The weight watchers, by Edward L. Glaeser, Commentary, Boston Globe: ...Should public policy respond to our expanding waistlines with benign neglect, traditional taxes and regulation, or sophisticated psychology?
Benign neglect is the policy preference of libertarians who argue that what we eat is our own business and that there’s a lot to like about a steak or a sundae. ...
I share the libertarian faith in personal freedom, but there are good reasons for public health-related interventions. People don’t bear the full costs of illnesses, which drain the public coffers and impose hardship on friends and relatives. ... Some anti-obesity policies can also be justified as a counterweight to the diabetes-supporting subsidies of cheap corn syrup.
The oldest, simplest, and most extreme alternative to the libertarian approach is an outright ban, which unfortunately also promotes a black market. The modern, more moderate variants of prohibition are place-specific, such as restricting the sale of junk food in schools... That intervention is easy to defend since the state has a responsibility for the well-being of children..., and public schools are already public space.
But widespread bans on soda sales are neither feasible nor desirable, which leads us to sin taxes, like those on tobacco and alcohol, that attempt to balance individual freedom with public health. ... Taxes are a relatively efficient means of limiting activities that impose costs on others, but since poorer people consume more unhealthy food,... taxing that food is regressive.
It is more difficult and expensive to prepare food that is both tasty and healthy than unhealthy tasty food (ladle on the fat, salt and sugar), which helps explain the link between poverty and obesity. ...
The political unattractiveness of taxation has led some to support subsidizing ... the magic of Madison Avenue to make people shun unhealthy products. New York City embraced these counter-consumption policies with graphic anti-smoking signs and vivid ads that make it seem as if soda drinkers are gargling down fat. ...
Encouraging exercise makes sense, but there is much less to like about public programs that vilify activities practiced by thousands of citizens. In a sense, these public announcements are just revenue-less taxes... — the fact that the higher cost is psychological rather than financial is purely accidental.... Stigmatizing the food choices of the poor is no less regressive than taxing them. ...
Soda taxes, bans on junk food in schools, and even reform of the food stamp program are all serious responses to the obesity problem. But there is plenty to dislike about public attempts to demonize different types of consumption..., we are better served by a government that keeps to taxation rather than vilification.

I think there are two things here that need to be kept separate in the arguments Glaeser is making. First, there is the use of taxes to correct for market failure due to the presence of externalities in the consumption of legal goods. If people are imposing substantial costs on others, and if taxes, regulation, and the like are ineffective corrections, then perhaps vilification should be considered as a remedy, but only as a last resort. Second, taxes are used to discourage the use of products we'd like to make illegal, but don't due to worry that an outright ban will the create problems such as black markets that are even more troublesome than the banned activity itself. Here, since we'd like to make the good illegal but don't due to practical concerns, vilification does not seem to be as objectionable as a means of discouraging the behavior.

There are instances, e.g. anti-littering campaigns, where vilification does seem to be the best approach. In part, this is because it's difficult to police and hence difficult to stop through traditional policing and penalties. But littering is illegal, so there doesn't seem to be much of an issue with demonizing this activity. The question is about vilifying legal goods, should the government do that? If it's something that is difficult to tax monetarily or to police effectively, e.g. not letting people into traffic on the freeway which slows traffic generally and causes external effects, then perhaps social vilification of the behavior is the best solution to the problem.

I'm not sure I have this right, but it's late and I'm supposed to be on vacation so I'll leave it at that. My gut instinct is against government ever demonizing anything, so I'm not fully comfortable with calling for government to start nagging people about what they choose to eat, etc. What do you think? Is vilification ever okay? If so, when?

Posted by Mark Thoma on Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 02:07 AM in Economics, Taxes | Stumble, Digg, del.icio.us, Reddit, Tweet, Share, Like | Permalink Comments (96)

Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Highgamma said...
So the government creates programs that lead to "externalities" that deplete the public coffers, then they tax people because their actions lead to a greater depletion of the public coffers. (But their actions would not have led to any externalities if the government had not created the program in the first place.)

Stop the merry-go-round, I want to get off.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 02:20 AM

paine said in reply to Highgamma...
maybe you are already off

all 'micro market values '
are interconnected
in an open market system

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 07:04 AM

btg said in reply to Highgamma...
Stop the subisides of corn and sugar etc.

Sometimes the vilification makes no sense. Soda pop/carbonated soft drinks are being vilified because of the sugar - yet many juices and iced tea products are just as sugar filled.

There is a vilification program unway to get people to stop drinking bottled water, and to ban bottle water from public buildings here in Toronto.

Yes, it is better to drink from a drinking fountain than to use a plastic bottle that beocomes garbage or has to be recycled at public expense, yet often it makes more sense to have bottled water than to effectively ban it - and bottled water has no calories, so it runs smack up against the idea that if someone needs liquid in a container so it is portable, that they should avoid sugar.

Same thing with schools - many schools are within a short distance of convenince stores or fast food restaurants - go too far and you end up pushing kids to consume even more unhealthy food than if you allowed them to have a coke with their lunch.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 12:11 PM

cm said in reply to btg...
"Soda pop/carbonated soft drinks are being vilified because of the sugar"

But they don't even contain sugar but HFCS (which is also a sugar but not the commonly understood cane/beet sugar). I don't drink Coke but I have heard credible reports from people used to European Coke (sugar) claiming that the US Coke (HFCS) tastes inferior or at least different.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Sasha said in reply to cm...
Pssst ... you can get the good stuff in Canada and Mexico too. Let me know if you smuggle any in. Once a year you can even get the good stuff here in America - kosher for Passover Coke.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 04:15 PM

cm said in reply to Sasha...
I knew about Mexico. I think it's pretty much US vs rest of world in this regard (sugar/glucose vs corn syrup).

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 10:11 PM

Sonic Charmer said...
I'm sorry does 'vilification' in this context mean the same thing as 'subsidizing big ad agencies with government contracts'? It seems to. Sorry I'm not sure I'm convinced that Madison Avenue needs a helping hand from taxpayers...

If we are really so concerned about these food products, and think the government should do something, how about not subsidizing them for starters (e.g. the corn subsidies that make corn syrup so ubiquitous). Everyone from libertarians to nanny-state lefties should be able to get behind that right?

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 03:18 AM

paine said in reply to Sonic Charmer...
b4 you crow anymore about this
like your peg bracken
check out the per 6 ounce package "cost" reduction
one can assign to this corn subsidy

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 07:02 AM

Maxine Udall (girl economist) said...
I'm not aware of the government actively "vilifying" unhealthy behavior. I'm aware of the government (CDC, DHS, Surgeon General, local health departments) attempting to educate the public about unhealthy behavior, which seems to fit with the "full-information" requirement and maybe the "rational" requirement for utility maximizing choices among the populace. Increasing information seems like a good thing. The fact that the info is about bad aspects of behavior or goods and services, doesn't change that.

I'm reminded of the almost seismic shift in public opinion that occurred after Mothers Against Drunk Driving began a campaign to publicize the harms of drunk driving and to highlight how our cultural beliefs and attitudes were supporting it. Prior to the MADD campaign, there was a cultural norm that viewed drunk drivers as not responsible for their actions. Judges and friends tended to absolve drunk drivers of blame. MADD was able to change that, thereby increasing conviction rates, penalties, and toughening drunk driving laws. However, I have heard some well-known alcohol researchers argue that MADD's biggest contribution was in shifting a cultural norm about drunk driving to make it less well tolerated. That shift contributed not only to a decrease in drunk driving, but a decrease in excessive drinking generally. How would a similar information campaign by the government be different from that of MADD if it reduces externalities of a harmful behavior?

Finally, research on alcohol and tobacco using Mike Grossman's health production framework suggests that (as the model predicts), individuals with lower incomes and less education will be more responsive to price changes (eg. through a tax) whereas individuals with higher income and education will be more responsive to improved information about harmful effects (since it alters their current health investment behavior by altering the shadow price of future health). This suggests that better information (which could be "vilification" if a substance is harmful) is an important component of behavior change if we want a healthier population that imposes fewer externalities on the whole. Why would it matter who does it as long as the information is accurate?

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 03:44 AM

paine said in reply to Maxine Udall (girl economist)...
"vilifying" becomes " attempting to educate the public about unhealthy behavior ..."

now that's new speak sports fan

read up on cutting edge victorian science
in the region of ...self gratification

our marbel like appollonian guradian class are not only fallible
but fad-able

super-girl economists not withstanding

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 06:40 AM

paine said in reply to Maxine Udall (girl economist)...
"Increasing information seems like a good thing. "

the second greatest hunk of toxic brownie
known to liberal prejudice

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 06:41 AM

ilsm said in reply to paine...
Follows the observations of a geek:

start with "the" data that is
wiggle it away with analysis

information is a built in
can be confected by sugar in

wisdom is what we seek
info common does not give a peek.

wisdom needed to choose the right side
wisdom needs knowledge to decide

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 09:08 AM

paine said in reply to Maxine Udall (girl economist)...
"individuals with lower incomes and less education will be more responsive to price changes "

just as children respond better to a vacious beating
--bevaiour mod wise --
then us old folks

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 06:44 AM

paine said in reply to Maxine Udall (girl economist)...
"whereas individuals with higher income and education will be more responsive to improved information about harmful effects "

the more rational the more successful in the job market scramble

how gratifying !!!!!
oh you merit class prole buggars

its for our own good eh ??

i prefer wall street pirates

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 06:47 AM

paine said in reply to Maxine Udall (girl economist)...
maxine girl 6 time golden medal market flour winner

is today
(for this comment)

also
the paine family sponsored
' nurse ratchet ' award winner

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 06:49 AM

save_the_rustbelt said...
About 20 - 25 years ago health care providers started to deal regularly with "morbid obesity," and now providers are starting to deal with bariatric or "super-morbid obesity." (patients more than 400% or so above their ideal body weight)

The costs for individual cases are staggering.

What to do about this? That is a puzzle.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 05:11 AM

paine said in reply to save_the_rustbelt...
ideal body weight
is now called
platonic mass

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 06:36 AM

Squidward said in reply to save_the_rustbelt...
I often though that health insurance companies should discount people that fall within their ideal weight range. It can be justified actuarially, I'm not sure to what magnitude. Car insurance rewards safe driving just the same, it's actuarial.
It would be touching the third rail that no company wants to do. There is a very real economic cost of obesity to the airlines, but political correctness dictates not treating people like a package at FedEx and paying an overweight surcharge. Instead baggage prices go up.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 09:17 AM

d4winds said...
So now serving nutritious food to children is "vilification" of junk food. It's Orwellian.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 05:12 AM

Sasha said in reply to d4winds...
Don't you know that serving healthy food to children is an implicit attack on their cultural values of eating lots of crap? More importantly, there's no tax revenue in serving healthy food to children.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 05:32 AM

paine said in reply to d4winds...
no
the word "nutritious "
is orwellian

get it ???
u make a bad a good by calling it so
if we didn't worship false idols like nutrition
and instead worshiped flesh and blood icons
like mark t anne bruce and naughty sasha ...
we'd at least be outer party uber orwellians

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 06:35 AM

Bruce Wilder said...
I'm just not getting this
Separation of Salesmanship and State Principle
that Glaeser and Thoma are pushing.

Private enterprise has proven the usefulness of propaganda in modifying behavior. Maybe, for philosophical reasons, you'd like to rely on models of more autonomous choice. Tough, you're wrong. The world doesn't work that way. Get over your damn self. Here, in the real world, giant food processing conglomerates spend zillions to persuade people that colored sugar water is a ticket to fun, self-esteem and a social life. They do it to make money.

There's no "marketplace of ideas". No one is selling "ideas". They're selling high-fructose corn syrup dissolved in carbonated water.

I have no idea what Glaeser thinks these unnamed "private entities" are going to sell, to finance this "psychological war" against soda mongers. What's their business model?

Propaganda is a public good. (Or a public bad, depending on the quantity and content -- I think you could make an excellent case for a substantial tax on private advertising in general.)

Public goods are provided by government and financed by taxation.

Whether cigarettes cause cancer or sugarery soft drinks contribute to obesity and diabetes are questions, whose merits are, properly, subject to scientific dispute and research. Knowledge of this kind is a public good.

Government has a role in developing this kind of information and in organizing the society's response to that emergent information.

These are not religious disputes, toward the resolution of which the government can contribute nothing. "Cigarettes cause lung cancer" was never the equivalent of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

We know that glorifying the Marlboro Man, or the Pepsi Generation works. (Okay, that dates me; clearly, I've been fast-forwarding too much on the ol' DVR -- I don't have timely references to our commercial culture at the ready.)

If it serves a public purpose to provide as a public good, some persuasive vilification, what's the problem?

The government doesn't owe anyone a false neutrality on a topic demanding scientific and medical judgment.

I understand the libertarian wish that people were more autonomous and resistant to propaganda. They aren't. Get over it.

And, finally, this whole "externality" thing is getting to be annoying. If delivering this public good of vilification helps Citizen Bob to avoid lung cancer or diabetes or just live a healthier life, it really isn't necessary to show that his lung cancer or diabetes would impact and cost other people. The benefits to Citizen Bob count.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 05:16 AM

reason said in reply to Bruce Wilder...
Bruce,
you are right. And this idea that the government should worry about "vilifying" poor behaviour - SORRY when have private advertisers ever worried about vilifying people wearing the wrong brand of sneakers?

He wants to have it both ways here. People are adult enough to be allowed to make their own choices, but not adult enough to be exposed to paternalistic (as against infantilising) advertising. PLEASE!

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 05:40 AM

paine said in reply to reason...
my gosh
if we can't draw a line
between madison and pennsylvania ave ....

the separation of selling
ie secular preaching
and state

is indeed the quintessence
of the laissez faire philosophy

i say uncle stay out of this scrap

let a thousand huge corporations
contend
with 600 hundred thousand tiny churches
(literal and reformed)
lest we free people
condemn ourselves step by step
to a society of proles
toiling at the bottom of orwell's grim
city of thought-smog
and mirrors

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 06:05 AM

reason said in reply to paine...
Paine,
you have a point. But it doesn't change the point about Glaeser having a double standard. But I have seen public service campaigns do a LOT of good (most impressively anti drink-drive and anti-litter in Australia). I tend to let pragmatism overrule well meaning ideology.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 06:44 AM

reason said in reply to reason...
P.S. Would you just prefer that public service campaigns were somehow given a fixed slot number in prime time and were filled by the appropriate NGOs? These NGOs might really fear censureship as they are in generally anti-commercial (Greenpeace and Exxon together - imagine)!

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 06:48 AM

paine said in reply to reason...
se comment down below
it contains the outline
of my notions on body fat control

worthy of dropping in uncle's suggestion box ???

i doubt it ...
its like paying kids for good grades
of course we do at the far end of the schooling tunnel...with scholarship money
i'm sure they'd much prefer an addition to their allowance

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 08:37 AM

paine said in reply to reason...
NGO subsidies already exist
increasing them ???

why not
it gives goo goos an outlet
what else in todays job market
is a liberal arts degree good for !!!

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 08:39 AM

Bruce Wilder said in reply to paine...
Libertarianism has two great ideas about rules -- neither of which make a lick of sense.

One is that, once circumstances require a rule, somehow, no-rule remains an option that the libertarian can propose and defend. The libertarian doesn't have to defend a conception of what the rule ought to be, and can retreat into an infinitely plastic counterfactual utopia where there's no rule, just . . . goodness and light.

The other we see less of on this blog, thankfully, but it has a far darker history. It is the idea that great, prospective evils can be warded off, if only we adopt as protective principle, a general incapacity in government. If we allow government the power to lay down one paving stone in the street, we will soon find the government paving the road to hell!

No rule, or (better) no power to make a rule -- these are the markers of laissez faire: always promoting the untrammelled freedom of the people to be thoroughly dominated and oppressed by the the "private" Corporations.

I have no great admiration for the Puritan Principle. And, I have lived long enough to see the pendulums of public sentiment swing both ways in its great arcs, on some issues, never settling in a sensible place.

Like it or not, we are a very highly organized society. It's a "decentralized" organization, per Hayek, per Drucker, meaning that it is also a high centralized one. Everything is coordinated, on a vast scale.

The power and autonomy of the individual enhance the power of the whole -- power is a positive sum game. The efforts of the elite to enhance their own power, by oppressing the common man, tend to backfire on system performance and stability -- that's often our only hope for salvation. But, that's a topic for every day on this blog, in these days.

The highly organized systems of our economy don't have architects until it is too late. That's where we are with food. In ways that we scarcely grasp, our systems for feeding ourselves, for leisure and for entertainment as well, are running out of control.

When we don't understand the mechanics of system function, we turn to moral heuristics. In finance and monetary policy, it tends to be bromides about fiscal responsibility, moral hazard and business confidence, trotted out to cover base motives with dignity and seriousness of purpose.

With food, with preachers like Michael Pollan, we tend to get locavore righteousness mixed in with the glimmer of understanding that some of the architectural choices in building the superstructure of food processing have had untoward consequences. We need that controversy.

This is a politics, where some will deeply resent attempts to improve the diet and dietary choices of the proles. Some will very noisily assert that all will be well, if only we eat more broccoli, because that's what mommy said.

Others will adopt the Puritan stance that a pleasureless diet of tofu and rice "cakes" and stuff synthesized from soybean is the path to virtue. I wouldn't worry too much about that philosophy establishing a lasting grip. But, we will have to chance it, because one of the evils at work in our food may very well be the cheap ways food processors manipulate behavior in formulating "the product" as well as, yes, marketing it. This part of the architecture of food, that must be re-designed.

Glaeser, by the way, recommends Detroit, for cheap rent.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 09:33 AM

mike said in reply to Bruce Wilder...
Bruce Wilder has two ideas about libertarianism -- neither of which are even remotely true.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 10:04 AM

paine said in reply to mike...
thanx mike

we needed that

now go play in traffic

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 10:44 AM

paine said in reply to mike...
state min libertarianism

works like beeswax in the ears
as you pass the sirenes of state max

you must never hear the blandishments
of these sexy voiced state interveners

lest u give in to them
and follow thir lead
to a collective doomsday

i like this notion
its quite primordially little c christian

that which cometh to us from ceasar
can never set us free

the city of man is a chaos and a ruin
of course once all Gods are blown away
along with frosty the snow man
and with them
any hope of a city of God on earth
the prospects get darker

we are fated to pass thru
a succession of state centered societies
before we reach eden again
we are without an invisible hand
we have only ourselves
and we are still far from the end
of the cavern

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 11:01 AM

paine said in reply to paine...
example of libertarian notion number II

see bw comment below

do i lampoon ??

am i an asshole ???

either way is that so wrong-ah ???

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 10:47 AM

Sasha said...
Edward L. Glaeser: "there are good reasons for public health-related interventions. People don’t bear the full costs of illnesses, which drain the public coffers"

How much do they drain the public coffers? Please quantify.

Back during the tobacco lawsuits state governments were claiming that tobacco use cost them X dollars in Medicare costs, based on the curious actuarial assumption that if a person didn't suffer from a smoking related illness then they wouldn't incur additional healthcare costs during their extended lifetime and wouldn't suffer from some other expensive to treat illness. In other words they assumed that the person who didn't die of lung cancer at 70, and who instead lived to 80, wouldn't incur additional healthcare costs during those extra ten years, and wouldn't ultimately die of say bladder cancer. Some studies, not conducted with tobacco money, have even found that smoking saves public money. The best way to avoid draining the public coffers would be to shoot everyone when they turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare.

While the evidence for the (not very great) cost of obesity to the "public coffers" is less clear cut than for smoking, the fact remains that complaining that obesity "drains the public coffers", without even attempting an *honest* actuarial estimate, is disingenuous at best. It's nothing more than a cheap rhetorical trick to suggest that the non-obese are fully justified in their outrage at the obese, and that fat taxes can be justified on the basis of externalities rather than being an attempt to save people from themselves.

The legitimate reasons for public health policy that discourage smoking and unhealthy eating is to make people healthier, not to recover the cost of a supposedly onerous externality. This is homo economicus run amok. If you can't make arguments on the basis of anything other than money, then you don't have much of an argument.

"Governor Patrick wanted to simultaneously slim waistlines and fatten state coffers by taxing sugary sodas."

With the emphasis on the latter. Does anyone actually believe that the recent surge of interest in sin taxes has anything to do with a sudden surge in the interest in the public health rather than the recent declines in government revenues? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you. If a poor Coca-Cola swilling dropout can figure that out, a Harvard economics professor ought to be able to.

"since poorer people consume more unhealthy food, like sugary soda, taxing that food is regressive"

That's a statement from an economist? More honesty please. A far more important reason that they're regressive is that people who make less money pay a greater percentage of their income for their "sinful" indulgences. Somebody earning minimum wage will pay a much higher percentage of their income for a $3 tax on their 2 liter/day Coca-Cola habit than a Harvard professor, an investment banker or the governor.

"there is much less to like about public programs that vilify activities practiced by thousands of citizens. In a sense, these public announcements are just revenue-less taxes. They operate by increasing the cost of having a Coke or a smoke — the fact that the higher cost is psychological rather than financial is purely accidental — and they don’t raise any money."

With emphasis on the last point.

More homo economicus idiocy. Anyway the "psychological cost" is as great for the rich soda swiller as for the poor one. There are also psychological costs associated with the pressure to not litter and to brush your teeth regularly - does anyone complain about those?

"And do we really want policies that make Americans even guiltier about eating and drinking?"

No, we'd rather make them poorer in a highly regressive way, especially if it means filling the public coffers with hidden taxes that can be rationalized as being placed on something you shouldn't do anyway.

"we are better served by a government that keeps to taxation rather than vilification"

Why?

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 05:26 AM

Maxine Udall (girl economist) said in reply to Sasha...
Minor correction. The State Attorneys General were concerned about state Medicaid costs, not Medicare. Medicare is federal whereas Medicaid is a joint state-federal program with the federal match varying according to characteristics of the state. Poorer states receive a higher federal match. The AG's claims that led to the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement were that smoking imposed large Medicaid costs on states. At least, that's my understanding.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 06:08 AM

paine said in reply to Sasha...
bravo sasha

"How much do they drain the public coffers? Please quantify ...(can)..fat taxes can be justified on the basis of externalities rather then (saving).... people from themselves..This is homo economicus run amok "

and amok at the service of its quandom opponent
auntie do good

"Does anyone actually believe that the recent surge of interest in sin taxes has anything to do with a sudden surge in the interest in the public health rather than the recent declines in government revenues? "

our greatest living president
bill 'the fellated' clinton
is said to have dreaming out loud ..every day
he jolly ogred away in the oval office
about a time to come
'when all gub revenue
can come from taxing bads
and none from taxing goods '

now that's a grand goo goo ricardo synthesis eh ??
i agree
taxes cost the targets
where as uncle agit prop costs the targeters
if one has a tax source for the agit prop that is at the margin less regressive ....

i might prefer uncle left us alone
but i surely agree some agit prop paid out of a dedicated tax on securities trading
makes deeper sense
then paid for out of a "double duty" tax
on the very same evil substance
that is the subject of the agit prop

sasha
you are my american idol for a day

walk with an extra lift in your stride

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 06:22 AM

Devin said in reply to Sasha...
"The best way to avoid draining the public coffers would be to shoot everyone when they turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare."

I think you've got an inside track on the first legislation to be passed once Republicans regain control of Congress.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 08:26 AM

save_the_rustbelt said in reply to Sasha...
The Columbus Ohio fire department, which has equipment capable of handling 650 pound patients, wants to upgrade some of its units to handle up to 1000 pound patients. They are seeing a couple of patients a month who are too big for the 650 pound rigging.

Cost of ultra-stretcher and refitting ambulance -
$16000.

On another note, hospitals and nursing homes are spending large amounts of money on upgrading jumbo equipment, much of which is paid for directly or indirectly by the government.

Mrs. Rustbelt (aka the world's greatest nurse) works in a facility where all of the equipment is new and rated at 400 pounds, and she has to turn away patients because they are too large.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Sasha said in reply to save_the_rustbelt...
Columbus, Ohio has a population of 755,000, so that $16k expense comes out to a whopping $0.02/capita.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 04:26 PM

don said in reply to Sasha...
"Some studies, not conducted with tobacco money, have even found that smoking saves public money."

Kip Viscusi? I think he has it right. The only objection I might have is I wonder if he properly accounted for externalities - smokers may get sick more, incubating disease to pass on in the workplace.

"we are better served by a government that keeps to taxation rather than vilification"

Why?
Well, the answer I would give is that it may allow us to replace other tax revenue that distorts economic incentives. For example, if the efficieny burden of a carbon tax were merely zero (instead of being positive), we could still gain by using the tax to reduce income tax rates, thus reducing the excess burden of the icnome tax..

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 02:41 PM

Sasha said in reply to don...
But a soda tax is regressive. Factor in a social welfare function and figure the result.

A carbon tax is different as there is an enormous externality. My suggestion would be to impose a carbon tax and return all the revenue from it in the form of an equal share for every person in the country (kind of like Alaskan oil money). Not only would that make my portrait of Karl Marx (or is that Groucho?) smile, but it's the only way a carbon tax would ever be politically acceptable.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 04:31 PM

julio said in reply to Sasha...
"we are better served by a government that keeps to taxation rather than vilification"

Why?

[Yes. But for the arguments pro, consider the vilification poured at the banksters, and its, shall we say, limited effect].

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 03:02 PM

Sasha said in reply to julio...
If people got paid $1M/year for being fat, I doubt vilification would do much good there either.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 04:32 PM

reason said...
"Stigmatizing the food choices of the poor is no less regressive than taxing them. ..."

"The question is about vilifying legal goods, should the government do that?"

You mean like tobacco or alcohol? Or bad driving? The issue is externalities. If stigmatizing poor choices that have externalities on other peoples is the best way to change choices I'm all for it.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 05:35 AM

Sasha said in reply to reason...
"The issue is externalities."

Yes when it comes to alcohol and especially drunk driving. It's highly questionable whether externalities are a major issue when it comes to obesity and smoking (other than banning smoking in public places).

What if it's not about externalities, but about public pressure to make people healthier for its own sake? I'm fine with that. Must we always pay fealty to the libertarian nonsense that only externalities should be addressed?

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 05:48 AM

reason said in reply to Sasha...
Like increased medical costs, increased methane production, less space on neighbouring seats in public transport ....

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 06:00 AM

Sasha said in reply to reason...
Everything you cite is highly debatable. My main point though is, suppose that for the sake of argument, there were no significant net externalities to obesity. Would that make it any less worthwhile to encourage (as opposed to coercing) people to eat better and exercise more? I don't think so. The externalities hand is overplayed.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 08:49 AM

don said in reply to Sasha...
Agree wth Sasha that the most important effect is on the individual consuming poor diet.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 02:43 PM

reason said in reply to Sasha...
Everything is debatable? Fat people don't have bigger arses?

Reply Friday, July 30, 2010 at 01:19 AM

paine said in reply to reason...
i agree with bw
this berlin lkie obsession with externalities
negative freedom

what about the internalities of beating the crap out of your own body ??
why privilege the other guys "harm" ??

you guardian class wanna bes
look silly playing half way house libertarians

i say go for it sis
if you want uncle to stick his fingers
in someones brain soup ...go for it
tell him to put all ten in !!!!

surely your patron saint
plato would approve

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 05:53 AM

julio said in reply to reason...
And what doesn't have externalities?

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 03:05 PM

reason said in reply to julio...
Ah...
almost nothing, the world is complicated (so much for Libertarianism). But not all externalities are equal.

Reply Friday, July 30, 2010 at 01:17 AM

paine said...
the war on sugar salt and fat stands the same chances
as the war on tar and nicotine --lets throw in caffeine --
if we tax em excoriate em long enough...

it lacks the real fire and ice effect of course
since none of these has the dramatic and immediate spill over effects of heroin or crack or the added horror of pugnacious pervasiveness...like the locus classicus
lord alcohol

substance abuse wrangling gets us
into waters far deeper and murkier i think
then if we stick to eradicating
the abuse of that purely social substance
exchange value
specifically
the systematic
exploitation of the inadvertent producers
of that substance wage labor

the poppy of exchange value is indeed subject
to much mischief use

seems to my lights
more within the purview of the political economist
to focus our keen intellects
on that institutionally induced
patch of human misery
then those several delightful forms of body kicks
that come as quick cheap and dirty compensation
for our branch of the human condition

thar being said i'll plunge into the "concern " fest

conjecture :

the abuse of cheap magic-think
by our various distinguished illusion mongers
causes more societal damage and human agony
in the long run
then cheap readily purchase-able
illegal drugs might

better the real field grown opiate
then the heaven sent (by way of the vatican
and chamber of commerce )

at least the nod off
on the soiled floor mattress
isn't at a job site some where else
working away making cheetos
and as a by product
producing a stream of funds
by means indirect and remote
that "feeds" lace curtain improvers
in pointy hats
typing admonishments on to a lap top
and out into the "digital cloud"

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 05:47 AM

Sasha said in reply to paine...
"the abuse of cheap magic-think by our various distinguished illusion mongers"

People loved sugar, butter and lard long before mass advertising. They also smoked and drank like fish. Can advertising make it worse? Sure, but it's dishonest to say advertising is the only reason people are drawn to such "sins".

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 05:53 AM

The Raven said in reply to Sasha...
There are also government subsidies.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 06:47 AM

paine said in reply to Sasha...
you are being to specific

i wasn't talking about mad ave agit prop aimed at say chesse burger lovers (for or against)

i meant the high toned new york times variety and the variety down at the local
cathedral of insipid next world hope

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 08:46 AM

The Raven said...
One of the reasons that Americans are so fat is subsidies to agribusiness. I don't know all the ins and outs here, but there are enormous incentives to get agribusiness to over-produce, and for agribusiness to successfully over-produce it has to market and market and market. Americans might be less overweight if there weren't subsidies that encouraged great efforts to make them so.

Meantime, we corvids will be happy to eat up more of your corn.

Croak!

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 06:20 AM

paine said in reply to The Raven...
how much cheaper is a bag of corn chips
enough to really impact consumption

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 09:00 AM

Squidward said in reply to The Raven...
Big Ag doesn't have to market, government capture took care of the need to market too. Sugar tariffs drove sugar out of cola long ago replacing it with "cheap" subsidized corn syrup. Also notice the 10% ethanol mandate at the gas pump, corn farmers benefit again while there is still a tariff on Brazilian ethanol keeping it out of the country when sugar cane is a far more efficient and environmentally friendly method of ethanol production.

Gov't capture is also alive and well in the school lunch breakfast and lunch program. Seeing my sons lunch menu reminds me that with enough Con-agra (et. al) lobby money even pizza and corn dogs can fall with in the guidelines of nutrition for the Federal subsidized school breakfast program.

Who needs marketing when buying congress is cheaper?

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 01:01 PM

paine said...
Can advertising make it worse?
no
only direct it at the margin

like mighty rivers
our various substance based social addictions
gradually shift their beds

cut new courses etc
madison ave is there to direct "traffic"
not increase it
now i'll conceed the addictions mad ave touts are
bright market product based abuses
it uses its powers to move
dusky market product abusers over
to the bright side of addiction

my man bull lee
has a nice screed on heroin as the perfect commodity

too perfect ...it crowds out all else commodity wise
--besides pound cake and toilet water --

all the other play nice type commodity producers
are forced to fight like the devil herself
nite and day trying
to curb this all too powerful competitor

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 06:32 AM

Meg said...
There is a theory that the push against fat in an attempt to cut down heart disease has contributed to the rise in obesity (the evidence is mostly coincidental, but it lines up nicely). In part because in combination with subsidies for corn, fat-free corn syrup ended up in food marketed as being healthy. Not to mention that fat contributes to satiety, and a low-fat diet in the absence of other controls leads people to consume more calories.

In other words, it was government vilification that got us into this mess.

Additionally, obesity is linked to poverty and absolute utility, and the buying power of the working poor has declined dramatically, as has leisure time that could be spent out side. Rising income disparity has probably contributed more to obesity than (declining) consumption of full-sugar soda.

Third, our standards of "healthy" weight actually lead to higher rates of death than "overweight". Until the government bases their recommendations on something other than statistically-unsupported thresholds of the mathematically-flawed BMI, I at least feel no compulsion to listen to anything they say, and will be very put out at any attempt to tax my behavior.

Abolishing subsidies, on the other hand, I'm pretty much always all for. There are other, non-coercive, government interventions that could lower obesity rates, such as ensuring that public breast feeding is always legal (but not required), food stamps are available and easy to obtain and spending more on school lunch programs, varied physical education programs that serve a broader range of kids, nutritional education and increased access to grocery stores through zoning, subsidies or even government-run stores. All of these would be likely to reduce obesity without encouraging a nanny state.

People who are overweight already have strong incentives for loosing weight. People who are overweight make less money (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/107628895/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0), face discrimination, ridicule and social ostracism and find many products and services unavailable to them. A tax on soda isn't going to dramatically shift the incentive curves here.

Finally, it is easy for vilification of behavior to lead to vilification of the people (for example, this attempt: http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/02/23/have-a-conversation-over-dinner-risk-obesity/ I especially like how the implied message is that you *should* look like Barbie...) Some health conditions and genetic predispositions will render people obese, and there is little evidence that for most people dieting leads to long-term weight loss (a recent study found that, on average, dieting led to weight gain after five years.) Taxing people for their genetics in an attempt to coerce them to do something unhealthy that probably won't have the intended effect seems exactly the sort of thing we shouldn't be doing.

Maybe you just trust the government more than I.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 06:56 AM

paine said in reply to Meg...

"fat contributes to satiety"

and power naps

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 08:54 AM

Bruce Wilder said in reply to Meg...
"In other words, it was government vilification that got us into this mess."

Vilifying government serves . . . who does Fox News work for, again?

You make many good points. The controversy is part of the process of discovery and reform, in a highly organized society. By all means, campaign to change what is subsidized. What is encouraged and discouraged. What is understood.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 09:53 AM

don said in reply to Meg...
I think the greatest (and costliest) problem is diabetes.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 08:19 PM

cm said in reply to Meg...
True story: back in 2000 in my office we had sugar containers with "sugar contains no fat" printed on them. The same thing you could buy in stores. By the time it occurred to me to take a picture to preserve this for posterity it had disappeared.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 10:29 PM

reason said in reply to cm...
My father always thought that if sugar was a new product on the market (and so had to seek approval) it would be banned. (My father was a bio-chemist working on food preservation.)

Reply Friday, July 30, 2010 at 01:15 AM

reason said in reply to Meg...
No, but we get the chance to vote them out. Oligopolies are here to stay and try their damndest to stop our vote from counting.

Reply Friday, July 30, 2010 at 01:16 AM

paine said...
a sharply income regressive subsidy
for long term weight loss

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 07:05 AM

paine said in reply to paine...
measured by body mass share
paid out after semi annual check ups

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 08:48 AM

julio said in reply to paine...
I'm blimping up getting ready for that law.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 03:28 PM

paine said in reply to julio...
i can't think of a higher purer form
of human capital building

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 07:16 PM

Peter T said...
> It is more difficult and expensive to prepare food that is both tasty and healthy than unhealthy tasty food

What about considering publich health for agricultural subsidies - oh, no, we can't do that, agrobusiness has our senators on their payroll.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 07:40 AM

paine said in reply to Peter T...
civilization itself was built on feeding
the toiling mass at the base of the system
on animal feed not hu-food

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 08:50 AM

Allen Edwards said...
Government run food programs are teaching kids to eat poorly. Who can be against having government food programs give kids healthy food? Fix that problem and we have trained the next generation to eat well. Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution is the right way to deal with this. In this case, government is part of the problem and should be made part of the solution. This should not be a hard tradeoff, just feed kids (mainly poor kids in food programs) good food and hopefully that will follow them for life. http://www.jamieoliver.com/campaigns/jamies-food-revolution

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 08:28 AM

paine said in reply to Allen Edwards...
eating well is never going to compete effectively among us hu caps
against looking good and feeling content
unless we can be made to fear consequences

fat souls go to hell !!!!

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 08:52 AM

paine said in reply to paine...
"Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution "

it has come down to this ...

peak grease

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 09:03 AM

Nick said...
First best solution: remove distorting subsidies that ensure unhealthy foods are the cheapest foods.

Second best solution: tax unhealthy foods and give rebates from the tax to low income households to subsidize the purchase of healthy foods.

Not sure why some economists these days are so quick to jump to discussions about second best alternatives and not even mention first best options...

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 09:14 AM

Bruce Wilder said in reply to Nick...
First-best options are always and everywhere in economics, the first refuge of the ignorati.

When an economist recommends a theoretical ideal as a model, you can be sure he hasn't thought throught the theory, and knows nothing whatsoever of fact.

See Bruce's First Rule of Epistemology: "Mankiw is always wrong."

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 09:43 AM

Darren said in reply to Nick...
Nick: "First best solution: remove distorting subsidies that ensure unhealthy foods are the cheapest foods."

In general, it is a mistake to assert, as a matter of faith, that if you remove all the policies which distort markets, that markets will automatically come up with the right answer.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 11:17 AM

Darren said...
I think it's OK to villify the wearing of the niqab (full Islamic face covering) rather than making it illegal, but apparently I'm in the minority.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 11:07 AM

fred said in reply to Darren...
Interesting you should change the subject. Some say obesity is the new black (a bugaboo to be conjured up at election time so as to whip the middle class whites into a state of hysteria and prevent them from voting rationally), other say Islam is the new black, and of course the poor have always been a middle-class bugaboo: a burden to the extent they rely on charity, a threat to the extent they resort to crime to supplement charity, a reminder of whence the middle-class came, a warning of where the middle-class might end up if things go wrong. But just imagine if you can combine all four bugaboos: black fat islamic and poor all at once!

http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2010/07/29/n_foreclosure_homelessness.cnnmoney

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 03:04 PM

Devin said...
"but since poorer people consume more unhealthy food,... taxing that food is regressive."

I find it interesting how libertarian-types consistently argue that individuals are rational economic actors...until it's convenient to assume otherwise. In a world of rational economic actors, the fact that the poor consume more unhealthy food is an argument FOR taxing it, as the poor would respond by consuming less unhealthy food, which is in fact the goal of such interventions. But since taxes are always and everywhere bad in all circumstances to some people, they just have to argue (against their own basic assumptions) that this tax will disproportionately hurt the poor.

On the other hand, libertarian-types generally assume that the poor are always poor because they are stupid and lazy. And I guess it's not a stretch from that position to assume that *most* individuals are rational economic actors, but the poor, being so stupid and lazy, are not rational economic actors.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM

TheUmp said in reply to Devin...
Many poor neighborhoods have are underserved by grocery stores. Residents without reliable cars are forced to shop at mostly small stores with a limited selection of healthy choices. Taxing the mostly unhealthy food those stores sell would do little to help. Maybe incentives for farmers markets and groceries selling healthy fresh and bulk foods would help.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 01:02 PM

Devin said in reply to TheUmp...
Don't lecture me on where the poor shop, I live in the 'hood in Oakland. Stores stock what customers buy. If the cost of unhealthy stuff goes up against healthy stuff, they'll start stocking more healthy stuff because the relative price is better.

Again, you're assuming market operations break down when it comes to serving the poor. You just seem to be assuming the owners of businesses serving the poor are stupid and lazy, not the poor themselves. I guess that's a slightly less offensive view of the poor...good for you.

And BTW, Oakland and many other urban areas are experiencing a real revival in making healthy food available and (to the extent it's possible) affordable. We have two different farmers markets each weekend within a couple miles. A co-op offering locally grown produce is about 2 miles away. We have two community gardens within easy walking distance. There are numerous efforts by countless people trying to use entrepreneurial approaches to improve the diets of people, especially children, in low-income urban neighborhoods. The single biggest problem is all this healthy stuff is competing against cheap (& heavily subsidized) crap. Make the crap less cheap (and throw in some subsidies for healthy food for good measure) and people will respond. Even the stupid and lazy will eventually catch on once everybody around them is buying better food for less money.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 03:48 PM

roger said...
It is obvious that we need better crap. The gov would go a long way towards making this a healthier world if they banned fatfree things and 2 percent milk. Good, healthy fat and good healthy fat people were put under the gun by the nutty idea that fat was causing any number of cardiovasuclar diseases, but - vide James Lefanu's The rise and fall of modern medicine - this is mostly myth.

However, I doubt the gov is going to ban fat-freeness anytime soon.
Capitalism is designed to make you fat, or drive you crazy. It is one or the other. Anybody who has ever worked as a secretary or office worker (as I have) will have noticed that the routine depends on sugars and fats. Now, in a better world, we would simply be munching khat or smoking ganja. The British appointed Assam Ganja and Opium commission of 1913 understood - maybe for the last time, among government commissions - that one desperately needs a compensation for doing something as unnatural as working 8 hours a day. Although it made a few tutting sounds about ganja, the commission did not recommend government intervention.

I'd suggest that a 36 hour work week would be an admirable skinny-ifier, as of course sugar is the pacifier of choice if you have only a small amount of time with your kids. It buys you peace. Also, more recess for kids. Also, easier access to schools for bike riders and walkers. And finally, dispense with all low fat foods. That should do the trick.

More likely, though, is the demonic option: supplement the cornoil industry and start a government campaign to make you feel guilty for eating what the government and Madison avenue is advertising. This is an excellent method for demoralization, and has worked admirably for years to keep Americans good and servile.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 02:01 PM

fred said in reply to roger...
Have you ever even tried a low-fat diet? You'd be surprised. Try eating nothing but boiled potatoes and vegetables for a few months, with maybe a tiny bit of lean meat thrown into the pot for flavoring. For many normal people, it will be a struggle to even maintain normal body weight on such a diet, much less to gain weight.

The reason most low-fat diets fail is they lack fiber. But when the fiber contents shoots up to over a hundred grams a day, eating enough to gain weight becomes an effort, due to the amount of waste product from all this eating. As you put, we do need "better crap", and "better crap" (softer, bulkier) results from eating more fiber.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 03:13 PM

julio said in reply to fred...
Externalities again. Our sewers are already getting overwhelmed.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 03:31 PM

julio said in reply to roger...
Good post. I especially liked:

"I'd suggest that a 36 hour work week would be an admirable skinny-ifier, as of course sugar is the pacifier of choice if you have only a small amount of time with your kids. It buys you peace. "

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 03:32 PM

Devin said in reply to roger...
right on the money, roger

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 03:50 PM

paine said in reply to roger...
"Capitalism is designed to make you fat, or drive you crazy"

bravo rog
this is the inner bob mitchum fan surfacing
to make me chagrin

you're actually quite a bright inquiring
good sort of guy

once we get clinton's,,, out of your ....

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 06:01 PM

cm said in reply to roger...
Yeah, most vices and substitute gratifications like excess eating, drinking, gaming, gambling, drug use, etc. arise from a life(style) offering too little gratification in one's daily pursuits (if any), or even negative gratification. Even for many in the "first world", it basically sucks, mostly.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 10:50 PM

cm said in reply to cm...
I forgot TV and shopping in the list.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 10:52 PM

don said...
I think Germany may be seriously considering a BMI tax (a tax on on obesity). That sounds a lot worse than taxing bad diet habits.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 02:45 PM

reason said in reply to don...
??? Source please. I live in Germany and this is the first I've heard of it. (Besides which BMI is not a very good measure.)

Reply Friday, July 30, 2010 at 01:06 AM

Highgamma said...
I still find the externality argument objectionable. Combine it with opportunity cost and you can make anything an "externality".

Am I not living up to my greatest income potential? I'm clearly "depleting the public coffers". I better get working on those 15 hour workdays before the government imposes a special tax to get me to work more (so I can pay more income taxes).

Externalities are a chimera. Coase showed that a half a century ago. The rest of us should catch up.

Reply Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 08:54 PM

reason said in reply to Highgamma...
Whatever your view of externalities Coase did no such thing.

Reply Friday, July 30, 2010 at 01:08 AM