|
On November 17 2010 07:31 red_b wrote:
intervening is only called for when the social benefit for doing so exceeds the costs.
if McDonalds were a monopoly, the government would step in and break them up because they would be producing at too high a price and too low a quantity. in this case, the social cost of obesity warrants action.
that is where it starts, and that is where it ends.
No, that is most assuredly not where it ends. I agree that there are negative externalities associated with obesity (us dealing with their ugly looks and paying for their healthcare), and so some government intervention would be helpful. But that doesn't mean you can automatically conclude the government can do anything and everything in the name of fighting obesity. You can't just turn off your brain when it comes to government regulation, you have to actually analyze if the regulation itself has benefits which exceed its cost.
This regulation does nothing to stop the underlying problem: kids wanting and consuming too many calories. It is not the coupling of a toy with a happy meal which creates this demand for calories, it is our evolutionary desire to consume foods high in fat and caloric content. Requiring that toys be coupled with healthy happy meals is simply going to make children seek other sources of high calorie foods.
On the other hand, this regulation hurts those of us who know how to eat McDonald's in moderation. We are no longer able to purchase a tasty meal that comes with a toy. This is not a trivial loss given the popularity of unhealthy happy meals; the loss in consumer surplus is significant.
If you really want to change incentives, then you need to attack the demand directly. The best way to do this is to simply tax people who are overweight. That way, if they still decide to be overweight, at least society is compensated for its loss. Telling McDonald's what it can and cannot sell is stupid and socially harmful.
|
On November 17 2010 08:09 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 07:31 red_b wrote:
intervening is only called for when the social benefit for doing so exceeds the costs.
if McDonalds were a monopoly, the government would step in and break them up because they would be producing at too high a price and too low a quantity. in this case, the social cost of obesity warrants action.
that is where it starts, and that is where it ends. If you really want to change incentives, then you need to attack the demand directly. The best way to do this is to simply tax people who are overweight. That way, if they still decide to be overweight, at least society is compensated for its loss. Telling McDonald's what it can and cannot sell is stupid and socially harmful.
So the problem is that there is an obesity problem among children in low income families. Your solution is to tax them. Brilliant! Now instead of McDonalds, they will go straight to the dumpster!
|
On November 17 2010 08:16 _Darwin_ wrote:
So the problem is that there is an obesity problem among children in low income families. Your solution is to tax them. Brilliant! Now instead of McDonalds, they will go straight to the dumpster!
They have an obesity problem because they consume too many calories. If they have to spend more money per calorie, then all the better; they won't starve, they'll just buy less calories. Note that one doesn't actually spend more money per calorie until they are deemed overweight.
|
On November 17 2010 08:18 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 08:16 _Darwin_ wrote:
So the problem is that there is an obesity problem among children in low income families. Your solution is to tax them. Brilliant! Now instead of McDonalds, they will go straight to the dumpster! They have an obesity problem because they consume too many calories. If they have to spend more money per calorie, then all the better; they won't starve, they'll just buy less calories. Note that one doesn't actually spend more money per calorie until they are deemed overweight.
Taxing fat people in order for them to compensate us for "their ugly looks" has to be trolling. There is really no other explanation. As for the healthcare burden- it won't be lessened by decreasing the amount of big macs from 2 to 1.
|
On November 17 2010 08:28 _Darwin_ wrote:
Taxing fat people in order for them to compensate us for "their ugly looks" has to be trolling. There is really no other explanation. As for the healthcare burden- it won't be lessened by decreasing the amount of big macs from 2 to 1.
Fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but if your goal is to reduce overall obesity, taxing obesity would be wiser than banning McDonald's toys, which is simply stupid.
And don't underestimate the negative utility of looking at ugly people all day.
|
On November 17 2010 08:09 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 07:31 red_b wrote:
intervening is only called for when the social benefit for doing so exceeds the costs.
if McDonalds were a monopoly, the government would step in and break them up because they would be producing at too high a price and too low a quantity. in this case, the social cost of obesity warrants action.
that is where it starts, and that is where it ends. No, that is most assuredly not where it ends. I agree that there are negative externalities associated with obesity (us dealing with their ugly looks and paying for their healthcare), and so some government intervention would be helpful. But that doesn't mean you can automatically conclude the government can do anything and everything in the name of fighting obesity. You can't just turn off your brain when it comes to government regulation, you have to actually analyze if the regulation itself has benefits which exceed its cost. This regulation does nothing to stop the underlying problem: kids wanting and consuming too many calories. It is not the coupling of a toy with a happy meal which creates this demand for calories, it is our evolutionary desire to consume foods high in fat and caloric content. Requiring that toys be coupled with healthy happy meals is simply going to make children seek other sources of high calorie foods. On the other hand, this regulation hurts those of us who know how to eat McDonald's in moderation. We are no longer able to purchase a tasty meal that comes with a toy. This is not a trivial loss given the popularity of unhealthy happy meals; the loss in consumer surplus is significant.
If you really want to change incentives, then you need to attack the demand directly. The best way to do this is to simply tax people who are overweight. That way, if they still decide to be overweight, at least society is compensated for its loss. Telling McDonald's what it can and cannot sell is stupid and socially harmful.
Totally agree. However, taxing them directly is going to be impossible to actually enforce..... Think about that for a while and you should see why.....
What's the next best way? How about taxing the unhealthy foods they eat? You end up taxing people more if they consume more crappy foods, which has been shown to increase their chances of being overweight and having health complications. Therefore, the more unhealthy their habits, the more they get taxed. Not the ideal solution, but definitely comes closer.
While that is definitely a better direction to head, trying to reduce the number of kids who are exposed to bad eating habits and jumk food is definitely a good thing - I don't know how you can argue against that..... Sure, it doesn't prevent people from eating junk food, however, if it can persuade a bunch of kids to get the toy, and the apples with caramel dip instead of the frenchfries, I definitely look at that as being a positive step.
And this doesn't stop at just McDonalds..... Other restaraunt chains that have toys come with the meals may have to switch to serving a small salad instead of fries (or something similar), to be able to market their meals with toys. It's literally just a baby step towards getting people to have a better lifestyle.
|
On November 17 2010 08:06 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 07:53 Risen wrote:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
You're giving up the right to choose to be a little safer. People are fat because they're too stupid to control themselves, in which case I'm completely fine with them having all these health problems (there are cases where obesity is not the individuals fault and I sympathize with these individuals).
They've brought this upon themselves through their choices... don't limit the rest of us because of your stupidity. 1. I dont care about Benjamin Franklin on this issue. He lived in a time where people can cook their own food. Also, Franklin spent most of his time being fat, drinking wine and having unprotected sex with French women; hardly a model of health. Here is the thing. I admit I dont think it will work that well, but Im open to the possibility that it will. Let's do our own best case scenarios here. Best case scenario is that obesity is reduced and people live healthier, fuller lives, and McDonalds loses some sales. In your case people wise up and put down the fork. Which is more likely? 2. So all fat people are stupid because they eat too much? Hmm, ok. So all smokers and drinkers and druggies are stupid too? A beer every once in a while is just about as harmful as a happy meal once in a while yet you have to be a full 21 to drink. Funny, when I turned 18 I could walk into a store and buy a gun. I could get drafted to go fight in a war, but I couldnt drink. And no matter how old I am, I cant smoke a little pot. You can live in your objectivist dream world as long as you like, but do let us know when you wake up and want to join the rest of society. Real life is full of contradiction. Real life is full of bullshit. Just do the best you can. 3. I'm limiting you because of their stupidity? Why yes, yes I am. Just like I want to limit people from mugging each other, I think certain behaviors need to be controlled by force if the cost of you being mad at me is a lot smaller than the huge fucking cost of all the BP and cholesterol medicine, the hospital space, beds and staff, not to mention all of the surgeries. I think some folks need to stop being so hung up on rights. You lost them a long time ago, and they're never coming back. You know the first right we have given to us is the right to life. Well, that's funny, but you get placed on a psych hold if you try to kill yourself. Real free world we live in if we lost ownership of the one thing we ever really own. I think the argument has already been made; who gets to make the the choice? Gotta say, Im a big fan of technocracy.
So your argument is that we already have stupid laws like suicide and pot being illegal so it wouldn't hurt to add another one? You're right, it's much easier for the government to take away your rights than it is for you to gain rights back, so why are you so eager to let the government get their foot in the door when it comes to dictating what we eat? All they want is a small win so that down the line they can start telling us how much salt we can have or how much fat we can have. Some people are trying to decriminalize stupid laws like pot being illegal and in the meantime you want to add more stupid laws.
|
To all the people in the thread: have you ever BEEN child?
I remember wanting happy meals all the time. I would get it, get the toy and immediately lose my appetite. All I wanted to do was press down the little car, pull it back, and watch it tear ass across the table and onto the floor. =)
Now I know that's not the case with all kid's, but damn, those cheap cars were fun, huh?
The toy thing is a great business model. When mommy is out running errands and her crumb muncher gets hungry, she (THE ADULT) has the incentive to go to mcdonalds. She can get her food, and her kids, and a toy to shut him up.
Now say she does that on Monday. The next day she's out running errands and Devil Child Josh starts whining for food. He says he wants Mcdonalds. Mommy knows she gave him mcdonalds yesterday, and that she probably shouldn't again, so she doesn't go. She goes home, and makes him a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on whole wheat bread (delicious, btw).
People in the USA are quick to blame anyone but themselves. That's why this is happening. The parents of these obese kid's blame mcdonalds for THEIR inability to say "no" to their little brat. Combine that with the common US opinion that corporations are evil, and you get this ban.
This generation of parents is raising a breed of greedy, whiny, spoiled brats, and I see it everyday at the grocery store I work at. Mommy gets a balloon for their 5 year old. "Now, don't let go of it hun!" she says. 10 seconds later, Tommy let's go and starts crying that it flew away. Instead of letting him learn the lesson, she gets him a new one to shut him up.
Not to mention, McD's will probably not change a thing in that area. Oh, we can't include the toys? Just sell them by themselves on the value menu. Hey, it wouldn't be included in the meal now would it? And the kids would still beg to go.
Instead of the ineffective ban on a small sector of child nutrition problems, how about the town starts an awareness campaign for parents about the types of food their kids need? Or, if you really want to include fast food somehow, require that not only the nutritional facts be posted, but that city/state/country/whatever approved informational fliers on infant nutrition be packaged with kids meals.
|
Personally, I think this is a good thing. I remember when I was a kid, I always wanted my grandmother to take me to burger king to get the toys and collect as much as I could. You should get Toys from a Toy Store, not at a fast food restaurant.
|
On November 17 2010 08:09 domovoi wrote:
If you really want to change incentives, then you need to attack the demand directly. The best way to do this is to simply tax people who are overweight. That way, if they still decide to be overweight, at least society is compensated for its loss. Telling McDonald's what it can and cannot sell is stupid and socially harmful.
Yes, discriminating against a group of people is not socially harmful at all. Lets establish huge taxes for old people while we're at it. They're a huge drain on society and we deserve to be compensated for our losses.
|
On November 17 2010 10:00 Corbie wrote:
Yes, discriminating against a group of people is not socially harmful at all.
It isn't. We discriminate all the time. We discriminate against people without mortgages, people without children, people with high incomes, people who are married, people who don't donate, people who don't have a 401k, people who buy cigarettes and alcohol, people who prefer eating at restaurants over buying groceries, people who don't own farms...
And again, if you think obesity is a social issue, then a tax is infinitely preferable over the government deciding what foods can and cannot be sold. If you think obesity isn't a social issue and any attempt to fix it is discrimination against fat people, then ok, I think you're wrong, but that wasn't the point of my post.
Lets establish huge taxes for old people while we're at it. They're a huge drain on society and we deserve to be compensated for our losses.
Old people aren't drains on society in a way that taxing them would be appropriate. Unless they are on their deathbeds, old people provide net surplus to society, since they tend to be on the richer side. The fact that old people waste tons of money trying to survive for another week is a problem, but not addressable through taxes.
|
Im very glad to see this. The state needs to take action against fast food places that contribute so much to obesity. Id be glad to see fast food places done with altogether.
|
On November 17 2010 10:24 muta_micro wrote:
Im very glad to see this. The state needs to take action against fast food places that contribute so much to obesity. Id be glad to see fast food places done with altogether.
Might as well ban TV and video games while we're at it.
|
On November 17 2010 08:18 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 08:16 _Darwin_ wrote:
So the problem is that there is an obesity problem among children in low income families. Your solution is to tax them. Brilliant! Now instead of McDonalds, they will go straight to the dumpster! They have an obesity problem because they consume too many calories. If they have to spend more money per calorie, then all the better; they won't starve, they'll just buy less calories. Note that one doesn't actually spend more money per calorie until they are deemed overweight.
The poor are disproportionally obese compared to other demographics. Yes, a fat tax seems like a great idea. Is this going to limit their EBT purchases as well?
A state run forced dieting program is about as scary as you can get. Like, precious bodily fluids territory.
|
On November 17 2010 05:42 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 05:15 Mutaahh wrote:
Ya so ensure that "fat" people will do something about their way of living...
Now the healthy people are disadvantaged for the conduct of the fatso...
I don't understand your comment, could you please clarify?
Sorry, had trouble to translate my idea in English....
And still have, should learn better English 
|
On November 17 2010 10:30 Offhand wrote:
The poor are disproportionally obese compared to other demographics.
Good, then they'll respond better to a tax.
Yes, a fat tax seems like a great idea. Is this going to limit their EBT purchases as well?
Actually, I would reform EBT to make it based off of calorie consumption. So you can purchase 2000 calories of food a day.
A state run forced dieting program is about as scary as you can get.
It's not a forced dieting program. If you don't want to diet, like if you don't want to stop smoking, then you're free to do so. That's like saying the marriage tax penalty is a forced divorce program.
|
On November 17 2010 08:41 BlackJack wrote:
[So your argument is that we already have stupid laws like suicide and pot being illegal so it wouldn't hurt to add another one?
No, what I am saying is that the opposite - that because we have some stupid laws we should just give up - is not a legitimate reason.
|
Bisutopia19297 Posts
No more toys! I have no more reasons to go to MC'Ds
|
On November 17 2010 10:35 domovoi wrote:
Yes, a fat tax seems like a great idea. Is this going to limit their EBT purchases as well?
I didnt realize being fat and poor increased your elasticity of demand for mcdonalds.
|
On November 17 2010 10:35 domovoi wrote:
Actually, I would reform EBT to make it based off of calorie consumption. So you can purchase 2000 calories of food a day.
You do realize that different people have different calorie needs, right? 2000 calories is not enough for everyone..... Fuck, at one point, I was eating 7000 calories a day (I felt like shit from eating so much, but I needed to gain weight while having a very intense workout schedule, I was burning 4000 calories daily from working out alone). So that system would be totally flawed.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
