Ironic for the lady, saccharine was proven actually generally safe for consumption, and the warning for it and it's classification as a possible carcinogen was removed. (This was in 2000, compare it to this video in 1980.)
The problem is that we spend money on human development and when we avoid hedging risk at modest costs we potentially take a huge loss on those investments. If it takes a few hundred thousand dollars to raise an upper middle class kid and we can't hedge that risk for a couple hundred dollars, it's probably a safe bet.
Ironic for the lady, saccharine was proven actually generally safe for consumption, and the warning for it and it's classification as a possible carcinogen was removed. (This was in 2000, compare it to this video in 1980.)
sticksquash 2 months ago
The problem is that we spend money on human development and when we avoid hedging risk at modest costs we potentially take a huge loss on those investments. If it takes a few hundred thousand dollars to raise an upper middle class kid and we can't hedge that risk for a couple hundred dollars, it's probably a safe bet.
jrs89 2 months ago
@jrs89 can*
jrs89 2 months ago
I would love to see a round two between Friedman and that blonde hypocrite :)
Illyrien 6 months ago
but the children.... sigh
Illyrien 6 months ago
WOW! people back then are much smarter than we are today! XD
silvermaniamania1 9 months ago
"We haven't been asked to." All of a sudden on the issue of trade, the consumer advocates refrain from offering an opinion!
koyunbaba73 1 year ago