How dare these soldiers go round getting wounded?

Mark Steel: How dare these soldiers go round getting wounded?

Wednesday, 19 March 2008

Of all the shady reasons for supporting the war in Iraq, the weakest was always how it was our duty to "Support our boys," as they couldn't do their job if people back home were critical. To start with, this doesn't seem logical. Is there any evidence that tank commanders were about to fire off a volley of missiles, but then hesitated saying "Ooh I'm not sure I can go through with it because there was this sniffy letter in The Independent"?

But more important=, what a strange idea that the only true way to support someone is to cheer them into a situation that's likely to get them killed. If these "supporters" ever find themselves looking up at a tower block, with someone 15 floors up threatening to jump off the balcony as friends delicately try to coax him back, they must shout, "Don't undermine him – it's up to all of us to support him – jump, man, jump! Go on – here's Zoe, 22 from Clacton in a G-string and paratrooper's cap. She supports you, so dive!"

Inevitably, once the supported boys started returning from war with bits missing, the governments and newspapers that backed them most enthusiastically decide that they're an embarrassing nuisance. Then their attitude becomes like that of the First World War general who, when he visited a hospital full of soldiers back from the Somme with shell shock, shouted, "Why are you shivering? Only drunkards and masturbators freeze." This must be what causes so many old people to conk out from hypothermia every winter, the filthy minxes.

But that general has been challenged for callousness by defence minister Des Browne, who yesterday went to the High Court to try and prevent a coroner from criticising the Ministry of Defence, during inquests on soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. The trouble is that a coroner reported, in the inquest into the death of Capt James Phillipson, that the soldier had been given, "a lack of basic equipment". Whereas from now on, presumably, he'll have to say, "The soldier had piles of equipment, so much he didn't know where to put it all. What must have happened is, well, obviously, I've got it – the Taliban magicked it away, with their equipment vanishing cream. So there we are, no one to blame, just one of those things, I'm afraid."

The attempted injunction fits in with the government's attitude to wounded soldiers. For example, families of those who've been disabled have complained about the system for compensation, which only takes into account the three worst injuries received. I'm not an expert on the details of modern warfare, but I'd guess that if you're blown up by a roadside bomb you might be injured in more than three places. This doesn't seem to occur to the Ministry of Defence, who must say to applicants for compensation "All right, Wilkins, so you're trying to tell me that when you were blown across the road by a barrel of explosives you injured not only an arm, a foot and an ear but other bits as well? Do you take us for mugs?"

This procedure has meant that, for example, when Sgt Martin Edwardes came back from Iraq with brain damage, his compensation was £114,000, a fraction of what will be needed to provide him with the 24-hour care he now depends on. Or there's Martyn Compton, who was in a coma for three months, has 70 per cent burns, no ears left, and received £98,000. They'd have got more if they'd been astute enough to suffer three huge injuries instead of dozens of medium-sized ones. Maybe we'll soon see Carol Vorderman asking, "Why not consolidate all your minor amputations into one manageable paralysis?"

Perhaps the next move will be to franchise compensation payments out to the Private Finance Initiative, so disabled soldiers will be instructed to attract investment by converting their wheelchair into a mobile Costa Coffee outlet. Or the system will be made more efficient by placing it into private hands, so the severely wounded will have to attract sponsorship. For example, if they have to use a voice box, it will be programmed to say things like, "Please – take – me – to – the – toilet – Thank – you – this – request – was – brought – to – you – by – Legal – and – General."

Throughout the coverage of the fifth anniversary of the war, there have been discussions around the "mistakes" made in planning the occupation. But the government's attitude towards those whose lives have been wrecked for their vanity project shows the problem wasn't "mistakes", in the execution of the plan, but the whole project. Unless they'll claim, "When we began this operation, whoever could have anticipated that when we invaded the country, some of these chaps would start firing back? I mean – we can't predict everything now, can we?"

Ideas from left field

Ideas from left field

Sport, like life, is pure Darwinism. It is too innovative to be confined by one political theory

* Ed Smith
* The Guardian,
* Saturday March 15 2008


We are all too familiar with debates about sport and political controversies - should we allow an Olympic games in China? Should England play cricket in Zimbabwe? - but we hear little about sport and political ideas. Does the history of sport demonstrate the rightness, or otherwise, of a political world view? If sport had to don political colours, would it wear a red strip or a blue one?

The Marxists, as is often the case, have some of the prose stylists. CLR James, the doyen of all sports writers, was a Marxist class warrior as well as a wonderful cricket writer. Marxism runs through James's Beyond a Boundary rather like Catholicism courses through Graham Greene's fiction: they are all too keen to advocate their respective faiths, rather less good at getting their narratives to embody them.

Far from proving James's Marxist ideals, Beyond a Boundary undermines them. Any static ruling establishment, no matter how well-intentioned, quickly morphs to become very similar to the one it replaced.

The book's convincing strand about the spirit and ingenuity of early black West Indian cricketers proves that, far from cricket needing more Marxism, Marxism needs to learn from West Indian cricket. "Never trust the teller," as DH Lawrence put it, "trust the tale."

To high Tories, of course, the history of sport proves that civilisation is gradually collapsing - it has been all downhill since the demise of the Corinthians. This amateur, and usually victorious, football team rolled penalties back to the opposition goalkeeper (no foul could possibly be intentional) and retired one of their own team should an opposition player leave the field injured.

High Tories cherished the fact that British sports were once governed by institutions that belonged to neither the free market nor the state - the Royal and Ancient, the MCC, the All England Croquet Club. Now business, they say, has vulgarised sport and the government is meddlesome. Who needs either?

For interventionist social democrats, sport proves that something must be done, even if they're not sure what or how. The free market must be curtailed! Fairness must increase! Loyalty can't vanish! Local identity mustn't be lost! We must sort everything out! The centre-left sits very much on the sporting moral high ground - but often in the expensive seats near the halfway line.

In fact, I would argue the history of sport challenges all these political systems of thought. Sport, like life, advances through evolutionary individualism, not top-down institutional diktat. Unfortunately for those who like to control sport from the centre, you simply can't stop people getting better at sport by their own devices.

Sport is about problem solving. A challenge is set: kick the ball into the net; hit the ball over the boundary; jump over the bar. Rules are (eventually) agreed - no kicking of opponents; don't pick up the ball with your hands; stay within this area, and so on. From then on, it is pure Darwinism - players innovate constantly, sometimes deliberately, sometimes by accident.

When the great Australian cricketer Greg Chappell compiled a list of the game's foremost champions, he discovered that an extremely high proportion learned their methods on their own, without first being taught the received wisdom of traditional technique. As a boy, Don Bradman practised at home, hitting a golf ball against the wall with a stick. Garry Sobers played beach cricket. Javed Miandad learned to survive on uneven surfaces on the Karachi streets. Jeff Thomson emerged out of the Sydney surf to learn he could bowl 100mph with a completely unique action.

Gifted human beings, if they address a physiological challenge with their full attention and talents, invariably come up with pretty good solutions. When they are exceptional, they rewrite convention and the game inches forward.

Sportsmen, inevitably always searching for competitive advantage, can't resist asking left-field questions. Why shouldn't I jump over the high-jump bar head first (the Fosbury flop)? Why shouldn't I aim my sweep shot towards off-side where there aren't any fielders (the reverse sweep)? The winning innovations, like dominant genes, survive and are absorbed into the mainstream; the bad ones never get off the ground.

This is taking place all over the sporting world, beyond the control of administrators or writers of textbooks. As such, sport is irreverent, constantly changing and essentially resistant to authority. Sport never stands still long enough to be effectively ensnared by an over-arching political theory. It is much too interesting for that.

PSBR or PSNCR

PSNCR - Explanation

The PSNCR - public sector net cash requirement - used to be called the PSBR - the public sector borrowing requirement. They are the same thing. They measure the amount the government has to borrow to meet all its expenditure commitments. Governments frequently spend more than they are earning in tax revenue, and so have to borrow to plug the gap.
There are two ways to measure the value of the PSNCR. The first is to look at the PSNCR as an amount of money - usually in billions of pounds (£bn). This is useful as a measure, but we may also want to consider how significant this figure is in the overall context of the economy. £5bn sounds a lot of money (and we would all like a share of it !), but in terms of the overall level of GDP it is fairly insignificant. So the other way to measure the PSNCR is as a percentage of GDP.
The PSNCR tends to vary with the trade cycle. This happens because as the level of growth changes the governments expenditure and tax revenue will also change automatically. For example, imagine the economy is going into recession. As people lose their jobs, incomes fall and this means less income tax. They will also spend less which means the government gets less from VAT and other indirect taxes. At the same time they will need to be paid benefits, and this means an increase in government expenditure. The overall effect of the recession therefore has been to increase the PSNCR.

PSNCR and the Trade Cycle - Why does it vary?

The PSNCR tends to change along with the state of the economy. When things are going well and the economy is booming, the PSNCR will tend to be falling (unless the government is going mad spending on other things!). This is because a booming economy means low unemployment and low unemployment means less spending on benefits. Not only that, but when people are employed they will spend more, and this will boost VAT and other indirect tax receipts.
The impact of a recession on the PSNCR will be the opposite. Increasing unemployment means more spending on benefits, increasing the level of government expenditure. Unemployed people don't pay income tax, and others may find their incomes falling. The combination of these two effects means that the government receives less income tax. Spending also will fall as people have less money and are more reluctant to spend what they do have because of uncertainty about the future. As spending falls so does the government's revenue from indirect taxes. As if all this weren't enough of a problem, the performance of firms will also affect the government's finances. In times of recession, firms' profits will fall, in fact they may even make losses. Since corporation tax is paid on profits, the governments tax revenues will be hit even further.
So boom periods should help to lower the PSNCR, while recessions and economic slowdown will tend to push it back up again.

PSNCR Theories - Cyclical or Structural - What determines it?

Theory 1 (PSNCR and the trade cycle) shows that the PSNCR will tend to vary with the economic cycle. If this happens over a number of years and the PSNCR fluctuates around an average value of zero, then the government doesn't need to worry about it too much. A recession may increase it, but the onset of recovery will help it fall again. If this is the case then the PSNCR is termed a cyclical PSNCR.
However, it will often be the case that the value that the PSNCR fluctuates around is far from zero. This means that the government is borrowing all the time. In other words, it is borrowing over the long term. Where this happens, this part of the PSNCR is termed a structural PSNCR. Governments do need to worry more about a structural PSNCR as it is a long-term one, and they need to think about how they can reduce it. They have two main alternatives:

1. Increase taxes
2. Reduce government expenditure

If they don't do either of these, there will be a permanent PSNCR and the national debt will grow over time.

PSNCR and the Money Supply - The effect of borrowing on the money supply

If the PSNCR is high, this means that the government is spending much more than it is receiving in tax revenue. It follows then that it is putting more money into the banking system (from its spending) than it is taking out of it (from taxes). This will increase the money supply in the economy. This may be undesirable as many economists believe that excessive money supply growth will cause inflation. This is a view held particularly by Monetarist economists and Classical economists.
The aim of governments should therefore be to keep the value of the PSNCR down to help keep money supply growth down.

PSNCR and the National Debt - How indebted are we?

The national debt is the total amount of borrowing accumulated by the government that is still outstanding. It is the total amount that the government owes to individuals and institutions.
Think of the national debt as the level of water in a tank. Each year the government borrows more. The amount it borrows is the PSNCR. This is equivalent to a tap filling up the tank - the amount of water (debt) is growing. However, at the same time, the government pays off some of its debts each year. This is like water flowing out of the tank.
If the amount flowing into the tank (the PSNCR) is greater than the amount going out (debt paid off), then the water level (the national debt) will rise. If on the other hand the amount flowing into the tank (the PSNCR) is smaller than the amount going out (debt paid off), then the water level (the national debt) will fall.
The diagram below shows this:

---

She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star!

---

Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!

Laffer and Phillips curve

 The Laffer curve is used to illustrate the concept of "taxable income elasticity", which is the idea that government can maximize tax revenue by setting tax rates at an optimum point and that neither a 0% tax rate nor a 100% tax rate will generate government revenue.

 The curve is most understandable at both extremes of income taxation—zero percent and one-hundred percent—where the government collects no revenue. At one extreme, a 0% tax rate means the government's revenue is, of course, zero. At the other extreme, where there is a 100% tax rate, the government collects zero revenue because (in a "rational" economic model) taxpayers presumably change their behavior in response to the tax rate: either they have no incentive to work or they avoid paying taxes, so the government collects 100% of nothing.

It however does not mean that a 50 % tax rate maximises the tax revenue.

The Phillips curve is a historical inverse relation between the rate of unemployment and the rate of inflation in an economy. Stated simply, the lower the unemployment in an economy, the higher the rate of change in wages paid to labor in that economy.

Alban William Phillips, a New Zealand-born economist, wrote a paper in 1958 titled The relationship between unemployment and the rate of change of money wages in the United Kingdom 1861-1957, which was published in the quarterly journal Economica. In the paper Phillips describes how he observed an inverse relationship between money wage changes and unemployment in the British economy over the period examined. Similar patterns were found in other countries and in 1960 Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow took Phillips' work and made explicit the link between inflation and unemployment: when inflation was high, unemployment was low, and vice-versa.
In the 1920s an American economist Irving Fisher noted this kind of Phillips curve relationship. However, Phillips' original curve described the behavior of money wages. So some believe that the Phillips curve should be called the "Fisher curve."
In the years following Phillips' 1958 paper, many economists in the advanced industrial countries believed that his results showed that there was a permanently stable relationship between inflation and unemployment. One implication of this for government policy was that governments could control unemployment and inflation within a Keynesian policy. They could tolerate a reasonably high rate of inflation as this would lead to lower unemployment – there would be a trade-off between inflation and unemployment. For example, monetary policy and/or fiscal policy (i.e., deficit spending) could be used to stimulate the economy, raising gross domestic product and lowering the unemployment rate. Moving along the Phillips curve, this would lead to a higher inflation rate, the cost of enjoying lower unemployment rates.

Stagflation

In the 1970s, many countries experienced high levels of both inflation and unemployment also known as stagflation. Theories based on the Phillips curve suggested that this could not happen, and the curve came under concerted attack from a group of economists headed by Milton Friedman—arguing that the demonstrable failure of the relationship demanded a return to non-interventionist, free market policies. The idea that there was a simple, predictable, and persistent relationship between inflation and unemployment was abandoned by most if not all macroeconomists.

[edit] NAIRU and rational expectations

Short-Run Phillips Curve before and after Expansionary Policy, with Long-Run Phillips Curve (NAIRU)

New theories, such as rational expectations and the NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) arose to explain how stagflation could occur. The latter theory, also known as the "natural rate of unemployment", distinguished between the "short-term" Phillips curve and the "long-term" one. The short-term Phillips Curve looked like a normal Phillips Curve, but shifted in the long run as expectations changed. In the long run, only a single rate of unemployment (the NAIRU or "natural" rate) was consistent with a stable inflation rate. The long-run Phillips Curve was thus vertical, so there was no trade-off between inflation and unemployment. Edmund Phelps won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2006 for this.
In the diagram, the long-run Phillips curve is the vertical red line. The NAIRU theory says that when unemployment is at the rate defined by this line, inflation will be stable. However, in the short-run policymakers will face an inflation-unemployment rate tradeoff marked by the "Initial Short-Run Phillips Curve" in the graph. Policymakers can therefore reduce the unemployment rate temporarily, moving from point A to point B through expansionary policy. However, according to the NAIRU, exploiting this short-run tradeoff will raise inflation expectations, shifting the short-run curve rightward to the "New Short-Run Phillips Curve" and moving the point of equilibrium from B to C. Thus the reduction in unemployment below the "Natural Rate" will be temporary, and lead only to higher inflation in the long run.
Since the short-run curve shifts outward due to the attempt to reduce unemployment, the expansionary policy ultimately worsens the exploitable tradeoff between unemployment and inflation. That is, it results in more inflation at each short-run unemployment rate. The name "NAIRU" arises because with actual unemployment below it, inflation accelerates, while with unemployment above it, inflation decelerates. With the actual rate equal to it, inflation is stable, neither accelerating nor decelerating. One practical use of this model was to provide an explanation for Stagflation, which confounded the traditional Phillips curve.
The rational expectations theory said that expectations of inflation were equal to what actually happened, with some minor and temporary errors. This in turn suggested that the short-run period was so short that it was non-existent: any effort to reduce unemployment below the NAIRU, for example, would immediately cause inflationary expectations to rise and thus imply that the policy would fail. Unemployment would never deviate from the NAIRU except due to random and transitory mistakes in developing expectations about future inflation rates. In this perspective, any deviation of the actual unemployment rate from the NAIRU was an illusion.
However, in the 1990s in the U.S., it became increasingly clear that the NAIRU did not have a unique equilibrium and could change in unpredictable ways. In the late 1990s, the actual unemployment rate fell below 4 % of the labor force, much lower than almost all estimates of the NAIRU. But inflation stayed very moderate rather than accelerating. So, just as the Phillips curve had become a subject of debate, so did the NAIRU.
Further, the concept of rational expectations had become subject to much doubt when it became clear that the main assumption of models based on it was that there exists a single (unique) equilibrium in the economy that is set ahead of time, determined independent of demand conditions. The experience of the 1990s suggests that this assumption cannot be sustained.

---

Messenger on the move… Text MSN to 63463 now!

Economic Growth

 Economic growth is the increase in value of the goods and services produced by an economy. It is conventionally measured as the percent rate of increase in real gross domestic product, or real GDP. Growth is usually calculated in real terms, i.e. inflation-adjusted terms, in order to net out the effect of inflation on the price of the goods and services produced. In economics, "economic growth" or "economic growth theory" typically refers to growth of potential output, i.e., production at "full employment," which is caused by growth in aggregate demand or observed output.

Economists draw a distinction between short-term economic stabilization and long-term economic growth. The topic of economic growth is primarily concerned with the long run.
The short-run variation of economic growth is termed the business cycle, and almost all economies experience periodical recessions. The cycle can be a misnomer as the fluctuations are not always regular.

The long-run path of economic growth is one of the central questions of economics; in spite of the problems of measurement, an increase in GDP of a country is generally taken as an increase in the standard of living of its inhabitants. Over long periods of time, even small rates of annual growth can have large effects through compounding (see exponential growth). A growth rate of 2.5% per annum will lead to a doubling of GDP within 28 years, whilst a growth rate of 8% per annum (experienced by some Four Asian Tigers) will lead to a doubling of GDP within 9 years. This exponential characteristic can exacerbate differences across nations. For example, the difference in the annual growth from country A to country B will multiply up over the years. A growth rate of 5% seems similar to 3%, but over two decades, the first economy would have grown by 165%, the second only by 80%.

Measuring growth

GDP increase since 1990, in major countries.

World map showing GDP real growth rates for 2007.

The real GDP per capita of an economy is often used as an indicator of the average standard of living of individuals in that country, and economic growth is therefore often seen as indicating an increase in the average standard of living.
However, there are some problems in using growth in GDP per capita to measure general well being.

• GDP per capita growth varies depending on the basket of goods used to deflate the nominal value or on the base year of measure.
• GDP per capita does not provide any information relevant to the distribution of income in a country.
• GDP per capita does not take into account negative externalities from environmental damage consequent to economic growth. Thus, the amount of growth may be overstated once we take environmental damage into account.
• GDP per capita does not take into account positive externalities that may result from services such as education and health.
• GDP per capita excludes the value of all the activities that take place outside of the market place (such as cost-free leisure activities like hiking).
• GDP per capita does not include activities of the informal sector of the economy in precise form. Only as approximate estimates.
• GDP per capita does not account for purchases on goods that were not produced in a given fiscal year, such as used cars or houses.
• GDP per capita does not provide any information about the appreciation or depreciation of goods already produced, which may reflect a change in standard of living. (dilapidation in residential buildings, for example)

Economists are well aware of these deficiencies in GDP, thus, it should always be viewed merely as an indicator and not an absolute scale. Economists have developed mathematical tools to measure inequality, such as the Gini Coefficient. There are also alternate ways of measurement that consider the negative externalities that may result from pollution and resource depletion (see Green Gross Domestic Product.)

Criticism

The real GDP per capita of an economy is often used as an indicator of the average standard of living of individuals in that country, and economic growth is therefore often seen as indicating an increase in the average standard of living.
Four major critical arguments are generally raised against economic growth:^[9]

1. Growth has negative effects on the quality of life: Many things that affect the quality of life, such as the environment, are not traded or measured in the market, and they can lose value when growth occurs.^{[citation needed]}
2. Growth encourages the creation of artificial needs: Industry cause consumers to develop new tastes, and preferences for growth to occur. Consequently, "wants are created, and consumers have become the servants, instead of the masters, of the economy."^{[citation needed]}
3. Resources: similar to the arguments made by Thomas Malthus, economic growth depletes non-renewable resources rapidly.^[10]
4. Distribution of income: growth may reinforce and propagate unequal distribution of income. The gap between the richest in the world and the poorest is growing.^[11]

---

She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star!

On Rewarding People for Talents and Hard Work

 
On Rewarding People for Talents and Hard Work

By Howard Zinn

There are two issues here: First, why should we accept our culture's definition of those two factors? Why should we accept that the "talent" of someone who writes jingles for an Advertising agency advertising dog food and gets $100,000 a year is superior to the talent of an auto mechanic who makes $40,000 a year? Who is to say that Bill Gates works harder than the dishwasher in the restaurant he frequents, or that the CEO of a hospital who makes $400,000 a year works harder than the nurse, or the orderly in that hospital who makes $30,000 a year? The president of Boston University makes $300,000 a year. Does he work harder than the man who cleans the offices of the university?

Talent And hard work are qualitative factors which cannot be measured quantitatively. Since there is no way of measuring them quantitatively we accept the measure given to us by the very people who benefit from that measuring! I remember Fiorello Laguardia  (US Senator) standing up in Congress in the twenties, arguing against a tax bill that would benefit the Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon, and asking if Mellon worked harder than the housewife in East Harlem bringing up three kids on a meager income. And how do you measure the talent of an artist, a musician, a poet, an actor, a novelist, most of whom in this society cannot make enough money to survive - against the talent of the head of any corporation. I challenge anyone to measure quantitatively the qualities of talent and hard work. There is one possible answer to my challenge: Hours of work vs. Hours of leisure. Yes, That's a nice quantitative measure. Well, with that measure,the housewife should get more than most or all corporate executives. And the working person who does two jobs -- and there are millions of them -- and has virtually no leisure time, should be rewarded far more than the corporate executive who can take two hour lunches, weekends at his summer retreat, and vacations in italy.

There is the second question: why should "talent and hard work", even if you could measure them, quantitatively, be the criteria for "rewards" (meaning money). We live in a culture which teaches us that as if  it were a truth given from heaven, when actually it serves the interests of the rich, especially since they have determined for us how to define "talent and hard work". Why not use an alternate criterion for rewards? Why not reward people according to what they contribute to society? Then the social worker taking care of kids or elderly people or the nurse or the teacher or the artist would deserve far more money than the executive of a corporation producing luxury sports vehicles and would certainly deserve more money than the executive of a corporation making cluster bombs or nuclear weapons or chemical pollutants.

But better still, why not use as a criterion for income what people need to live a decent life, and since most people's basic needs are similar there would not be an extreme difference in income but everyone would have enough or food, housing, medical care, education, entertainment, vacations....  Of course there is the traditional objection that if we don't reward people with huge incomes society will fall apart, that progress depends on those people. A dubious argument. Where is the proof that people need huge incomes to give them the incentive to do important things? In fact, we have much evidence that the profit incentive leads to enormously destructive things -- Whatever makes profit will be produced, and so nuclear weapons, being more profitable than day care centers, will be produced.

And people do wonderful things (teachers, doctors, nurses, artists, scientists,inventors) without huge profit incentives. Because there are rewards other than monetary rewards which move people to produce good things -- the reward of knowing you are contributing to society, the reward of gaining the respect of people around you. If there are incentives necessary to doing certain kinds of work, those incentives should go to people doing the most undesirable, most unpleasant work, to make sure that work gets done. I worked hard as a college professor, but it was pleasurable work compared to the man who came around to clean my office. By what criterion (except that created artificially by our culture) do i need more incentive than he does? 

Another point: even if you could show that talent and hard work, defined as stupidly as the way our culture defines it, should determine income, how does this relate to small children? They have not had a chance to show their "talent and hard work", so why should some grow up in luxury and others in poverty. Why should rich babies live and poor ones die (infant mortality strikes the poor much more than the rich)?

Okay, let's get practical. We are, as you point out, a long way from achieving an egalitarian society, but we can certainly move in that direction by a truly progressive income tax, by a government-assured minimum level of income, health care, education, housing for every family. For people (usually well-off people) who worry that everyone will get an equal income, you can ease their fears by saying absolute equality is neither possible nor desirable, but that the differences in wealth and living standards need not be extreme, but there should be a minimum standard for all, thinking especially of the children, who are innocent victims of all this high-fallutin philosophizing about property and wealth.

---

Everything in one place. All new Windows Live!

The Health Benefits of Fasting

Will Carroll

There has been much contention in the scientific field about whether or not fasting is beneficial to one's health. Fasting is an integral part of many of the major religions including Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Many are dubious as to whether the physiological effects are as beneficial as the spiritual promoted by these religions. There is a significant community of alternative healers who believe that fasting can do wonders for the human body. This paper will look at the arguments presented by these healers in an attempt to raise awareness of the possible physiological benefits that may result from fasting.

Fasting technically commences within the first twelve to twenty-four hours of the fast. A fast does not chemically begin until the carbohydrate stores in the body begin to be used as an energy source. The fast will continue as long as fat and carbohydrate stores are used for energy, as opposed to protein stores. Once protein stores begin to be depleted for energy (resulting in loss of muscle mass) a person is technically starving. (1)

The benefits of fasting must be preceded by a look at the body's progression when deprived of food. Due to the lack of incoming energy, the body must turn to its own resources, a function called autolysis. (2) Autolysis is the breaking down of fat stores in the body in order to produce energy. The liver is in charge of converting the fats into a chemical called a ketone body, "the metabolic substances acetoacetic acid and beta-hydroxybutyric acid" (3), and then distributing these bodies throughout the body via the blood stream. "When this fat utilization occurs, free fatty acids are released into the blood stream and are used by the liver for energy." (3) The less one eats, the more the body turns to these stored fats and creates these ketone bodies, the accumulation of which is referred to as ketosis. (4)

Detoxification is the foremost argument presented by advocates of fasting. "Detoxification is a normal body process of eliminating or neutralizing toxins through the colon, liver, kidneys, lungs, lymph glands, and skin." (5). This process is precipitated by fasting because when food is no longer entering the body, the body turns to fat reserves for energy. "Human fat is valued at 3,500 calories per pound," a number that would lead one to believe that surviving on one pound of fat every day would provide a body with enough energy to function normally. (2) These fat reserves were created when excess glucose and carbohydrates were not used for energy or growth, not excreted, and therefore converted into fat. When the fat reserves are used for energy during a fast, it releases the chemicals from the fatty acids into the system which are then eliminated through the aforementioned organs. Chemicals not found in food but absorbed from one's environment, such as DDT, are also stored in fat reserves that may be released during a fast. One fasting advocate tested his own urine, feces and sweat during an extended fast and found traces of DDT in each. (5)

A second prescribed benefit of fasting is the healing process that begins in the body during a fast. During a fast energy is diverted away from the digestive system due to its lack of use and towards the metabolism and immune system. (6) The healing process during a fast is precipitated by the body's search for energy sources. Abnormal growths within the body, tumors and the like, do not have the full support of the body's supplies and therefore are more susceptible to autolysis. Furthermore, "production of protein for replacement of damaged cells (protein synthesis) occurs more efficiently because fewer 'mistakes' are made by the DNA/RNA genetic controls which govern this process." A higher efficiency in protein synthesis results in healthier cells, tissues and organs. (7) This is one reason that animals stop eating when they are wounded, and why humans lose hunger during influenza. Hunger has been proven absent in illnesses such as gastritis, tonsillitis and colds. (2) Therefore, when one is fasting, the person is consciously diverting energy from the digestive system to the immune system.

In addition, there is a reduction in core body temperature. This is a direct result of the slower metabolic rate and general bodily functions. Following a drop in blood sugar level and using the reserves of glucose found in liver glycogen, the basal metabolic rate (BMR) is reduced in order to conserve as much energy within the body as can be provided. (2) Growth hormones are also released during a fast, due to the greater efficiency in hormone production. (7)

Finally, the most scientifically proven advantage to fasting is the feeling of rejuvenation and extended life expectancy. Part of this phenomenon is caused by a number of the benefits mentioned above. A slower metabolic rate, more efficient protein production, an improved immune system, and the increased production of hormones contributes to this long-term benefit of fasting. In addition to the Human Growth Hormone that is released more frequently during a fast, an anti-aging hormone is also produced more efficiently. (7) "The only reliable way to extend the lifespan of a mammal is under-nutrition without malnutrition." (5) A study was performed on earthworms that demonstrated the extension of life due to fasting. The experiment was performed in the 1930s by isolating one worm and putting it on a cycle of fasting and feeding. The isolated worm outlasted its relatives by 19 generations, while still maintaining its youthful physiological traits. The worm was able to survive on its own tissue for months. Once the size of the worm began to decrease, the scientists would resume feeding it at which point it showed great vigor and energy. "The life-span extension of these worms was the equivalent of keeping a man alive for 600 to 700 years." (8)

In conclusion, it seems that there are many reasons to consider fasting as a benefit to one's health. The body rids itself of the toxins that have built up in our fat stores throughout the years. The body heals itself, repairs all the damaged organs during a fast. And finally there is good evidence to show that regulated fasting contributes to longer life. However, many doctors warn against fasting for extended periods of time without supervision. There are still many doctors today who deny all of these points and claim that fasting is detrimental to one's health and have evidence to back their statements. The idea of depriving a body of what society has come to view as so essential to our survival in order to heal continues to be a topic of controversy.


References

1)"Dr. Sniadach – True Health Freedom 3

2)fastingforbetterhealth

3)"Ketosis by Sue Reith"

4)"Nutriquest, March 11th, 2000 – Ketosis and Low Carbohydrate Diets"

5)"WebMD – Detox Diets: Cleansing the Body"

6)"Fasting"

7)"Fasting – Good Morning Doctor"
8)"The health Benefits of Fasting"