Well-intentioned ideas that won't work in real life: green grocer liberalism

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

Are you complaining that he didn't get enough soldiers killed in Grenada to need a war memorial?

Hey, nice try!

[howye]

Originally Posted by Bricker

My gripe with Cash for Clunkers is not the claim that it failed to sell cars.

Hombre.

Well, care to fuckin' enlighten us Chief? I read this message board for other reasons than try to guess what is on Bricker's goddamm mind.

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by Bricker

That's not debate. That's the fallacy of argument from ignorance: sure, the studies look like they're conclusive. But we're not social scientists and we don't know, so maybe they're not.

In debate, you need to offer evidence. I have provided four peer reviewed studies supporting my point. You can't simply claim the subject is still open for debate because we're not social scientists. Find a social scientist who has discovered the flaws you speculate exists, and post his contrary study or his dissenting analysis.

But this isn't "debate" in the sense of a competition with judges and rules. Sure, if this were a debate, and you were taking the position "programs like this will not be effective" and I was taking the position "programs like this will be effective", and you produced four reasonable cites and I produced none, and I just said "wah wah his cites might not be good enough", the judges would correctly give you more points than me. But that's not what's going on here. First of all, we're not in a formalized debate, so simply counting cites doesn't prove anything. Secondly, I'm not arguing for a position of "programs like this will definitely work". I'm just arguing for a position of "it is not yet been proven to me beyond doubt that programs like this could NEVER work". Most importantly, however, is that we're not really debating that topic at all.

If you started a thread entitled "government programs to introduce fresh food into food deserts are ineffective", and provided four cites to back that up, I would probably ready that and say "hmm, that's interesting, and Bricker has made a strong case, but fundamentally that's a topic I don't know jack shit about.... so I won't post in the thread at all", but I would have in the back of my mind the idea that this was a topic that I should have some skepticism about. And changing someone's mind at least enough to introduce some skepticism is more than SDMB threads normally actually accomplish.

But you didn't start that thread. Instead you started a thread about liberals being dumb, and you presented "and it is proven that programs like this could not work" as fait accompli... as if we'd already had the previous thread, and a lot of people had argued with you, but you had clearly bested them and in the end people had reached a consensus that, yeah, programs like this are in fact never going to work. And THEN you had started this thread, in which case, your claim might have some validity.


To me, there's a crucial data point that we don't have, and are unlikely to ever get, which is how the people who designed the Philadelphia experiment would react to these studies. It could be any of several things:
(1) Huh? I had no idea such studies existed! (demonstrating that these people were lazy and didn't do their homework first)
(2) Sure, I read those studies, but they just don't apply because, uhh, they don't (the stereotypically extreme liberal try-it-even-though-it-has-already-failed approach that Bricker seems to believe in)
(3) Sure, I read those studies, but we have learned from what didn't work in those situations, here are several factors which make this situation different (actual competence)

[MaxTheVool]

I've just sent an email to

Giridhar Mallya, MD, MSHP
Director of Policy and Planning

at the "Get Healthy Philly" initiative, asking if she has a moment to answer a few questions about the program. Fingers crossed...

[howye]

Originally Posted by Bricker

It's another example of good intentions, not enough facts.

People flocked to the deal. It was so popular that it ran out of money early.

Which tells me that a much smaller rebate amount would have still attracted buyers, and been able to get even more cars sold and clunkers off the road.








No, I think it ought to be regarded as a cost -- and goal -- borne by individuals.

Ah, I see, here it is, Bricker's explanation. The rebate was too high. Of course it was probably the high rebate that motivated people in the first place. But Bricker thinks it should have been a much lower amount, that way he could point to the much lower number of cars sold in the program and use that as an example of how the program didn't work. F'in brilliant. The only way to win is not to play the game, we all have to think exactly like Bricker because he is right all of the time. Or perhaps, the program was successful because the rebate amounts were so high and it motivated people to get off their ass and go purchase a new car. The program those removed some amount of old polluting cars from the road, while giving the auto industry as a whole a shot in the arm. Perhaps it also provided a little incentive, other than total bankruptcy, for the three american automakers to get their acts together. (They seem to be doing better these days. All a result of the government remaining hands off, right?)

Oh, the topic of the thread. If you can't tell the difference between Bloomberg's idiotic soda ban (when did Bloomberg become an icon of this country's liberal establishment?) and government plan to incentivize some products, perhaps who aren't as good at drawing distinctions as you might hope to be. Maybe it works, and maybe it doesn't, its worth a shot. Not one of you supposed cites has shown any reasonable basis for believing that it is a wholly foolish idea.

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by howye

Ah, I see, here it is, Bricker's explanation. The rebate was too high. Of course it was probably the high rebate that motivated people in the first place. But Bricker thinks it should have been a much lower amount, that way he could point to the much lower number of cars sold in the program and use that as an example of how the program didn't work. F'in brilliant.

I think you're being unfair to Bricker here... he has a very valid point. Suppose we want as many people as possible to sell gas-guzzlers and buy new cars. And we have a million dollars to fund our program. And we say "hmm, let's offer a $10,000 incentive", letting us pay 100 incentives, and those 100 incentives are snapped up within hours of the program starts. It's pretty clear then that we could have offered $5,000 incentives instead, and gotten twice as many gas-guzzlers upgraded to new cars for the same cost. Ergo, we set the incentive too high, because our program would have been more effective at what it was actually trying to do if we'd set a lower incentive.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

I think you're being unfair to Bricker here... he has a very valid point. Suppose we want as many people as possible to sell gas-guzzlers and buy new cars. And we have a million dollars to fund our program. And we say "hmm, let's offer a $10,000 incentive", letting us pay 100 incentives, and those 100 incentives are snapped up within hours of the program starts. It's pretty clear then that we could have offered $5,000 incentives instead, and gotten twice as many gas-guzzlers upgraded to new cars for the same cost. Ergo, we set the incentive too high, because our program would have been more effective at what it was actually trying to do if we'd set a lower incentive.

I guess the logical thing to do would be to look up, in the big book that lists this stuff, how much incentive we should use to drive sales of cars.

Barring such a book, it would require the best estimation based on the economists working on the project. Obviously they under-estimated the demand. But compare that to the conservative economists who thought it would cause a rain of frogs.

[Docta G]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

ahem

Bold gambit.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by howye

Ah, I see, here it is, Bricker's explanation. The rebate was too high. Of course it was probably the high rebate that motivated people in the first place. But Bricker thinks it should have been a much lower amount, that way he could point to the much lower number of cars sold in the program and use that as an example of how the program didn't work. F'in brilliant. The only way to win is not to play the game, we all have to think exactly like Bricker because he is right all of the time. Or perhaps, the program was successful because the rebate amounts were so high and it motivated people to get off their ass and go purchase a new car. The program those removed some amount of old polluting cars from the road, while giving the auto industry as a whole a shot in the arm. Perhaps it also provided a little incentive, other than total bankruptcy, for the three american automakers to get their acts together. (They seem to be doing better these days. All a result of the government remaining hands off, right?)

Well, it's true I'm right all the time, and I do appreciate your noticing. Of course, you then vitiate your own observation by continuing to argue with me.

If the rebates had been $20,000 per car, then even more people would have been motivated to participate. But the program would have run out of money even sooner than it did, with fewer overall cars traded.

If the rebates had been $200, we can imagine that fewer people would have participated, and the program would have ended with money unspent.

Remember your days in calculus: if y = f(x) is defined on some set S, then there is a relative maximum value and sometimes an absolute maximum value along the curve. Right?

I am contending that the price for Cash for Clunkers was set too high. A lower price would have still attracted many participants, indeed MORE participants, since the overall supply of money would have lasted longer.

Do you have a rebuttal for that point?

And of course the rebates were not limited to American manufacturers -- foreign car manufacturers also benefitted.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

I guess the logical thing to do would be to look up, in the big book that lists this stuff, how much incentive we should use to drive sales of cars.

Barring such a book, it would require the best estimation based on the economists working on the project. Obviously they under-estimated the demand. But compare that to the conservative economists who thought it would cause a rain of frogs.

Cite?

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Cite?

I'm going to assume you aren't serious.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I am contending that the price for Cash for Clunkers was set too high. A lower price would have still attracted many participants, indeed MORE participants, since the overall supply of money would have lasted longer.

Do you have a rebuttal for that point?

Yes. Unless you also made this observation when the program was proposed, before the popularity was known, your advice is pretty worthless. I wish I had bought Apple stock when it was $50 a share. Hindsight is 20/20.

[elucidator]

Big problem right there, isn't it? There is no "economics", there is conservative economics, and liberal economics.

For instance, you have the celebrated Koch Brothers offering to fund a chair in Economics at Florida State University, so long as they could pick a reliable academic to reflect and promote their views.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/busines...raises/1168680

There is no conservative physics. No conservative biology, unless you count Creationism as biology, which I don't.

Pick any liberal position on money, wages, etc. and you will find rock-solid academic economists who can prove that it makes perfect sense, based on irrefutable economic facts. And rock-solid academics that will prove it is total nonsense, based on the same irrefutable economic facts.

I'm a mathtard, soon as you wade into the swamp of statistical modeling, my eyes glaze over and I lapse into meditation. I like what Paul Krugman says, it is usually pitched down to my level, and makes sense. But then other equally acclaimed economists will say its all bullshit, based on universally accepted economic "facts".

Or Keynesianism? Is that "accepted" economic orthodoxy, or no? Should I be surprised that an academic economist who's checks are written by the Koch Brothers is skeptical? Is there even any such thing as "accepted economic orthodoxy"?

If someone cites an academic economics paper on "Cash for Clunkers", or school lunches, or bloody well anything, have they proven anything at all?

[John DiFool]

Originally Posted by howye

Well, care to fuckin' enlighten us Chief? I read this message board for other reasons than try to guess what is on Bricker's goddamm mind.

That assumes that there is an actual signal cleverly hidden in all that noise.

[elucidator]

Kinda hard, what with all that flowery rhetoric.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

I'm going to assume you aren't serious.

I'm as serious as you were when you made the claim.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Yes. Unless you also made this observation when the program was proposed, before the popularity was known, your advice is pretty worthless. I wish I had bought Apple stock when it was $50 a share. Hindsight is 20/20.

I did, although not here -- although other posters did make the point here before the extension act was passed, IIRC -- mtgman to name one name that sticks out.

I was not really aware of the program's details until it got underway, so I had no meaningful opportunity to criticize it up front.

But certainly I, and others, made this point before the $2 billion reauthorization bill for the program was passed. That would have been a fine time to lower the price, yes?

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by howye

Well, care to fuckin' enlighten us Chief? I read this message board for other reasons than try to guess what is on Bricker's goddamm mind.

In the future, take the time to actually read what has been posted, or, at least, dial down the personal attacks if you have not.

[ /Moderating ]

[Vaevictis]

Originally Posted by monstro

But the thing is we are right. A liter of soda runs about $2. How many calories is this compared to $1 apple? Not even close, right?

I can buy a 1200 calorie meal for $5 at McDonalds. What in the produce aisle can I buy 1200 calories for $5?

For obtaining vitamins and minerals, the decision is a no-brainer. But for calories? THAT is a no-brainer too. It is a luxury for a person to weigh nutrients over calories. A poor person cannot afford luxuries, by definition.

For $5 you can buy 24 ounces of 80% lean ground beef (the equivalent of 6 quarter pounders worth of meat). 24 ounces of 80% lean has 1848 calories. It is cheaper by far to get the food at the market.

[IntelliQ]

It's a trip to see people actually supportive of government micromanaging our choices on what to eat and drink.

Things certainly have changed in the last few years.

[IntelliQ]

Relative to the OP, here's a quick read on food stamps and the government's inability to quantify who is buying what, and their refusal to share where goods are purchased. (Some of it's classified as trade secrets?)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...od-stamps-buy/

[denquixote]

Here is the problem that I have with your argument. You say that this grocery stocking plan has cost over a million dollars and of course that is an awful lot of money. If we did that in every corner of every big city it would cost 2 or 3 billion dollars, an outrageous sum. But when we get people talking about things like this which are arguably good and bad irrespective of the cost involved we end up making judgments about the merit of the people suggesting the program and completely take our eye off of the other balls that we should be paying more attention. Homophobia, abortion, equitable taxation, oligarchy, the Koch brothers, a Supreme Court that has ruled in favor of the U.S.Chamber of Commerce at every opportunity, Citizen's United, the complete capitulation of every member of the Republican party to Limbaugh and his ilk. Please name one elected Republican in the national spotlight who has something good to say about President Obama.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by denquixote

Please name one elected Republican in the national spotlight who has something good to say about President Obama.

http://www.republicansforobama.org/firstterm

Of course expecting much vocal support this close to the election is a little much, especially when the nominee is from the left wing of the Republican party. When it comes to foreign policy, a lot of Republicans must be wondering if they actually lost. I have a hard time figuring out what President McCain would have done differently on foreign policy. It might as well been called Bush's third term on foreign policy. Obama didn't even replace the Secretary of Defense.

[denquixote]

My hat is off to you, but I was trying to find someone who has to worry about re-election.

[tim314]

Bricker, what's the conservative plan to fight obesity among the poor?

If it's to declare the problem unsolvable, or worse to declare that it doesn't need a solution because it's "their own fault anyway", then I guess that explains why I'm a liberal.

For what it's worth, I agree that just making healthy food more available probably won't be effective, at least not in the short term and without other complementary efforts to encourage healthy eating. People who've been eating unhealthy food for years aren't likely to suddenly reverse old habits. But even if this idea won't work, at least liberals recognize the need to do something.

I do also think that the root cause of why the poor eat a less healthy diet is that healthy food is less available or more expensive. But it's been less available and more expensive for many years, so you also have to contend with the fact that they've been eating this way their whole life, and their parents probably ate this way, and so forth. Just because that's the root cause doesn't mean that eliminating that cause eliminates all those other factors that have accumulated to reinforce this behavior. But we shouldn't just write it off as "They're choosing not to be healthy."

You'll notice I don't use the phrase "It's societies fault", which I think is an inaccurate conservative caricature of liberal thinking. I do think it's not "poor people's fault" that they're eating an unhealthy diet, but ultimately a consequence of their poverty. But I don't want to help them because we (society) did this too them and ought to feel guilty. I want to help them because helping people who are less fortunate is the right thing to do.

I think conservatives also generally claim to believe that helping the less fortunate is the right thing to do (at least those conservatives who wouldn't rather blame the poor for being poor). But they have this idea that the government shouldn't get involved with this. Which would be great if everybody was doing their part to help the poor on their own, but that's not actually happening. It would also be great if everybody would contribute their fair share to keep the local police and fire departments running, but they don't, so it's a good thing we have taxes to collect money to pay for those things. As a liberal, I don't see why helping the poor should be any different.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by tim314

Bricker, what's the conservative plan to fight obesity among the poor?

My plan is to wear a button on my lapel that says, "Lose weight: eat fresh fruits and vegetables!" It probably won't work, but at least I'll be doing something.

Originally Posted by tim314

But even if this idea won't work, at least liberals recognize the need to do something.

I guess that plan makes me a liberal?

[tim314]

Originally Posted by Bricker

My plan is to wear a button on my lapel that says, "Lose weight: eat fresh fruits and vegetables!" It probably won't work, but at least I'll be doing something.

I'm not saying "Doing something that won't work is better than doing nothing." I'm saying "Wanting to do something is better than not wanting to do anything." This particular proposal I agree is flawed, and the right response to that would be to try to come up with better ideas. The wrong response is to throw up our hands and say we shouldn't try to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves. Unfortunately that seems to be the standard conservative response.

[tim314]

To put it another way, I'd say liberals have good goals (e.g., help the poor), and a mix of good and bad proposals to achieve those aims. (You do admit that some social programs are effective at helping the poor, don't you?)

Meanwhile, conservatives don't even seem to care about helping the poor, or consider it hopeless.

If it were actually the case that liberal proposals to help the poor never work you'd have a stronger case that we're better off not trying and saving our money. But that's not the case. If this were a debate on whether this particular proposal will work, I'd be mostly on your side, but you're a far cry from making the case that on the whole the liberal approach ("let's try to help the poor") is inferior to the conservative approach ("the poor can go fuck themselves").

[Dangerosa]

I'm an liberal leaning independent, I've lived in poor neighborhoods without good access to fresh groceries, and I think the idea sucks as well.

But both sides have ideas that suck. And both sides have ideas that work out pretty well. (I was on the "Republican" side of the Stillwater Bridge debate - we've needed that bridge for 40 years - damn the pretty view from the river - and the pollution from the cars sitting in a traffic jam in a valley everyday cannot be good for the environment either - even though I had to be on the same side of an issue as Michelle Bachman). The smoking ban in public places has made my life a lot better, and was a lefty push. Which is why I'll always say I'm an independent - I want to evaluate IDEAS and CANDIDATES as individual units - not as a party line.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Dangerosa

The smoking ban in public places has made my life a lot better, and was a lefty push.

I think this is a good point. The anti-smoking efforts of the last 40 years, from increased taxes, warnings on packages, public smoking restrictions, anti-smoking PSA's and a general push to make smoking a socially disapproved habit has been very successful in reducing smoking and its negative health effects. Every time the government took one of these steps, opponents decried it as more pointless nanny state interference, but over time, the result has been a reduction in smoking.

I see green grocer liberalism the same way; lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth, lots of predictions that it hasn't worked yet, so it will never work. But these are short term views, and social change takes place over the long term. Whether it is health care, social freedom, the environment or any one of a hundred other important issues, conservatives seem to be only concerned with the short term, what has it done for us lately. We on the left know that the inexorable arc of history is toward more progressive social action, which is why we will keep the pressure on.

A wise man once observed, "He is smart; we are right. Sooner or later, he is ours."

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by tim314

I'm not saying "Doing something that won't work is better than doing nothing." I'm saying "Wanting to do something is better than not wanting to do anything." This particular proposal I agree is flawed, and the right response to that would be to try to come up with better ideas. The wrong response is to throw up our hands and say we shouldn't try to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves. Unfortunately that seems to be the standard conservative response.

And unfortunately the standard liberal response seem to be do something that won't work and costs nearly a million dollars.

I'm having trouble deciding which standard response serves us better.

But if I can distance myself from the standard conservatives, I'll say that I'm willing to entertain ideas that may help actually solve this issue.

This one doesn't qualify.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Dangerosa

I'm an liberal leaning independent, I've lived in poor neighborhoods without good access to fresh groceries, and I think the idea sucks as well.

But both sides have ideas that suck. And both sides have ideas that work out pretty well. (I was on the "Republican" side of the Stillwater Bridge debate - we've needed that bridge for 40 years - damn the pretty view from the river - and the pollution from the cars sitting in a traffic jam in a valley everyday cannot be good for the environment either - even though I had to be on the same side of an issue as Michelle Bachman). The smoking ban in public places has made my life a lot better, and was a lefty push. Which is why I'll always say I'm an independent - I want to evaluate IDEAS and CANDIDATES as individual units - not as a party line.

Plus one to this approach. Agreed.

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

I think this is a good point. The anti-smoking efforts of the last 40 years, from increased taxes, warnings on packages, public smoking restrictions, anti-smoking PSA's and a general push to make smoking a socially disapproved habit has been very successful in reducing smoking and its negative health effects. Every time the government took one of these steps, opponents decried it as more pointless nanny state interference, but over time, the result has been a reduction in smoking.

I see green grocer liberalism the same way; lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth, lots of predictions that it hasn't worked yet, so it will never work. But these are short term views, and social change takes place over the long term. Whether it is health care, social freedom, the environment or any one of a hundred other important issues, conservatives seem to be only concerned with the short term, what has it done for us lately. We on the left know that the inexorable arc of history is toward more progressive social action, which is why we will keep the pressure on.

A wise man once observed, "He is smart; we are right. Sooner or later, he is ours."

But it probably won't work while we bemoan the problem, but are two faced on solutions. We DO subsidize the food industry - the types of agriculture in particular which makes cheap processed foods cheap. Then we bemoan the fact that poor people - who lack time and money - prefer foods that are cheap and convenient.

My father worked in the tobacco industry through about 1977. And got out because the decade before 1977 was making life darn tough. There were a lot of jobs lost in tobacco - from sales (which is what he did) to manufacturing to farming. And, in the long term, it worked out pretty well - if you didn't make your living working for Brown and Williamson like he did (and his worked out pretty well - he ended his career selling office supplies - much less health risk).

I've worked for the junk food industry - there are a LOT of jobs in the manufacturer and sales of cheap and convenient food. Until we end the subsidies for agriculture that makes these so cheap, and tax the hell out of the product, like we have with cigarettes, we don't have the guts to do anything other than bemoan the situation we've boxed ourselves into. And we don't. We need the efforts that we are proposing now - better education on nutrition, better school meals to get kids an opportunity to try broccoli who might not see it at home, that sort of thing. But that needs to be done in conjunction with hobbling a sector of the economy, and we won't do that, not now.

[Dangerosa]

Coming back to tobacco for a second, tobacco had an advantage that I'm not certain the junk food industry can completely replicate - they had a growing international market that saved their bacon. Tobacco is in many ways an American business, and American tobacco companies became international tobacco companies. We are really busy exporting our junk food, but I'm not sure that China can't step in and make junk food just as efficiently (more so) for the international market as Frito Lay does. Its an interesting question - can we keep those jobs in Idaho that make high sodium Au Gratin potatoes if we sell fewer of those "vegetables" here in the U.S and more prepackaged crap Au Gratin potatoes in the BRIC? From what I remember on international food sales (and I last worked in it 20 years ago) food sales and food companies are regional and internationalizing it was tough.

[tim314]

Originally Posted by Bricker

And unfortunately the standard liberal response seem to be do something that won't work and costs nearly a million dollars.


I'm having trouble deciding which standard response serves us better.

This is where you lose me. Instead of "This liberal proposal to help the poor is a bad idea" you jump to "liberal ideas to help the poor are pretty much all bad ideas", so much so that maybe we're better off not attempting anything to help the poor.

If all the social programs in place today to help the poor went away, wouldn't the poor be significantly worse off? And if so, surely that indicates that at least some of those programs are having a significant positive impact on the lives of poor people.

As for what to do about this particular problem, while I don't think improving the availability and affordability of healthy foods by itself will make much difference, maybe it would if combined with some program to incentivize poor people to buy those foods. Although I admit I'm not sure what's the best form for such a program to take.

As to where we get the millions of dollars to pay for it, that's a much easier problem, one which we liberals have already solved. We can take the money from the rich, they have loads of it!

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Bricker

But if I can distance myself from the standard conservatives, I'll say that I'm willing to entertain ideas that may help actually solve this issue.

This one doesn't qualify.

I think a better idea would be to make cooking classes mandatory in junior high. What good does it do to have access to healthy ingredients if you don't know how to prepare them? When you are dealing with households where no one knows how to cook, then you are solving the wrong problem to give them access to fresh vegetables.

To eat healthy you don't need fresh fruits and vegetables. Up until 50 years ago, no one had access to fresh fruit and vegetables all year around. Frozen and canned foods are healthy enough. A plate of rice and beans is healthier than junk food, but someone needs to know how to cook rice and beans.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

I think this is a good point. The anti-smoking efforts of the last 40 years, from increased taxes, warnings on packages, public smoking restrictions, anti-smoking PSA's and a general push to make smoking a socially disapproved habit has been very successful in reducing smoking and its negative health effects. Every time the government took one of these steps, opponents decried it as more pointless nanny state interference, but over time, the result has been a reduction in smoking.

The problem is that anti-smoking crusades are a livelihood for many people. They don't disband and go away when all the rational goals have been achieved. The forbid outdoor smoking without any proven health risks and now they are attacking third hand smoking. They don't want people to smoke at home because they will come into work with the smell of smoke on their clothes.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

I think a better idea would be to make cooking classes mandatory in junior high. What good does it do to have access to healthy ingredients if you don't know how to prepare them? When you are dealing with households where no one knows how to cook, then you are solving the wrong problem to give them access to fresh vegetables.

Problem: Lots and lots of people--especially poor people--have no tools to cook with in the first place.

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by Frylock

Problem: Lots and lots of people--especially poor people--have no tools to cook with in the first place.

This is an issue without a single root cause. It has many.

• Unhealthy food is cheap (fixable, but requires government regulation)
• Unhealthy food is convenient (fixable, but requires government regulation past where I'd be comfortable, and I don't have philosophical issues with regulation)
• Unhealthy food tastes better to a lot of people than healthy food (no one is fixing that)
• People don't have access to healthy food (what this initiative tries to solve, but the other issues are bigger)
• People don't have the knowledge to cook healthy food (what middle school home ec and community outreach tries to solve)
• People don't have the tools to cook (not many people trying to solve that, though its solvable with things like a toaster oven and a crockpot and a hotplate - all fairly inexpensive tools).
• People don't have exposure to healthy food (which is where those school lunch initiatives come in)

I think the tool problem is small. I think the bigger issue is cost, convenience and taste. The taste thing can be addressed partially through exposure, but my 14 year old, who gets plenty of exposure to healthy food, would MUCH rather eat cheetos and coke than grab a banana. Education, exposure and access - the causes we are willing to address, aren't going to really get us much farther than we are now - a little bit - but not enough to call the issue solved.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

I think a better idea would be to make cooking classes mandatory in junior high. What good does it do to have access to healthy ingredients if you don't know how to prepare them? When you are dealing with households where no one knows how to cook, then you are solving the wrong problem to give them access to fresh vegetables.

To eat healthy you don't need fresh fruits and vegetables. Up until 50 years ago, no one had access to fresh fruit and vegetables all year around. Frozen and canned foods are healthy enough. A plate of rice and beans is healthier than junk food, but someone needs to know how to cook rice and beans.

Cooking classes that include nutrition information. Yes, good idea.

[MaxTheVool]

Since a key issue here seems to be whether the actual plan under discussion is a stupid one, I want to restate something I said earlier:

Originally Posted by me

...there's also a difference between an attitude of "hey, I've got this brilliant idea, let's put fresh fruit in 7-11s, why, this is guaranteed to solve obesity, how could it possibly fail!! I'm a genius!" and an attitude of "well, obesity is a serious issue, so let's take some money and attempt to solve it in a way that is similar to methods that we know have failed in the past, but tweaked by adding some private-public partnership and some education (or whatever) and see what happens... even if it fails we'll at least have learned something about how to tackle this troubling issue". Do I know that the people who designed this campaign had the second attitude rather than the first? I have no idea... but I don't think Bricker does either.

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

Since a key issue here seems to be whether the actual plan under discussion is a stupid one, I want to restate something I said earlier:

You could have done a lot of that work without the program by asking.

A close friend of mine is on the board of an inner city co-op. The co-op is in a good neighborhood for co-ops - a lot of fairly highly educated hippies (or the children of hippies) willing to spend more for whole foods and healthy groceries. But its also butts up against a neighborhood that is anything but white and highly educated. And the co-op has made a true effort to bring healthy food into the lives of those people - you are talking about a bunch of liberals who truly WANT to help the poor. They educate. They have cooking classes. They carry non-organic produce because its cheaper - and then subsidize it. They take WIC.

The immigrant population is fine with it and the co-op does a lot of business with them. They aren't used to the junk anyway. But the rest of the neighborhood rejects it. Not only aren't they particularly interested from a taste/time standpoint - they find the efforts patronizing and intrusive.

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by Dangerosa

You could have done a lot of that work without the program by asking.

A close friend of mine is on the board of an inner city co-op. The co-op is in a good neighborhood for co-ops - a lot of fairly highly educated hippies (or the children of hippies) willing to spend more for whole foods and healthy groceries. But its also butts up against a neighborhood that is anything but white and highly educated. And the co-op has made a true effort to bring healthy food into the lives of those people - you are talking about a bunch of liberals who truly WANT to help the poor. They educate. They have cooking classes. They carry non-organic produce because its cheaper - and then subsidize it. They take WIC.

The immigrant population is fine with it and the co-op does a lot of business with them. They aren't used to the junk anyway. But the rest of the neighborhood rejects it. Not only aren't they particularly interested from a taste/time standpoint - they find the efforts patronizing and intrusive.

But that's not really what I'm saying.

Bricker's version of the liberal mindset that conceived of this plan seems to be "hey, we'll just use our vast governmental powers to spend Bricker's tax money and make fresh fruit available in inner cities, and hey, there's no way that that won't immediately reduce obesity and the birds will sing and the rainbows will shine down and everyone will be happy". Which seems at least somewhat in accord with what you're saying. But the key question for me is whether that sort of naive attitude was really at work, or whether (far more likely in my opinion) it was something more like "well, this is a challenging issue, and here are various studies and previous experiments people have tried, which have been less than perfectly successful, and here are the things we're going to do differently, and here are the various ways we're monitoring what's going on so that we can learn from what happened and hopefully do a better job next time we (or someone else) tries something like this".

If the program cost a million dollars and had zero tangible outcome but was implemented by responsible and intelligent people with the second attitude I describe, as long as they don't then turn around and say "whaaaa! it didn't work! give us 10 times as much money and we'll distribute 10 times as much fresh fruit, and this time it will DEFINITELY work" or something ridiculous like that, I have no problem with the program having been tried.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Frylock

Problem: Lots and lots of people--especially poor people--have no tools to cook with in the first place.

There are some appliances that are commonplace in the home regardless of income level. These appliances are refrigerators, cooking appliances (which includes the standard oven with stove-top burners, separate stove and ovens, and toaster ovens), and color televisions. The percent of households that have them are as follows:

Refrigerator 99.9%
Cooking appliance 99.7%
Color television 98.9%

http://205.254.135.7/emeu/recs/appli...ppliances.html

Are you talking about people that don't own a pot? What is the point in giving fresh vegetables to people who don't have a pot to cook them in?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

But that's not really what I'm saying.

Bricker's version of the liberal mindset that conceived of this plan seems to be "hey, we'll just use our vast governmental powers to spend Bricker's tax money and make fresh fruit available in inner cities, and hey, there's no way that that won't immediately reduce obesity and the birds will sing and the rainbows will shine down and everyone will be happy". Which seems at least somewhat in accord with what you're saying. But the key question for me is whether that sort of naive attitude was really at work, or whether (far more likely in my opinion) it was something more like "well, this is a challenging issue, and here are various studies and previous experiments people have tried, which have been less than perfectly successful, and here are the things we're going to do differently, and here are the various ways we're monitoring what's going on so that we can learn from what happened and hopefully do a better job next time we (or someone else) tries something like this".

If the program cost a million dollars and had zero tangible outcome but was implemented by responsible and intelligent people with the second attitude I describe, as long as they don't then turn around and say "whaaaa! it didn't work! give us 10 times as much money and we'll distribute 10 times as much fresh fruit, and this time it will DEFINITELY work" or something ridiculous like that, I have no problem with the program having been tried.

What is the distinction between this program and the previous failed programs? That is, your theory is that these people said, "Here are the things we're going to do differently..."

What are those things?

[Farmer Jane]

Slate is owned by WaPo but hardly conservative.

Do poor people eat badly because of limited options or personal preference?

A few years ago, the chef and organic pioneer Alice Waters did a spin on 60 Minutes that managed to showcase exactly why foodies get branded as elitist. “Some people want to buy Nikes, two pairs,” she said in a casual moment at a farmers’ market. “And some people want to eat Bronx grapes and nourish themselves.”

This was vintage foodie-ism, a smug and irritating noblesse oblige transposed onto a discussion of our meals. That didn’t change the fact that much of everything else Waters said was right: The way we eat is making us sick; it’s a good idea for kids to learn to cook; even, in a more formal moment, “good food should be a right and not a privilege.” But her aside about sneakers made it unlikely that anyone not yet onboard with Waters would listen to her in the first place.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Farmer Jane

Slate is owned by WaPo but hardly conservative.

Do poor people eat badly because of limited options or personal preference?

I also liked the link to the article encouraging people to learn to cook.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health...students_.html

I would have a got a lot more use out of a cooking class than I did out of metal shop.

I also liked the part where they talked about how 'food desert' classification tended to overemphasize supermarkets over green grocers and farmer's markets.

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by Bricker

What is the distinction between this program and the previous failed programs? That is, your theory is that these people said, "Here are the things we're going to do differently..."

What are those things?

Well, (a) as mentioned earlier, I emailed the director of the program in Philadelphia, hoping to ask her, and got no response, and (b) aside from that I have no idea.

It seems to me, however, that you are the one making the fairly specific claim. You are claiming that there was sufficient evidence that this program, as implemented, would not work; and that the fact that it was implemented anyhow is evidence of liberal stupidity. In other words, you are claiming that the program is sufficiently similar to the ones mentioned in the studies you linked to that it could be presumed to be guaranteed to fail. Which is why I brought up the issue of being an expert in sociology and environmental community studies or whatever the heck field of expertise it is that one would need to really evaluate these things. I mean, it's entirely possible that a truly IDENTICAL program could be reasonably expected to have radically different outcomes due to the demographics of the community in which the program was being implemented, or other factors that make Philadelphia in 2012 different from some other city in some other year. Beats me.

But to me the larger issue is this: I think we both agree that there are times when the government should spend taxpayer money to try to address issues in society. I'm also willing to concede that, overall, the generically liberal philosophy will do so more often. That is, if there was a magic button that could be pressed to instantly cure childhood obesity across the US with a 100% success rate and cost $50,000, all but the most caricatured of extreme conservatives would agree to spend that money, whereas if there was a program that cost 1000 times that and seemed likely to maybe help the situation some, then you might find something that some, but not all, liberals supported, and few conservatives supported. And that's fine. Reasonable people are supposed to disagree about things, let the marketplace of ideas decide, etc.

And without actually having access to the discussions and proposals that let up to this Philly plan, I feel like I can't really say where on the spectrum it lies. It's certainly possible that it will, in the fullness of time, be proven to have absolutely no positive effect whatsoever, but was still, given the information that was available at the time it was begun, a reasonable thing to attempt. It's also possible that it was in fact a la la liberal fantasy with absolutely no substantiation or due diligence put in ahead of time, and your criticisms are well founded. But in neither case does its existence somehow provide damning evidence for a fatal flaw in liberal philosophy in general.

Liberal philosophy, like conservative philosophy, has its strengths and its weaknesses, and you could probably make a reasonable case that one of the weaknesses of liberal philosophy is that it's more likely than conservative philosophy to go overboard on spending money on plans like this without sufficiently solid justification... but by the same ticket, one of the weaknesses of conservative philosophy is refusing to consider plans like this even when they deserve to be tried.

[New Deal Democrat]

Liberals make mistakes. Nevertheless, I think the United States is a better country - all things considered - than it was in 1900. I also believe that most of the improvement has been advanced by liberals and opposed by conservatives.