Sam Kass appointed "Health food czar"

[Gaspar]

No, but it would be good if it could tell you how much you're having.

Yes, but they do not stop there.  That's the problem.  When they see that people continue to drink Coke despite it's caloric content, they push to regulate or ban. 

I don't mind knowing how much salt is in my potato chips. 

Don't take my money and use it to tell me what I can and cannot do.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit ... Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do ... He does not keep "protecting" you by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that. – Lysander Spooner

[nathanm]

I'm missing something here.  What costs is McDonalds externalizing?  You mean they should be responsible to pay for people's angioplasty because common sense told those people junk food is, well, junk and they didn't heed that common sense?

Well, let's start with the effects of cutting down rainforests to graze cattle. That has a significant environmental cost that they don't pay for.

And yes, the health effects of their salty and fatty food is also an externalized cost. We're paying for it through Medicaid.

People are kinda dumb. That's why capitalism works so well for us. It allows everything to be boiled down to a number: the price. If the price of eating McDonald's reflected the entire cost of eating that burger, people might make better choices. Or maybe not, but at least their bad choices would be paid for.

A better example is leather. Leather tanned in China is much, much cheaper than leather tanned in the US or Europe. This is due to the extremely lax environmental regulations in China allowing the tanners to externalize their costs by dumping pollutants rather than treating them properly. For capitalism to work, the price of a good must reflect its cost. Anything else is a distortion of the market.

[Gaspar]

People are kinda dumb. That's why capitalism works so well for us.

I love you man.  You ooze liberalism.   

[nathanm]

I love you man.  You ooze liberalism.   

I love you too, bro. 

[custosnox]

No, but it would be good if it could tell you how much you're having.

No one is saying that making the information available is a bad thing, just don't shove your idea's of how I should live my life down my throat on the premise that "it's for my own good".  An example outside of the food are saftey sheets required by an employer that keeps any kind of chemical.  They are required to have them available for anyone who would come in contact with them, yet they are not required to force people to read the safety sheets or restrict them from having the chemicals (well, in general, but then we get into regulating for reasons of public safety, not the individual, differant scenario).  Nutrition should be done in the same way.  Make it available.

[Conan71]

Well, let's start with the effects of cutting down rainforests to graze cattle. That has a significant environmental cost that they don't pay for.

And yes, the health effects of their salty and fatty food is also an externalized cost. We're paying for it through Medicaid.

People are kinda dumb. That's why capitalism works so well for us. It allows everything to be boiled down to a number: the price. If the price of eating McDonald's reflected the entire cost of eating that burger, people might make better choices. Or maybe not, but at least their bad choices would be paid for.

A better example is leather. Leather tanned in China is much, much cheaper than leather tanned in the US or Europe. This is due to the extremely lax environmental regulations in China allowing the tanners to externalize their costs by dumping pollutants rather than treating them properly. For capitalism to work, the price of a good must reflect its cost. Anything else is a distortion of the market.

Wow, has McDonalds been cutting down rain forests in Iowa, Kansas, & Nebraska again?  

I guess it's sort of like those carbon credits we need to buy to truly pay for the cost of our vehicles and for every airline ticket we buy, eh?  You being a good citizen and buying yours Nathan?

You've obviously fallen prey to the idea that all these new taxes are simply nothing more than making responsible people and companies pay their fair share instead of realizing it's nothing more than additional financing for irresponsible government.

[custosnox]

Wow, has McDonalds been cutting down rain forests in Iowa, Kansas, & Nebraska again? 

I guess it's sort of like those carbon credits we need to buy to truly pay for the cost of our vehicles and for every airline ticket we buy, eh?  You being a good citizen and buying yours Nathan?

You've obviously fallen prey to the idea that all these new taxes are simply nothing more than making responsible people and companies pay their fair share instead of realizing it's nothing more than additional financing for irresponsible government.

Also, wasn't he all for the government taking over health care, and now he is bitching about people having to use it?

[nathanm]

Wow, has McDonalds been cutting down rain forests in Iowa, Kansas, & Nebraska again?  

I guess it's sort of like those carbon credits we need to buy to truly pay for the cost of our vehicles and for every airline ticket we buy, eh?  You being a good citizen and buying yours Nathan?

You've obviously fallen prey to the idea that all these new taxes are simply nothing more than making responsible people and companies pay their fair share instead of realizing it's nothing more than additional financing for irresponsible government.

McDonald's gets much of its meat from Brazil. (or did, maybe they've stopped by now)

I don't get why you refuse to see my point and instead insist on harping about government. I don't really care how it is that external costs get priced into products, I just want to see it happen. It allows us to bring capitalism to bear on the problems facing us. Tax? Whatever, I'd hope we spend it on something useful. Regulations ensuring that companies clean up after themselves? That's fine, too. If you've got any other ideas about how to make sure we pay the true cost of our choices, I'd be interested to hear them.

I don't really see the need to bring conservative or liberal ideology to the table on this issue, as both are nonresponsive to the problem.

[we vs us]

No one is saying that making the information available is a bad thing, just don't shove your idea's of how I should live my life down my throat on the premise that "it's for my own good".  An example outside of the food are saftey sheets required by an employer that keeps any kind of chemical.  They are required to have them available for anyone who would come in contact with them, yet they are not required to force people to read the safety sheets or restrict them from having the chemicals (well, in general, but then we get into regulating for reasons of public safety, not the individual, differant scenario).  Nutrition should be done in the same way.  Make it available.

By and large, that's what you currently have with nutrition: an imperfect system of ingredient disclosures that covers food in some places and manners of preparation but not in others.  In any event, at least maybe we can agree that better information increases everyone's ability to make better choices.

But then what?  Our country is getting fatter and unhealthier, despite the louder and louder calls for better health.  Despite the better labelling, and the better science (transfats suddenly = waaay bad), our obesity rate is 30% or more in some states and rising. 

So how to explain it?  Either the information getting out is incomplete, or the use of the information is imperfect.  But either way, the problem is increasing, not mitigating. 

My question for my libertarian friends is, how do you address this from a policy standpoint?  What more should we be doing?  Assume that most people aren't as smart or as well-educated as you are.  Also assume they just care less.  Assume this not because it's true but because you have to generate policy to include the least of us, not just the best.  How do we halt our slide into obesity and increase our health -- ALL of our health -- in the tried and true Libertarian way?

I suspect the answer is "educate to a point and then devil take the hindmost," but I'm hopeful there'll be more provide for the common good posted.

[we vs us]

If I can get meta for a moment, I've found it interesting that our arguments here on the board have migrated over time to be almost exclusively about whether American capitalism does or doesn't function at this point in time.  Even all the hurf-durf about the inefficiency of government is an argument about economics, not about political science. 

I'm not sure why this is; whether it's because of the Recession, and because all politics are about economics at this point in time, or whether all of our institutions and our lives have finally, to a one, become profit driven.  Either way, it's all about supply and demand and about how to restore it (regulate it/get yer mitts off it).

[Conan71]

McDonald's gets much of its meat from Brazil. (or did, maybe they've stopped by now)

I don't get why you refuse to see my point and instead insist on harping about government. I don't really care how it is that external costs get priced into products, I just want to see it happen. It allows us to bring capitalism to bear on the problems facing us. Tax? Whatever, I'd hope we spend it on something useful. Regulations ensuring that companies clean up after themselves? That's fine, too. If you've got any other ideas about how to make sure we pay the true cost of our choices, I'd be interested to hear them.

I don't really see the need to bring conservative or liberal ideology to the table on this issue, as both are nonresponsive to the problem.

You brought up government in the first place by saying companies like McDonalds need to pay environmental costs (let's see just who would they pay for those costs), and talking about the burden their food is on Medicaid (uh, that's run by the government, right?).

You've been Snoped.  McDonalds imports grass-fed beef from Australia and New Zealand to suppliment American beef they buy.  McDonalds cutting down rain forests is a perfect example of hyperbole which is used to justify more government intervention.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mcdbeef.asp

Are you sure you really want the price of all your consumer goods to double?  I think you would tire of it real quick if all the sudden you realized that your paycheck was buying about 1/2 of what it used to be able to buy.  That also scotches the notion that others have made on here that consumers don't pay corporate taxes and that they ultimately don't pay the cost of regulatory compliance.  Of course they do.  Done right, you could keep reducing personal income tax and make up for it in consumption taxes and compliance costs.  I find it humorous the libs on here keep talking about the biggest tax cuts in history while blatantly ignoring that government is either upping the ante in other areas to make up for it or proposing to up it.

Someone abusing a manufacturer's product shouldn't make it incumbent upon the manufacturer to remedy the situation.  People want to exercize poor judgement then pursue the manufacturer to make them whole.  I've not had to take any special government training to know that a diet high in high fructose corn syrup and saturated fats is bad for me.  I haven't even had to look especially hard to find that information.  If I eat at McDonalds every day I shouldn't expect to be as healthy in a year than if I simply make my own food at home where I personally regulate what additives go into the food.

However, if I want to splurge and go have a Big Mac, super-sized Dr. Pepper, and fries along with a sundae for dessert, that's on me, especially knowing there's little positive nutritional value in any of those choices.  I don't buy the excuse that poor people don't have better, less expensive choices available.  Bullshit.  I can make a nutritionally balanced and filling meal using whole ingredients for three or four bucks.  Less than a value meal.  It doesn't even take me that long to make it.

I think you believe these are all really great solutions but I can only guess you've not been exposed directly to a lot of government red tape and regulation through your personal or professional life otherwise you might better understand my skepticism and cynicism.  I'm also a huge believer in individual responsibility who is tired of everyone running to the government to solve all their problems and to protect them from their own compulsions.

There are areas where the government has proven useful (OSHA, USDA, EPA, etc) to an extent.  But agencies I listed and ones like them have over-stepped in many ways and only served to over-regulate when it's not necessary.  If you'd like to see first hand an example of over-regulation and unecessary regulation, I'd be happy to send you a copy of a job book for a government heating plant project.  Funny part is, it's a retrofit to make up for the government not properly inspecting and ensuring they were getting what they paid for, so now they have to pay another $500K to make it right as the time to get the original vendors to make good has expired.

You will have to excuse my cynicism, it's not arbitrary, but rather well-earned.  In my world, I work with government at all levels.  I see the inefficiencies and I see how maddening it is to not be able to bid on a project when it represents the best overall value to the government (least cost, most efficient, lowest emissions, etc)  because my company owner isn't the right racial make up, wrong gender, or not a veteran on a given project.  I also see how much more the government gets charged because of ridiculous compliance issues and reporting which still does very little to stem fraud and make sure the government is getting what it pays for.  I don't think government is entirely bad nor inherently evil.  It simply has a hard time getting out of its own way at times and well-intentioned regulations wind up having unintended consequences.

[nathanm]

Thanks for the correction regarding McDonald's beef source. It doesn't change my point at all. Once again, my point is simply that if the costs of a particular choice are priced into the product, it removes a distortion on the market and brings simple economics to bear on whatever previously externalized costs existed.

I'm not advocating any particular method of doing that, and increased Medicaid outlays was but one example of how McDonald's externalizes some of their cost. McDonald's isn't even my point, though. Substitute coal mines, if you prefer.

Price is something we all understand. With real costs priced in, however that may come to be, we will make better decisions.

[Gaspar]

By and large, that's what you currently have with nutrition: an imperfect system of ingredient disclosures that covers food in some places and manners of preparation but not in others.  In any event, at least maybe we can agree that better information increases everyone's ability to make better choices.

But then what?  Our country is getting fatter and unhealthier, despite the louder and louder calls for better health.  Despite the better labelling, and the better science (transfats suddenly = waaay bad), our obesity rate is 30% or more in some states and rising. 

So how to explain it?  Either the information getting out is incomplete, or the use of the information is imperfect.  But either way, the problem is increasing, not mitigating. 

My question for my libertarian friends is, how do you address this from a policy standpoint?  What more should we be doing?  Assume that most people aren't as smart or as well-educated as you are.  Also assume they just care less.  Assume this not because it's true but because you have to generate policy to include the least of us, not just the best.  How do we halt our slide into obesity and increase our health -- ALL of our health -- in the tried and true Libertarian way?

I suspect the answer is "educate to a point and then devil take the hindmost," but I'm hopeful there'll be more provide for the common good posted.

So it's the "common good" we are concerned with?  Ah. . . That is where our true differences lie.  Socialism, Communism,and Fascism base their philosophies on the "common good."  It is the primary term in their lexicon. The qualifier behind their perceived benevolence.

I am more focused on individual freedom.  The freedom to choose poorly is just as important as the freedom to choose well.  "Common good" is dictated.  It is at the heart of tyranny.   It is the loss of choice.

[we vs us]

So it's the "common good" we are concerned with?  Ah. . . That is where our true differences lie.  Socialism, Communism,and Fascism base their philosophies on the "common good."  It is the primary term in their lexicon. The qualifier behind their perceived benevolence.

I am more focused on individual freedom.  The freedom to choose poorly is just as important as the freedom to choose well.  "Common good" is dictated.  It is at the heart of tyranny.   It is the loss of choice.

Sigh.  I'm not a socialist, a communist, or a fascist.  And "common good," is, you know, in the good of the nation.  It's one of those concepts that we ourselves pioneered.   

[Gaspar]

Sigh.  I'm not a socialist, a communist, or a fascist.  And "common good," is, you know, in the good of the nation.  It's one of those concepts that we ourselves pioneered.   

I did not say you were.