep it under control.
Anywho.. what you've alluded to can't actually be proved, it can only be speculated about. We can talk about corporate power grabs all day, however. COUGH TTIP COUGH COUGH TTIP COUGH
Mexico is a really interesting case study on the dire effects of big brand USA junk food and cola.I think the way the world works is much more disorganised, with the powers that be frantically grasping to try and keep it under control.
Anywho.. what you've alluded to can't actually be proved, it can only be speculated about. We can talk about corporate power grabs all day, however. COUGH TTIP COUGH COUGH TTIP COUGH
Have seen an interesting and alarming documentary.
30 years ago very little processed US food and drinks were marketed in Mexico / or distributed via local grocers.
People generally ate fresh local produce/ drank water / tea/ coffee/ beer etc
Then a large food biz and another Cola biz saw a huge opportunity .. With massive price subsidies and large bottle sizing to get people hooked on cola and junk food ( biscuits crisps etc).
Many kids drink liters of the stuff daily with resulting rotting teeth and sky high blood sugar levels leading to obesity and diabetes.
All of this distribution drive backed by big corporates marketing programmes and local subsidies IIRC.
In less than 1 generation Mexico has gone from relatively healthy to one of the least healthy nations on the planet. Quite shocking.
Edited by alfaman on Friday 31st October 08:06
I can absolutely believe that.. but is it down to corporations / the government deliberately trying to malnourish the population? (like Israel vs Palestine for example)
I'm not so sure. I just see corporate greed overruling morality, as per usual. They have a product and they spotted a new market, so they set out to exploit that gap and get people hooked on it - not to suppress the population, but for mo' money. Coca-Cola KNOW how bad their product is for people, especially when consumed in large volumes, but they are so desperate for profitable growth that health concerns are ignored. All they have to do is put a little tiny bit of print saying "enjoy as part of a balanced diet" and they're in the clear; the fact that Coke can be "enjoyed" as part of a balanced diet (as well as a s
t-tonne of power & influence, and the best legal advice money can buy) means I don't think they will ever be regulated or shut down like the tobacco industry - they just keep selling magnum bottles of the stuff under the pretend assumption that people will just have a cupful per day.
ETA: What was the documentary called?
I'm not so sure. I just see corporate greed overruling morality, as per usual. They have a product and they spotted a new market, so they set out to exploit that gap and get people hooked on it - not to suppress the population, but for mo' money. Coca-Cola KNOW how bad their product is for people, especially when consumed in large volumes, but they are so desperate for profitable growth that health concerns are ignored. All they have to do is put a little tiny bit of print saying "enjoy as part of a balanced diet" and they're in the clear; the fact that Coke can be "enjoyed" as part of a balanced diet (as well as a s
t-tonne of power & influence, and the best legal advice money can buy) means I don't think they will ever be regulated or shut down like the tobacco industry - they just keep selling magnum bottles of the stuff under the pretend assumption that people will just have a cupful per day. ETA: What was the documentary called?
CamMoreRon said:
I can absolutely believe that.. but is it down to corporations / the government deliberately trying to malnourish the population? (like Israel vs Palestine for example)
I'm not so sure. I just see corporate greed overruling morality, as per usual. They have a product and they spotted a new market, so they set out to exploit that gap and get people hooked on it - not to suppress the population, but for mo' money. Coca-Cola KNOW how bad their product is for people, especially when consumed in large volumes, but they are so desperate for profitable growth that health concerns are ignored. All they have to do is put a little tiny bit of print saying "enjoy as part of a balanced diet" and they're in the clear; the fact that Coke can be "enjoyed" as part of a balanced diet (as well as a st-tonne of power & influence, and the best legal advice money can buy) means I don't think they will ever be regulated or shut down like the tobacco industry - they just keep selling magnum bottles of the stuff under the pretend assumption that people will just have a cupful per day.
Nanny State has only got two nipples on offer. Even though they're supersize there's not much room left, and glue is a finite resource.I'm not so sure. I just see corporate greed overruling morality, as per usual. They have a product and they spotted a new market, so they set out to exploit that gap and get people hooked on it - not to suppress the population, but for mo' money. Coca-Cola KNOW how bad their product is for people, especially when consumed in large volumes, but they are so desperate for profitable growth that health concerns are ignored. All they have to do is put a little tiny bit of print saying "enjoy as part of a balanced diet" and they're in the clear; the fact that Coke can be "enjoyed" as part of a balanced diet (as well as a s
t-tonne of power & influence, and the best legal advice money can buy) means I don't think they will ever be regulated or shut down like the tobacco industry - they just keep selling magnum bottles of the stuff under the pretend assumption that people will just have a cupful per day. Rumour has it some people need Gordon Brown to tell them to breathe in and then breathe out.
turbobloke said:
Nanny State has only got two nipples on offer. Even though they're supersize there's not much room left, and glue is a finite resource.
Rumour has it some people need Gordon Brown to tell them to breathe in and then breathe out.
You might consider it nannying, but if nobody intervened then how would the message get across? People en masse are gullible enough to fall for the advertising and foolish enough to ignore the health risks, so the only feasible option is for the state to step in as they (just about) have enough power to apply some controls.Rumour has it some people need Gordon Brown to tell them to breathe in and then breathe out.
The other option is education, but that only works if people are willing to listen. As a general rule, people rarely listen until something affects them directly.
CamMoreRon said:
I can absolutely believe that.. but is it down to corporations / the government deliberately trying to malnourish the population? (like Israel vs Palestine for example)
I'm not so sure. I just see corporate greed overruling morality, as per usual. They have a product and they spotted a new market, so they set out to exploit that gap and get people hooked on it - not to suppress the population, but for mo' money. Coca-Cola KNOW how bad their product is for people, especially when consumed in large volumes, but they are so desperate for profitable growth that health concerns are ignored. All they have to do is put a little tiny bit of print saying "enjoy as part of a balanced diet" and they're in the clear; the fact that Coke can be "enjoyed" as part of a balanced diet (as well as a st-tonne of power & influence, and the best legal advice money can buy) means I don't think they will ever be regulated or shut down like the tobacco industry - they just keep selling magnum bottles of the stuff under the pretend assumption that people will just have a cupful per day.
ETA: What was the documentary called?
cant remember the doc name - was perhaps a Panorama or similar item ( UK based ). I'm not so sure. I just see corporate greed overruling morality, as per usual. They have a product and they spotted a new market, so they set out to exploit that gap and get people hooked on it - not to suppress the population, but for mo' money. Coca-Cola KNOW how bad their product is for people, especially when consumed in large volumes, but they are so desperate for profitable growth that health concerns are ignored. All they have to do is put a little tiny bit of print saying "enjoy as part of a balanced diet" and they're in the clear; the fact that Coke can be "enjoyed" as part of a balanced diet (as well as a s
t-tonne of power & influence, and the best legal advice money can buy) means I don't think they will ever be regulated or shut down like the tobacco industry - they just keep selling magnum bottles of the stuff under the pretend assumption that people will just have a cupful per day. ETA: What was the documentary called?
agree with what you say - the push into Mexico was seen as a highly profitable new market .. but the way the drinks were priced ( may have been cheaper than bottled water .. )and snacks promoted locally seems to have been designed for maximum take-up ( addiction? ).
kinda sad in terms of the outcome on childrens health in particular.
.. and I DO actually like Coke ... I just try and drink not much .. sugar content is HUGE and phoshoric acid will destroy your teeth (?).
Whilst I applaud anyone who is prepared to do something to highlight where things could be a lot better with no obvious gain to them, or rather where the benefit to them is a side effect rather than the reason (Jamie Oliver with school food etc.) R Brand does do it in such a shouty hysterical way that it comes across not as a reasonable argument that should get everyone's attention, but as an easily ignored rant. Which is a shame.
What annoys me greatly is that the majority of 'news' that our media outlets spew is nothing more than dramatic 'current worst thing in the world' or inane rubbish. If you ever have time to read Private Eye, the amount of actual news that affects the UK in one way or another through government, industry, big pharma, agriculture etc. (the sort of things R Brand appears to rally against) is there every single issue and it's genuinely shocking.
Anyway, two more things, one, an article in the current issue highlights that R Brand is a bit of a hypocrite: calling for a company that is known for tax evasion to be boycotted whilst having his book published by a company known for tax evasion.
Second thing, I read or heard somewhere that to eat healthily, don't consume anything that needs advertising.
Edited to correct phone/train related errors
What annoys me greatly is that the majority of 'news' that our media outlets spew is nothing more than dramatic 'current worst thing in the world' or inane rubbish. If you ever have time to read Private Eye, the amount of actual news that affects the UK in one way or another through government, industry, big pharma, agriculture etc. (the sort of things R Brand appears to rally against) is there every single issue and it's genuinely shocking.
Anyway, two more things, one, an article in the current issue highlights that R Brand is a bit of a hypocrite: calling for a company that is known for tax evasion to be boycotted whilst having his book published by a company known for tax evasion.
Second thing, I read or heard somewhere that to eat healthily, don't consume anything that needs advertising.
Edited to correct phone/train related errors
alfaman said:
CamMoreRon said:
I can absolutely believe that.. but is it down to corporations / the government deliberately trying to malnourish the population? (like Israel vs Palestine for example)
I'm not so sure. I just see corporate greed overruling morality, as per usual. They have a product and they spotted a new market, so they set out to exploit that gap and get people hooked on it - not to suppress the population, but for mo' money. Coca-Cola KNOW how bad their product is for people, especially when consumed in large volumes, but they are so desperate for profitable growth that health concerns are ignored. All they have to do is put a little tiny bit of print saying "enjoy as part of a balanced diet" and they're in the clear; the fact that Coke can be "enjoyed" as part of a balanced diet (as well as a st-tonne of power & influence, and the best legal advice money can buy) means I don't think they will ever be regulated or shut down like the tobacco industry - they just keep selling magnum bottles of the stuff under the pretend assumption that people will just have a cupful per day.
ETA: What was the documentary called?
cant remember the doc name - was perhaps a Panorama or similar item ( UK based ). I'm not so sure. I just see corporate greed overruling morality, as per usual. They have a product and they spotted a new market, so they set out to exploit that gap and get people hooked on it - not to suppress the population, but for mo' money. Coca-Cola KNOW how bad their product is for people, especially when consumed in large volumes, but they are so desperate for profitable growth that health concerns are ignored. All they have to do is put a little tiny bit of print saying "enjoy as part of a balanced diet" and they're in the clear; the fact that Coke can be "enjoyed" as part of a balanced diet (as well as a s
t-tonne of power & influence, and the best legal advice money can buy) means I don't think they will ever be regulated or shut down like the tobacco industry - they just keep selling magnum bottles of the stuff under the pretend assumption that people will just have a cupful per day. ETA: What was the documentary called?
agree with what you say - the push into Mexico was seen as a highly profitable new market .. but the way the drinks were priced ( may have been cheaper than bottled water .. )and snacks promoted locally seems to have been designed for maximum take-up ( addiction? ).
kinda sad in terms of the outcome on childrens health in particular.
.. and I DO actually like Coke ... I just try and drink not much .. sugar content is HUGE and phoshoric acid will destroy your teeth (?).
Crook said:
Anyway, two more things, one, an article in the current issue highlights that R Brand is a bit of a hypocrite: calling for a company that is known for tax evasion to be boycotted whilst having his book published by a company known for tax evasion.
Second thing, I read or heard somewhere that to eat healthily, don't consume anything that needs advertising.
Someone being a hypocrite doesn't mean their argument is false, it just means they're a hypocrite. You shouldn't stop listening to somebody's message (or just never listen in the first place) because they've made moral slips themselves for one reason or another; it doesn't actually detract anything from the argument. Second thing, I read or heard somewhere that to eat healthily, don't consume anything that needs advertising.
Brand using a tax avoiding publisher to put his book out is circumstantial and really nothing to do with his politics. It probably just means he should have researched a bit more thoroughly.
MrBrightSi said:
Decency morality and ethics all cost money.
No big business would renain so if it did the right thing.
They simply cannot afford to care and remain as they are.
Without wishing to get drawn in to too much of an argument, maybe the balance between profit and ethics is weighted the wrong way in capitalist society?No big business would renain so if it did the right thing.
They simply cannot afford to care and remain as they are.
alfaman said:
cant remember the doc name - was perhaps a Panorama or similar item ( UK based ).
agree with what you say - the push into Mexico was seen as a highly profitable new market .. but the way the drinks were priced ( may have been cheaper than bottled water .. )and snacks promoted locally seems to have been designed for maximum take-up ( addiction? ).
kinda sad in terms of the outcome on childrens health in particular.
.. and I DO actually like Coke ... I just try and drink not much .. sugar content is HUGE and phoshoric acid will destroy your teeth (?).
So the poor Mexican is to stupid to make up his/her mind but you are so clever you can.agree with what you say - the push into Mexico was seen as a highly profitable new market .. but the way the drinks were priced ( may have been cheaper than bottled water .. )and snacks promoted locally seems to have been designed for maximum take-up ( addiction? ).
kinda sad in terms of the outcome on childrens health in particular.
.. and I DO actually like Coke ... I just try and drink not much .. sugar content is HUGE and phoshoric acid will destroy your teeth (?).
I love racist comments like this!!!!!!!!!!
e21Mark said:
25 000 children a year, are admitted to UK hospitals, due to poor dental hygiene and poor diet.
I think the original quote referred only to dental health. As for why this happens it is because some dental work for children particularly removal of teeth is best done under general anaesthetic. There is no evidence diet has much influence. More likely to be poor dental health care.CamMoreRon said:
Someone being a hypocrite doesn't mean their argument is false, it just means they're a hypocrite. You shouldn't stop listening to somebody's message (or just never listen in the first place) because they've made moral slips themselves for one reason or another; it doesn't actually detract anything from the argument.
Brand using a tax avoiding publisher to put his book out is circumstantial and really nothing to do with his politics. It probably just means he should have researched a bit more thoroughly.
Actually, hypocrisy can be the same as lying. And R. Brand would know that, too. But probably wouldn't give a monkey's if he continues to draw enough attention.Brand using a tax avoiding publisher to put his book out is circumstantial and really nothing to do with his politics. It probably just means he should have researched a bit more thoroughly.
He's scoring easy points being all righteous and indignant over the evils of the capitalist system, just like Owen Jones, but he's more than happy to ride the wave of celebrity and attendant pay-days (including Hollywood as if anyone could find a more imperfect model for decency, fairness, equality, etc etc) without actually having a coherent and workable alternative that people would vote for.
Have a listen to him on BBC R4 recorded earlier this week (was it 'Start the Week'?) to hear him in all his splendour, even when surrounded by fellow travellers.
Crook said:
Without wishing to get drawn in to too much of an argument, maybe the balance between profit and ethics is weighted the wrong way in capitalist society?
I agree with you. I do not disagree that people need incentive to go out and be productive, but the terms of go out and be productive need re-thinking.We need to produce and maintain our consumption, but i think we need more free time, i'd rather have more free time to walk and explore, im sure there are some people who earn vast amounts and rarely get the time to experience a life.
What i think we've truly lost is the life/work balance,most people cannot be free for long enough and afford to live.
TTwiggy said:
LucreLout said:
Mr Whippy said:
Unless you're inferring that all the issues he's raised are actually irrelevant?
I'm not aware that Brand has raised any issues in my mind, nor added any fresh perspective or intellectual content. As far as I'm aware he's just reheating the same venal s
te as the last champagne socialist to get the gig.In practice most politicians I've met are nice, intelligent people with a strong public service motivation. Given that all they have to do is what people want to be popular why is it that they don't just do these things and have an easy life.
The fundamental issues are that on a great many issues the public are demonstrably wrong, on many others you have substantial numbers of people who would definitely lose out and very vocally protest.
The reason they aren't doing what you want is because it's a lot more complicated than you/we think it is. As the public we are out of touch with reality, the reality that the principle barrier to change is the public ourselves.
MrBrightSi said:
Decency morality and ethics all cost money.
No big business would renain so if it did the right thing.
They simply cannot afford to care and remain as they are.
The anti big business thing is simply due to most people's inability to weigh up cost versus benefits. No big business would renain so if it did the right thing.
They simply cannot afford to care and remain as they are.
The benefit of big business is that they are behind virtually every essential or world changing product or service there has been for the last hundred years.
They are the most efficient vehicle for human cooperation and are capable of undertaking phenomenonally complex tasks. One day we will replace them but that will be an organic process spured by capitalism (see Air BNB vs Hilton) not by revolution and protest.
The solution to the negative consequences of big business is regulation (not protectionism) and education not to break up big business.
Brands idea to break up large companies is insane. He probably flew BA from his house in the US. If he was on a Boeing he was flying on an aircraft that cost $10 billion to develop and flying with an airline that has 400 aircraft.
Would he prefer airlines to be state owned, because that worked so well in the past. Or maybe each airline could own 1/3 of a plane, of course that would be inefficient so they would probably end up sharing services, coordinating tickets, pooling advertising, jointly purchasing expensive assets. - which would get us back to the same place.
Mrr T said:
alfaman said:
cant remember the doc name - was perhaps a Panorama or similar item ( UK based ).
agree with what you say - the push into Mexico was seen as a highly profitable new market .. but the way the drinks were priced ( may have been cheaper than bottled water .. )and snacks promoted locally seems to have been designed for maximum take-up ( addiction? ).
kinda sad in terms of the outcome on childrens health in particular.
.. and I DO actually like Coke ... I just try and drink not much .. sugar content is HUGE and phoshoric acid will destroy your teeth (?).
O
So the poor Mexican is to stupid to make up his/her mind but you are so clever you can.agree with what you say - the push into Mexico was seen as a highly profitable new market .. but the way the drinks were priced ( may have been cheaper than bottled water .. )and snacks promoted locally seems to have been designed for maximum take-up ( addiction? ).
kinda sad in terms of the outcome on childrens health in particular.
.. and I DO actually like Coke ... I just try and drink not much .. sugar content is HUGE and phoshoric acid will destroy your teeth (?).
O
I love racist comments like this!!!!!!!!!!
k off .It's nothing to do with race you cretin.
It's about heavy marketing and promotion to children in poor rural communities .. To create dependency and repeat business.
Talksteer said:
TTwiggy said:
LucreLout said:
Mr Whippy said:
Unless you're inferring that all the issues he's raised are actually irrelevant?
I'm not aware that Brand has raised any issues in my mind, nor added any fresh perspective or intellectual content. As far as I'm aware he's just reheating the same venal s
te as the last champagne socialist to get the gig.In practice most politicians I've met are nice, intelligent people with a strong public service motivation. Given that all they have to do is what people want to be popular why is it that they don't just do these things and have an easy life.
The fundamental issues are that on a great many issues the public are demonstrably wrong, on many others you have substantial numbers of people who would definitely lose out and very vocally protest.
The reason they aren't doing what you want is because it's a lot more complicated than you/we think it is. As the public we are out of touch with reality, the reality that the principle barrier to change is the public ourselves.
I agree that the public are it's own worst enemy. We complain about capitalists, but the mass public want great pension returns, and most wealthy people are just there skimming off their percentage in return for doing things for the majority.
I generally don't like the general public either. Nice as individuals, but as a group they are often extremely thick n stupid, just like a flock of sheep in their herd mentality.
But ultimately politicians fail in my view because of party politics and the greasy pole they want to climb, just like most people in every other walk of life.
In the end they are the ones who stick their hand up for the job, then get voted for. If they can't be very effective at it and fall into the traps of 'normal' people, then that IS their issue and their fault.
Dave
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff