Post: #26

No, they shouldn't.

Post: #27

Yes, they should start putting cyanide in big macs.

But in all seriousness, no. The government already does a mediocre job in a bunch of other areas, allowing them to restrict diet would end in nothing but failure. Schools in Western Australia were already suffering from government food regulation while I was still in high school. It didn't stop kids drinking soft drink, it just allowed some of the smarter kids to make a profit selling them. Along with the poor design and distribution that their systems will inevitably suffer from, I suspect that their data on what makes a solid diet, like most of their information, will be sourced from groups that are paid to advocate whatever the government tells them to.

Post: #28

(06-12-2012 07:39 PM)HiFlo Wrote:  The government is already largely responsible for obesity:

1) corn subsidies have made corn (and corn sugar) the go-to commodity

2) in the 1970s the government touted lowfat diets as ideal, despite overwhelmingly evidence that lowcarb diets are significantly healthier. Government education programs, subsidies, and health marketing has reinforced this thru present day.

3) Public school cafeterias offer unhealthy menus (hi carb/sugar, hi calories).

4) government-backed health care/FDA seeks NOT to treat the cause, but to treat the symptoms with pharmaceuticals. Don't treat WHY we got fat, but treat all the cardiac, cholesterol, and related problems to fatness instead.

Since govt policies and regulations already is a dominant CAUSE for obesity, should they reverse their stance and try to DECREASE obesity? Yes, of course. But will they? Smoke & mirrors...

This.

Post: #29

The foods from 1950's and before in the States was still healthier than the current batch of crap. Also a problem is the food pyramid. Look at how much emphasis on fruits and breads it places. I do think the parts like EBT and stamps should be restricted to healthier foods. Not sure how you would do that though.

Post: #30

The real question is what could the government do to counteract obesity. Politicians and pundits like to pretend that policy makes the world go 'round. It's how they inflate their own importance. At the end of the day, it's technology that drives change in a society. People are fat, because we've developed the technology to effectively eliminate hunger in the developed world. At the same time, mad people are fat and malnourished at the same time, because technology has given us lots of food that has no real nutrient value, but is full of calories and manages to hit the sweet/salty/fat spot that humans crave.

Banning large sodas isn't going to do anything. Do we even know that people drink all that soda? When an extra 16 ozs is only 20 cents extra, I'm sure lots of people just get it, drink 'til they don't want anymore and throw away the rest. Drinking two or three 16 oz sodas a day will still make you overweight. The government can make a dent in smoking, cause cigarettes are one thing. You put a lot of restrictions on them and that's that. People are not fat because of one thing. They're fat because of a lifestyle. I don't see how a government can change that.

Post: #31

Speakeasy,

I don't believe it's the gov'ts job to protect people from themselves. If I want to go smoke crack and eat jelly donuts I should be able to IMO. I know you are generally concerned for those fat fucks but limiting sodas to 16oz isn't going to do a thing. Fat people will buy 2 or whatever.

If people are so stupid that they don't realize they need to cut out all those carbs and that wheel of cheese everyday, it's more likely they're going to die from falling down a manhole while blabbing on the cell. Idiots are idiots, gov't regulation won't change that.

Post: #32

I always thought the pro argument (for government involvement) went like this:

If the government doesn't put in money or take measures to prevent obesity, people who get obese will end up in hospitals that are forced to care for them, costing the healthcare system more money treating them than would have been spent preventing their obesity in the first place. This money will inevitably come from the taxpayers/public in one form or another.

In short:


$ it takes to prevent obesity < $ it takes to treat a fatass in critical care

However, I'm not sure where I draw the line between saving money on national health problems and limiting freedom of choice.

Post: #33

Take away the meth and pain killers explosion and I wonder how much worse it is?? Not that drugs are a good substitute

Post: #34

(06-13-2012 01:21 PM)YoungGunner Wrote:  I always thought the pro argument (for government involvement) went like this:

If the government doesn't put in money or take measures to prevent obesity, people who get obese will end up in hospitals that are forced to care for them, costing the healthcare system more money treating them than would have been spent preventing their obesity in the first place. This money will inevitably come from the taxpayers/public in one form or another.

In short:


$ it takes to prevent obesity < $ it takes to treat a fatass in critical care

However, I'm not sure where I draw the line between saving money on national health problems and limiting freedom of choice.

From a purely economic perspective, I can see how a benevolent social planner could optimize - after all, most people fall within a single standard deviation of the mean - most people are pretty average.

From that perspective, the most sensible solution would be to ration food according to the average energy needs. Most people would do fine on 2,000 calories a day. You could make easy adjustments according to individual needs.

By rationing, you would minimize the economic dead-weight loss to dollars being spent on health care. Diabetics spend almost 12,000 dollars annually on health - more than twice as much as the national average. For 100 million Americans who are at risk, you stand to make a massive increase in GDP by managing people's diets better.

But society is more than just dollars, cents and numbers. Economists often don't understand this (I'm an economist). There are also intangible valuables - spiritual, cultural and intellectual. Then there is the question of freedom.

I can only see freedom and democracy working long-term in an educated, liberated society where citizens are both informed, but also knowledgeable and wise. Otherwise how do they discern right from wrong when the siren song of the politician sounds?

What is the strongest incentive to inform yourself, to be wise and educated?

It is to understand the consequences of actions. short and long-term

If there is a government to distort those consquences, you will lessen that incentive, and you will get more, not less, bad behavior and poor diet habits.

Post: #35

(06-14-2012 06:39 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

(06-13-2012 01:21 PM)YoungGunner Wrote:  I always thought the pro argument (for government involvement) went like this:

If the government doesn't put in money or take measures to prevent obesity, people who get obese will end up in hospitals that are forced to care for them, costing the healthcare system more money treating them than would have been spent preventing their obesity in the first place. This money will inevitably come from the taxpayers/public in one form or another.

In short:


$ it takes to prevent obesity < $ it takes to treat a fatass in critical care

However, I'm not sure where I draw the line between saving money on national health problems and limiting freedom of choice.

From a purely economic perspective, I can see how a benevolent social planner could optimize - after all, most people fall within a single standard deviation of the mean - most people are pretty average.

From that perspective, the most sensible solution would be to ration food according to the average energy needs. Most people would do fine on 2,000 calories a day. You could make easy adjustments according to individual needs.

By rationing, you would minimize the economic dead-weight loss to dollars being spent on health care. Diabetics spend almost 12,000 dollars annually on health - more than twice as much as the national average. For 100 million Americans who are at risk, you stand to make a massive increase in GDP by managing people's diets better.

But society is more than just dollars, cents and numbers. Economists often don't understand this (I'm an economist). There are also intangible valuables - spiritual, cultural and intellectual. Then there is the question of freedom.

I can only see freedom and democracy working long-term in an educated, liberated society where citizens are both informed, but also knowledgeable and wise. Otherwise how do they discern right from wrong when the siren song of the politician sounds?

What is the strongest incentive to inform yourself, to be wise and educated?

It is to understand the consequences of actions. short and long-term

If there is a government to distort those consquences, you will lessen that incentive, and you will get more, not less, bad behavior and poor diet habits.

Hey now...don't bring religion into this. Economists aren't supposed to do that I thought. haha.

Yea the American Way of life™ is pretty much a religon / culture cult because that last part of what you said does not jive with 75% of the Western world outside pure anglo control (UK, OZ, USA), whom are indeed the fatest globally aside from random Polynesian states that worship heavyness.

On a federal level I can agree there is distortion to them they are essentially arms of the business and corporate would which sees incentives in overcompensation and healthcare costs. The 112 Billion annually Americans have to pay to care for preventable illness related to obesity gets suctioned off into the business sides pockets... from your pockets.

How can you justify calorie rationing? Isn't this what the Soviets tried to do during times of famine? Trying to get fat people to eat high quality calories in today's world would be more expensive then simply just deterring the option to consume shitty calories via a consumption tax or outright ban.

In the most socialist nations you see obesity rates at around 12% But this is not Govt policy of limiting the intake of shitty foods, there is shitty foods all around but more so its pre-ventative measures that keep health care costs down. But you have to start before the animals leave then pen though. Now that the pen is busted open you either have to get dogs to scare and herd them back in, you let them free to danger or adaptation in the wild (do nothing), or you kill them off (figurative; destructive and costly tactics).

Try to think what what Fed policy is.

Then understand how lower levels of Govt with less resources and power, stuck with the biggest slice of the costs are more interested in trying to herd them back into the pen. Dogs are cheaper then getting horses and rifles to shoot these pigs down.

The American Way of life™ is a cult. In America you have people whom are fine the Govt groping your balls in a airport for something that only kills 100 Americans per year (vs 600K form heart disease). But yet are against Govt banning shitty food since its "their right" to consume fatty crap. But not your "right" you free and and intrusive travel tho?

aight....


"Woooohoooo gimme my Cheeeesse..yeah!"

Post: #36

Cambridge, Massachusetts is considering banning sodas in restaurants. I predicted something like this here, except the opposite.

I figured Bloomberg's regulation would spur more lenient versions of his bill, but interestingly Cambridge is considering going whole hog and banning sodas altogether from restaurants. They were like, "oh shit, we can't be outdone by a *Republican.*" That said, it might not be that effective if people just get juice, sweet tea and sweetened coffee instead.

I'm more supportive of a tax than an outright ban. But it's like giving a kid an Xbox - you tell him it's his to use so long as he doesn't play more than an hour a day. But then he plays three, six hours a day, so you take it away entirely. Faced with the choice of 70% obesity and soda galore, versus a thin populace and limited availability of soda... is there any question as to which one you'd pick? Still, I'd prefer a tax, a high one.

If it does pass, and people switch to water, you might see restaurants raising prices on their food items - will be interesting to see.

Quote:The American Way of life™ is a cult. In America you have people whom are fine the Govt groping your balls in a airport for something that only kills 100 Americans per year (vs 600K form heart disease). But yet are against Govt banning shitty food since its "their right" to consume fatty crap. But not your "right" you free and and intrusive travel tho?

Totally agree - wrote something similar in my post that I linked. It's the United States of Walmart. Real freedoms are irrelevant when you can eat grub for cheap! And if these people ate only quality whole foods for a couple weeks, they'd change their tune. As it is, you have a food science industry that whittles costs down to the last cent while maximizing tastiness, without any regard to health effects or aesthetics.

And the health costs of obesity are small as compared to the aesthetic costs. The health cost is estimated at about $190 billion per year, which is about $600 per person. How much would you value living in an America with little to no obesity - so that every time you walk into a bar, the ratio is 50% guys 50% girls, and not 50% guys, 25% girls, 25% hogs? $1000 per year? $5000 per year? People obviously prefer looking at thin people to looking at fat people, and the entertainment industry is proof of that.