Comments on 3000 Miles of Pure Insanity: A Musing on Business and Government

people know of the damage cars do to the environme...

2009-05-09T00:57:05.361-07:00

people know of the damage cars do to the environment yet still drive them.

Hey bud- not a bad rant, and I agree with you. Ba...

2009-05-04T15:51:12.652-07:00

Hey bud- not a bad rant, and I agree with you. Basic argument - Coke and McD's create negative externalities that aren't covered in its cost. Medicare costs at current trajectory will bankrupt our government, and a third of America is considered obese. I'd call those negative externalities.

I would guess, though, that it's not just the food lobby that keeps warning signs off Coke - it's everyone who loves Coke. They have some real devoted fans. I'm not even sure if you took away the lobby that people would vote for warning labels/taxes on their sodas. That's what almost a century of marketing buys ya!

I am a fan of taxing and letting economic incentives drive change in behavior. Warning labels are a waste of time.

The thing is, like your friend Vishrut said, is th...

2009-05-04T02:57:01.080-07:00

The thing is, like your friend Vishrut said, is that warnings really only do so much. And by so much, with the amount of general information out there these days, is pretty minimal. Even underprivileged minorities know that fast food is horrible for you; case in point, if no one told them they could look around at the rampant obesity rates among them and most of their friends. Its not just among the underprivileged that this stupid decision-making occurs though; two of my friends picked up smoking in the past few months simply because it looks cool, and theyre both probably graduating from here with a 3.95 and a masters along with their BA. It just shows you, information can only do so much against such emotional, impulsive urges we humans have.

So if you want this problem to be dealt with, forceful measures must be put in place. Cigarette consumption is relatively inelastic, so taxes serve mainly as punishment against the users, and only slightly decrease the number who actually smoke them. But fast food is different (though somewhat addictive chemicals are put in it), and your point about it is extremely important especially in light of our imminent foray into socialized medicine. If the taxpayer is paying the burden of other peoples' care now, think of what it will be like once everyone is covered?

Ive thought about this in the past, and ive considered a 2-fold way of dealing with it. One of the reasons why fast food is consumed excessively (besides from the fact that its so fucking tasty) is that its cheap, while healthy food is more expensive (its like an elite delicacy... a big mind shift from the 50s). So the initial move you make is to do a transfer tax; you tax the big mac and you subsidize the whole grain bread. This could (and probably would) be extended to all sorts of food products such as ice cream, oreos, all those things that could be potentially bad for you. How much could be determined by a system based on their PDV or quantities/types of sugars and fats. Then the second tax would be put additionally on such unhealthy items, and the money from this would go directly into the health care fund, to pay for those people when they inevitably have to lose their legs due to diabetes.

If only it were all that simple though. Messing with the market with all these taxes is bound to just confuse everything, and may go so far as to cause inflation and a shortage of at least certain types of food. Even if the system could be enacted effectively, however, the arbitrariness of taxation on these products (we need a little bit of everything, including fats and sugars... if im just having a bit why should they be taxed?) and furthermore the idea of the government deciding what i can eat would likely unpalatable for the average American.

So what do we do? Im not sure. Its one of the reasons why im not so sure about socialized medicine. You cant have an effective system when such a large part of the population is living in an unsustainable way while the other lives healthily (most americans are either slobs or exercise freaks, compared to more moderate tendencies among european populations). But at any rate, lets at least follow NYC (on this at least) and ban transfats. I mean, hell, they dont even add to the flavor!

fyi, good Times article on Dutch socialized medicine: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html?pagewanted=1)

it's certainly a dilemma. on one i would argue you...

2009-05-03T15:01:03.721-07:00

it's certainly a dilemma. on one i would argue you want to give power to the individual to make his/her own decisions, but on the other, at what cost to society? w/o a mandatory seat belt law, driving accidents would prove to be more fatal and more costly, thereby raising everyone's auto insurance, even those who always wear their seatbelts.

ultimately, i think i agree with you that trying to provide transparency and the information to make a decision is the best course. however, unfortunately, it seems like plenty of people don't utilize the information. take a look at cigarettes for example. an even more extreme example is heroin where the govt. is telling you this substance is so dangerous to your health that we're outlawing it. but still, plenty of people still do it, only to end up costing themselves and society at large.

with regard to coke and mcdonalds more specifically, i think a good approach would be to make the nutritional information mandatory (like they've done in NYC for chain restaurants) and then on top of that, promote balanced lifestyles. because at the end of the day, a coke and a big mac aren't inherently bad for society, they're just bad when we overindulge in them.