New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks

I'm a morbidly obese, low savings, street and slang minority and I'm very fine with it. Also not sure about it predominantly affecting minorities but if stats say fountain drink consumption is <50% Caucasian, fine.

 

Might want to update your anti-usa propaganda. Corn has been rising in price due to increased pressure for ethanol production.

 

A) Corn producers love that because the government and private markets are pushing them to make corn until they burst, so they'll continue finding ways to sneak corn paste into every form possible so it can pass off as food. Subsidies are one end that feeds the industry to grow and expand. Archer Midland Daniels is the best case of crony capitalism the world has ever seen.

You might have had a better argument if you had noticed ethanol subsidies have recently expired, which might have implied a lessening of American commitment to a damaging position, but ultimately, the fact that you chose to attack this by saying prices are increasing (without regards to changes in government policies, a bit akin to saying oil prices have increased, which must imply a policy shift in American energy), leads me to believe you may not have thought this through.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fresh-fruit-hold-the-insulin

 

So if you want to get on me for not better organizing my 2 sentence reply, try to make your "A)'s" have "B)'s"

The take home message for you is all of the "corn is super cheap so it's in everything" ship is leaving the harbor. That is about 5-10 years old. 10 years ago our gas had no ethanol, now it is ruining our engines at 10%.

If you seriously want to prop that article up as some kind of proof, that is quite sad. Comparing an energy dense junk food to a fibrous carrot on a kcal/$ scale is...... sorry I have no words for that level of r****dation. If you want to compare the kcal/$ of chips and cookies to 25-50lb bags of rice, beans, potatoes, tuna, frozen chicken, eggs, etc. let me know. Here is a small hint: it's not even close.

 

I was attacking the substance of your argument, I could give two s**ts about the form.

You could have typed it in haiku for all I cared.

In any case, my take-home message was that the government is propping up corn, which you are doing no favors to answering by pointing out that corn prices are going up, to be honest, especially as that was due to now-discontinued ethanol subsidies. Want to disabuse me of the notion that the government is propping up a failed food system? Don't point me to relatively increasing corn prices (when all food prices are going up). Point me to government budgets allocated to x thing.

Here, I'll do it.



Your attacks on Scientific American aside, would you care to actually address the point at hand?

 

The point that you actually believed it is cheaper to eat expensive junk food than an all natural healthy diet and then tried to post a BS article to prove it?

Sure, no problem:

The government isn't forcing them to buy a more expensive, less energy dense food. The government isn't even creating a market where that would even be a logical choice considering it's cheaper and healthier to eat things not containing refined corn products in large amounts. Your argument here is therefore totally false.

Actually corn production has remained flat for the last 5-10 years but the usage has seen a drastic turn AWAY from the food industry. This is another massive failure on your part.

This is well known old propaganda that the government is making us fat and poor people have no choice but to eat garbage, etc. Update your reading.

 

Uh...

Nowhere in here is there any cited source. In fact, the main thrust of your argument can be construed as representing a governmental distortion of the market (ethanol subsidies), never-mind the fact that the market is being artificially distorted in the first place by misplaced government subsidies.

The lack of citation is an obvious problem, because some of your facts might actually hold some weight. I won't reveal which, but there are misconceptions about cheaper junk food. However, this does not outweigh the fact that governmental policy is a massive force pushing junk food down in price.

Anyways, I'd always taken you as one of those free-market hawks, so it's oddly refreshing to have you tell me the government is a good guy, I suppose.

 

Ouch, you went with lack of sources? After you are obviously the google maestro? After posting that article as a source? I knew my beat down of your liberal drivel you obviously read a few years ago was hardcore but I didn't realize it was that bad.

You seem to still be caught up on the whole ethanol subsidy thing which is another indication your reading is outdated. Do you want a subsidy that can be taken away or do you want the EPA to give you a 10% share (soon to be 15%) of the gasoline powered passenger car fuel market? I realize you likely don't have a car, buy fuel, know about engines, or realize it is almost impossible to get gasoline without 10% ethanol at the pump in the USA. Personally I would prefer the government give me large percentages of massive stable markets, and then create new markets specifically for me to dominate.

For your free market comments, which I assume were an insult, when all food sold is mandated to contain 15% refined corn products it might be the government's fault people are not eating healthy. Hey, if that ever happens your original arguments might actually become valid!

 

What is with you guys and seething personal perceptions of internet beatdowns and retribution?

LOL. Seriously, I'm starting to feel some concern for you guys. Keep care, eh?

In any case, the thrust of my argument---

has not been addressed at all. Or is that liberal drivel? Oh my, distortions of the free market are all bad, unless they help reinforce my views!

Can you refute the fact that

a) most government subsidies are holding down the price of junk food and the only one holding it up has been scrapped
b) government policy with regards to agriculture is inefficient, and unfairly distributed
c) despite the fact that corn prices are rising (uh, all prices are rising, but in any case), can you indicate how government policy pushing them down, is actually pushing them up, especially with the abolition of the ethanol subsidy?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247588/

Thanks.

 

I don't think it's wrong to be healthy and eat right.


Being slightly overweight cost people money, right?

 

I think NYC is getting totally ridiculous. People can make their own decisions. At one time they were talking about banning salt ( I am not sure if this ever took place). My daughter has a condition that requires her to take in a LOT of salt. She even takes medication to help her retain salt. Eating in a place that bans salt would be bad for her health.

 

Yeah, but see, banning things is bad. Milder economic incentives and disincentives work better (I'm actually fairly against the former, but the latter is fair game to me...and should be to all blue-blooded KAPITALIST Americans.)

 

Notwithstanding New York City's stature as the restaurant capital of the western hemisphere, I am theoretically not uncertain that a hypothetical exemption could have been made for your daughter insofar as any possibility might have existed that this idea could have been agreed upon and made into an enforceable law.

 

24 ounces of coke, around 300 calories - Banned.

24 ounces of chocolate milkshake, around 1000 calories, OK.

 

yeah, arbitrary bans are stupid.

a good demonstration why. The same can be said for mar1juana and alcohol.

Really, tax and regulate is the way. But when people are even against that...

I guess I kinda have sympathy for both sides.

 

That almost sounds like lawyer talk. LOL. Did they ever actually implement the salt ban? If so, I imagine salt could be requested but would a person have to prove they have a condition requiring salt in order to get it? Would one hypothetically(LOL) need a note from their doctor proving they need it? I think it would be much easier to just avoid NYC if they ban salt even if it is the restaurant capital of the world.

 

You tenuously and hypothetically injected to some personal details to deflect from the abject falsehood and ridiculousness of your anecdote.

 

My first reply was just telling you (quite politely) to update your reading. You decided to get cute after that and double down on failure, so I continued with your tone.

Hmm perhaps the reason lies in the fact that the 'Thrust of your argument' only came to fruition after I previously "cared to actually address the point at hand" and told you why your previous 2 arguments were total BS. It is heavily revised and now of such low impact it is approaching irrelevancy. My first opportunity to reply came at a time I was laughing at you playing the 'no sources' hand, and telling you why no one cares (except you apparently) about ethanol subsidies anymore, and what made them obsolete.

 

calories are meaningless when it comes to fat accumulation. It's the amount of sugar that is relevant since insulin regulates fat accumulation. That being said, milkshakes have tons of sugar.

 

That's effectively the same as a ban. You either pay the tax or pay the fine for engaging in the banned activity. The coercion is there regardless, it's just a matter of degree.

Using force as a means of social engineering is insidious and wrong, whether it's a tax or a prohibition doesn't matter.

I'm sure we'll see soda shops set up on Indian reservations soon enough.

Who would have guessed the new temperance movement would come from the left?