Black Monday 2: Economic Boogaloo

[HenrikOlsen]

So...you only drink Gatorade when you're thirsty? Probably not..you probably have a have a problem with their advertising too.

It's not available in Denmark, so no, I don't drink it.

Normally I just drink water with my food and I'm very seldom thirsty.
If I drink something alone it's normally coffee, milk or cola.

I don't walk around with a water bottle as if I'm on an expedition to the Sahara, it's quite natural to go hours without drinking anything, though the bottle water scammers want to make that sound like a dangerous practice.

[HenrikOlsen]

And that's (a) and acceptable principle and (b) an acceptable use of that principle, to you? Seriously? The margarine isn't a person, or a can, or a belief either. Let's advertise it as "Not", shall we?

A) Yes
B) Yes

It's not butter it's margarine. Don't try to trick people by putting the word Butter on the front.

By what sounds like your logic. please tell me I'm misunderstanding you, it should be ok to sell

I can't believe it's not
Glenfiddich
12YO
Single Malt

too.

[publius]

You know, this all reminded me of the "water vs Gatorade" question and related. It seems the recommendations are that plain water is the best for mild to moderate dehydration in adults, and plain water is the best bet to keep from getting dehydrated through moderate activity (and high altitude or low humidity conditions).

Here's what the Mayo Clinic says (and it seems to agree with "federal guidelines", which I've seen referenced but can't find):

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/deh...ents-and-drugs

For dehydrated infants and small children, the dehydration solution is recommended, but for mild to moderate cases, this is what they say:

Treating dehydration in sick adults
Most adults with mild to moderate dehydration from diarrhea, vomiting or fever can improve their condition by drinking more water. Water is best because other liquids, such as fruit juices, carbonated beverages or coffee, can make diarrhea worse.

Treating dehydration in athletes of all ages
For exercise-related dehydration, cool water is your best bet. Sports drinks containing electrolytes and a carbohydrate solution also may be helpful. There's no need for salt tablets — too much salt can lead to hypernatremic dehydration, a condition in which your body not only is short of water but also carries an excess of sodium.

So they say plain water is the best bet. For severe dehydration, medical attention is necessary to maintain the proper balance and all that, of course.
From what I gather, Gatorade may actually be better for strenous exercise, endurance stuff and all that. Personally, it hits the spot with me only when I've really been working hard in the hot sun. I can't stand it otherwise, but under those extreme conditions, the stuff really hits the spot. I've chugged a 40oz bottle of the stuff in just about one gulp years ago when some friends and I decided to get in the straw business one year right after college. I was baling straw and loading in 90 degree weather.

Yep, here's what Mayo says about sports drinks:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/health-tip/HT00212

Water is generally the best for replacing lost fluid, but if you're exercising more than an hour, Gatorade (and equivalent) is better.

[publius]

Okay, I looked into this some more, and here's the story.

There is no bottled water seller, nor anyone for that matter, who is currently using, want to use, or has applied to use the statement that "water prevents dehydration". This was simply a test proposal by a couple of German professors of food science who just wanted to see what the EU would do with it. They submitted the following claim for approval:

The regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance.

Again, no bottled water seller applied for this; this is just a couple of German professors trying to see what would happen. It seems they are of the opinion that EU regulations in this area were a bit over the top and they were trying to make a point.

And (just like I suspected), it turns out the soft drink industry (which includes the bottled water people as well) was in favor of this ruling and is defending it. So, no bottle water seller is trying to put this claim on their labels, only some rascally professors, but the soft drink people didn't like it for fear it might it decrease the sales of soft drinks relative to bottled water. They put out a statement that "all soft drinks" contain mostly water and thus no one drink is better than others about water content.

On that score it's like a recent controversy with "organic milk" vs regular milk here in the US. Some small "organic" farms were selling milk adverstised as from cows with "no hormones" used. The regular milk industry went nuts, fearing that might hurt sales of their own milk, and they successfully sued to prevent the "no hormones" statement, arguing it implied their own product was unsafe since it did contain hormones, or was from cows that were given hormones, when there was no evidence that such was unsafe.

[HenrikOlsen]

Hmmm.
It looks like there may be a language issue here.
I drink water if I'm thirsty, I drink rehydration fluid if I'm dehydrated.
I don't think of being thirsty as being dehydrated.

And I see it was a test of legislation that would allow people to mention it if a product reduces the risk of disease. Thirst isn't a disease.

BTW, fruit juice is bad because the sugar content is too high so osmosis actually draws water from the body, which is why for the rehydration fluid, erring a bit too low in the concentration is better than too high, but not much lower either because of the risk of hyponatremia.

As for the politicians' comments, they're cookie cutter anti-EU propaganda, talking about the economic crisis at the same time as this is a massive fallacy which assumes "officials" are a uniform mass that can all be moved around to work on anything, and the idiot talking about the "bendy banana law" that way shows he didn't understand it and bought the anti-EU propaganda version outright.

I'm rather EU-skeptical myself, but I try to avoid getting sucked in by manipulated propaganda, which may have been part of my reaction to this story as it does come across as deliberately manipulative with a clear, though non-stated, political agenda.

[Delvo]

I wonder why the article about television's influence on debt goes straight from there to advertising as the culprit. What about the content of the shows that people are actually watching?

[PraedSt]

I wonder why the article about television's influence on debt goes straight from there to advertising as the culprit. What about the content of the shows that people are actually watching?

Well it's a study on spending habits, so I guess that it was natural for them to focus on advertising. Shows aren't designed to get people to buy things.

[PraedSt]

On that score it's like a recent controversy with "organic milk" vs regular milk here in the US. Some small "organic" farms were selling milk adverstised as from cows with "no hormones" used. The regular milk industry went nuts, fearing that might hurt sales of their own milk, and they successfully sued to prevent the "no hormones" statement, arguing it implied their own product was unsafe since it did contain hormones, or was from cows that were given hormones, when there was no evidence that such was unsafe.

I'm going to google this case. I'm curious as to how they won, given the lack of evidence.

[publius]

I'm going to google this case. I'm curious as to how they won, given the lack of evidence.

I looked for the latest, and this crap is ongoing. I think the way it is now, after various appeals and settlements (this stuff goes on at the state as well as national level, with different states doing different things), is an "organic" dairy can label its product as using no artificial hormones, but must then add a statement that the FDA states there is no significant difference between milk from treated vs untreated cows.

[PraedSt]

Yeah I think found it. Growth hormone and Mosanto? Truth in advertising can lead to some unwieldy catch phrases. "No factory produced copies of natural hormones were fed to the cows that produced this milk!"
Personally, I always surprised that "Red Bull Gives You Wings" is still around.

[flynjack1]

Surely no one here would be foolish enough to actually think that advertising accurately portrays products?
Whats the old saying," believe half of what you hear and less than half of what you read"?

[jokergirl]

So I have an internet acquaintance who lives in the US, and apparently she has to call in sick to work this week because she cannot afford gas to commute to work.
Seeing the comments on her blog entry stating this, she isn't the only one with this problem.

I... I'm a privileged European, but this just won't go into my head. I would claim bad planning if it was just one person, but it's not. Of course long commutes, too little money to afford new-ish cars (which take less gas) and other bills to pay feature into the account, but... too poor to work? That's just... mind-boggling.

(ETA: Please don't make this about gas prices though... I deliberately left that part out to avoid another closed thread.)

[Extravoice]

MF Global's customer accounts seem to be missing twice as much as previously reported. That's 1.2 Billion dollars.
Investigators are still trying to figure out if MF tapped customer funds for its own use, or were just really, really bad at accounting.

AP News story can be found here.

[Ara Pacis]

No it isn't misleading. Drinking water prevents dehydration just as much as eating prevents starvation. As for "the exception proves the rule" statement, that is a totally left-field argument. If eating a pizza stops you from feeling hungry does that mean eating a burger doesn't?

That the logic fails is exactly why it's a bad argument for bottled water. The whole point of common sense is that it's common, therefore drawing attention to an article of common sense leads those who have common sense to wonder why there's a special emphasis on it now because it had been formerly considered common sense. In other words, when you put emphasis on an idea, people commonly assume it was done for a reason other than to mess with your mind. Perhaps some people believe that forcing people to be analytical about advertising statements is a good exercise of critical thinking skills, but for most normal humans it generates confusion and/or cynicism even if they have those critical thinking skills. Sometimes it's a good idea to take things for granted, it allows us to use our limited cognitive skills on more advanced problems of modern humanity.

Hydration is continuous spectrum between adequately hydrated and severely dehydrated. And there are three types of dehydration, naturally of course- hyop, iso and hypertonic. But water is the common denominator- it does you no good to eat table salt if you don't drink water as well. Regardless, mild dehydration is by far the most common because all of us get into that state a few times every day, we feel thirsty. So certainly water can reverse mild dehydration- by definition.

"hydration" was my word, not that used in the article/legal review. Nevertheless, water in the body is regulated with other chemicals. If you don't take those chemicals in through food, then then must come in via liquids. Taking in water without other chemicals will result in dehydration or hyponatremia as you secrete and excrete those other chemicals.

The DHMO trope was invented to illustrate the absurdity of bureaucracy and highlight a safety culture gone mad. So it's quite amusing to see you use it.

If the shoe fits... After all, the suggested use of such a claim for water *is* an example of safety culture gone mad: health safety. Can't you see that?

[publius]

MF Global's customer accounts seem to be missing twice as much as previously reported. That's 1.2 Billion dollars.
Investigators are still trying to figure out if MF tapped customer funds for its own use, or were just really, really bad at accounting.

Yeah, I saw the missing money had doubled.

Really bad accounting by the "best and brightest" worth all these huge salaries and bonuses? The accounting is bad only if they want it to be bad. It's sort of like some guys I know who act like total dunces who can't add 2+2 when they get audited. They put on a good ol' boy, but dumb as a box of rocks act.

Also, some customers are having trouble getting their funds out. One is Gerald Celente, an "uber doomer" type. He forecasts Mad Max and advises the GGG strategey (Gold, Guns, and Grub, and/or other stuff that begins with 'G'). Funny thing is, his own gold account got wrapped up in MF Global and he says he lost "6 figures". Turns out he wasn't dealing with MF directly, but the outfit he was dealing with directly was itself dealing with MF. So that's a lesson in how interconnected everything is -- you might think your money is one place, when it's really in another, maybe several links down a chain.

Now, you'd think a doomer like that would want physical gold which he would bury out in a field, or store in a bunker with his ammo and food supplies. He did have some excuse I forget what. Anyway, he's been ranting about the ex-CEO of MF to anyone who will put a microphone in front of him, as well as railing against the regulators and bankruptcy trustees who won't release his funds.

Some big fallout from this missing money is a lot of people are fearing their money isn't safe anywhere and are acting accordingly. Previously, at least on any significant scale, customer money had been sacrosanct, and even if the brokerage went belly up, that money was safe, and the exchanges themselves would backstop it if they had to.

MF Global destroyed that trust and it's having severe ramifications.

[Ara Pacis]

Ouch, Publius. Some kinda Thanksgiving this will turn out to be. I guess I'm thankful I'm broke and am not involved.

Perhaps it's time to think of the ** too. Barn animals, Bunker and Brass - after all, canned food will run out eventually.

[PraedSt]

It's interesting that Europe has twice the population density of the US, and the price of petrol in Europe is also twice that of the US. If you have twice the population density, you should have to travel 1/sqrt(2) less because of the area/perimeter relationship. But if Europeans travel 1/sqrt(2) less, they still end up paying more because 1/sqrt(2)*2>1. So either Europeans spend more of their income on transport, or their transport is more efficient, or a mixture of both.

[Noclevername]

It's interesting that Europe has twice the population density of the US, and the price of petrol in Europe is also twice that of the US. If you have twice the population density, you should have to travel 1/sqrt(2) less because of the area/perimeter relationship. But if Europeans travel 1/sqrt(2) less, they still end up paying more because 1/sqrt(2)*2>1. So either Europeans spend more of their income on transport, or their transport is more efficient, or a mixture of both.

Or they just don't drive as much.

[PraedSt]

Or they just don't drive as much.

Well, given their population density they only need to drive 1/sqrt(2) as much as Americans. So "not driving as much" would mean driving even less than this fraction, and for reasons other than shorter distances. There are two reasons I can think of right of the bat: (1) the open road that's part of the American psyche, and (2) with greater population densities, walking to your destination becomes a viable alternative. I am sure there are more, but I'm also pretty sure the biggest difference comes from Europeans spending more of their income on transport, or that their transport is more efficient, or a mixture of both.

[publius]

As I understand, the main reason for the difference in price is taxes. The Europeans tax it much higher than we do. I've heard and read that if you factor the taxes out (and all the taxes), any remaining differences in price are small and explained by standard economic factors.

There's a lot of price variation here in the states, from state to state and locality to locality and that is explained by those factors. Where I live, the price of gasoline is at the bottom of the range. It's not the lowest, but it is in the lower range. The guys in the business tell me that price difference comes from how close one is to a given "terminal" (major distribution) point and regional variation in formulation requirements. Some areas will be required to have more expensive additives depending on whatever EPA "zone" they're in or something like that. Or may not necessarily be the cost of the additives themselves, but the supply and demand factors of how much of each formulation is made and distributed.

[HenrikOlsen]

Well, given their population density they only need to drive 1/sqrt(2) as much as Americans. So "not driving as much" would mean driving even less than this fraction, and for reasons other than shorter distances. There are two reasons I can think of right of the bat: (1) the open road that's part of the American psyche, and (2) with greater population densities, walking to your destination becomes a viable alternative. I am sure there are more, but I'm also pretty sure the biggest difference comes from Europeans spending more of their income on transport, or that their transport is more efficient, or a mixture of both.

The shorter average distance also means public transport makes economic sense in more situations, making it available for more people, which tends to lower average energy consumption per person-mile transported.

Having less big-car fetish also helps as does a younger car population.

[flynjack1]

Fuel prices here are a bit unusual of late. I took a trip east of about 900 miles and prices actually varied by as much as 50 cents. Typically over the last 20 years those prices would vary approximately 20 cents and would be cheaper further east....now its cheaper out west to the tune of nearly 50 cents. I haven't discerned the reason for this difference.

This week should prove interesting as the impending downgrade in US credit rating is matched against the financial uncertainties of the EU.

[Ara Pacis]

In some locations there's a different blend of chemicals for different times of year that affect price, not to mention prices tend to be higher in urban areas.

[publius]

Here's a good article on what I was talking about with MF Global:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...rpc=22&sp=true

The important thing to appreciate is this doesn't just involve speculators. This involves producers, farmers and ranchers, elevators as well as buyers. These are people who deal with actual product, not speculators who just bet on it without even touching the actual commodities. This what the futures markets were originally created for and serve a vital purpose. But of late, big time speculators have come in and their influence has moved it away from its original purpose.

If these idiots (Wall Street and Washington) manage to destroy the faith in the system for farmers and those who buy the product, then they, well, think of Charlton Heston in Planet of the Apes at the end, "Damn you! You blew it all to hell!" or however it went.

[publius]

Perhaps it's time to think of the ** too. Barn animals, Bunker and Brass - after all, canned food will run out eventually.

Would you believe that that the big hedge funds are now buying up farm land? They're managing to bid up the price pretty good (bubble), and that demonstrates that some of the Big Money Boys are indeed, well, hedging, for Mad Max and the GGG or BBB situation.

[peteshimmon]

What is all this stuff about not finding
cuts of a trillion? Heck, you just start
with a thousand million and decide where
you dont spend it! Repeat this a thousand
times and there you are. Easy Peasy!

Just leave waste water projects alone.
And...

[jokergirl]

The shorter average distance also means public transport makes economic sense in more situations, making it available for more people, which tends to lower average energy consumption per person-mile transported.

Having less big-car fetish also helps as does a younger car population.

Actually, I live in a big city right now and it is still cheaper for me (calculated on price per trip, fuel vs. ticket, even yearly ticket) to take the car than the train, especially much so since I share the car with my partner. But that's local politics at work. Public transport here is insanely expensive. And that's on top of fuel taxes being about the highest in the world here.

Still, I never heard of anyone not being able to work because they do not have the money to get there before this week.

[Ronald Brak]

On average European cars are much more efficient than US cars. In 2007 European cars got 40 mpg compared to 20.4 mpg in the US. I would guess the US has caught up a little since then with the decline in SUV sales.

[HenrikOlsen]

Incidentally, today's xkcd just did to money what was previously done for radiation.

It's not really reassuring to see that the derivatives market is larger than the total value of everything tangible in the world.

[PraedSt]

As a supporter of exchange trading, I find the CME situation particularly annoying. I know balance sheets are hard to trust any more, but according to theirs, they have a net worth of $20bn. If they made up the lost funds, that would lower equity by 5% but raise goodwill and future prospects. So I suppose it's a trade-off, and a decision that has to be made (or avoided). But they certainly could do more.