Yet for some reason you left it to others to provide that link. The article in question actually makes a somewhat different interpretation of the present effort than you do.
As for the earlier studies, thanks, I’ll have a look.
This was exactly the case with our large cafeteria at work. People bitched and moaned and complained and wrote letters saying how much they wanted “healthy choices” - garden salads and pita bread sandwiches, instead of taco salad, lasagna, and Polish sausage. And yet when the healthy choices came out, they ended up almost entirely being tossed, due to no one actually buying them, despite a massive advertising campaign. I know the manager of the independent company who runs our cafeteria, and she said the same thing happens at all their locations - people pay lip service to being healthy, and demand that “the authorities” (be it government or business) save them from themselves - but there’s only so much you can do when the “will to improve” is actually a “will o’ the wisp.”
The some reason? I read the article on my Washington Post iPhone App. I posted the thread using Tapatalk. I couldn’t see a way to link to the study because the Washington Post iPhone App does not expose the URL of the stories.
Yes, a “somewhat different interpretation” which boils down to "maybe this will be different.
But seriously: does anyone reading this thread actually believe that?
The susidy is for corn as fuel. It has actually caused increases in the cost of corn as food. Corn for ethanol actually surpassed Corn for food the last time I checked.
I’ll concede that banning unhealthy foods is a well intentioned liberal idea that doesn’t work in real life.
I won’t concede that taxing them to make them less financially appealing is a bad idea though. I also won’t concede that subsidizing healthier foods to bring them more in line with the cost of cheap unhealthy foods is necessarily a bad idea, either.
Is that enough of a compromise? I’m not asking you to agree, just hoping it’s enough to start talking about other well intentioned liberal ideas that don’t work in real life.
Will you concede that conservatives also have well intentioned ideas that don’t actually work? One example is the war on drugs. Another is laissez-faire capitalism. Another is “teaching the debate” with regard to evolution in biology classes.
More than a “they do it to!” argument, I’m trying to point out that since you distinguished liberals from conservatives on this particular point, and rested your argument on this particular premise, that if you can be convinced that there is in fact no greater tendency for liberals to think this way over conservatives you might reevaluate your personal support for conservative politics. I know there is more than a little of the typical Republican agenda you disagree with.
I remember reading an interesting article by Theodore Dalrymple on this topic.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212281013855148.html
Believe what, exactly? That within a short period of time there will be an observable decrease in BMI in inner-city Philadelphia neighborhoods, because of this program? Probably not, but if as your cite says this effort is bigger and different from those before, why not? For a city the size of Philly, it may be worth $900K just to seed the beginning of a shift in some folks’ relationships with food. I’m not necessarily making that argument, but it’s not a patently crazy one. The government wastes more money on schemes of less merit every day. This is a little droplet of funding, set against vastly larger streams of tax money routinely spent to improve the bottom line of mega-farms, food processors and fast-food chains profiting from unhealthy eating.
truth
Corn has been subsidized on both grounds.
It’s true that the (mostly) just-ended ethanol subsidy (which included, but was not limited to, price supports for corn ethanol) contributed to the suppression of corn’s commodity price overall, and therefore the attractiveness of HFCS to food processors, because more corn was grown than could possibly be consumed as ethanol. (The items you might have seen very recently about HFCS growing more expensive are making a comparison to these historical lows, not to what such a product might have cost in a market not shaped by decades of subsidies.)
Anyway, there are still billions of federal dollars annually going to subsidies for corn, and a large portion of that will ultimately be for feed for meat and dairy production.
Thanks.
Unless they’re paying for it with foodstamps, of course,
Doesn’t even have to be good . . . or consistent.
CMC fnord!
My coworkers and I made a conscious choice to use friendly social pressure to remind each other about lunch choices.
But then again, working in a company that serves the healthcare market we are probably more likely as individuals to pay attention to our diets.
The people who we have hired that are overweight tend to lose weight quickly, people are not jerks about it but the social pressure is defiantly there to make better choices.
I don’t think people realize that an extra slice of cheese each day at work adds up to the equivalent of 7lbs of fat in one work year.
Of course obesity is a complex problem, and we are still obsessed with weight while ignoring cardio health.
It doesn’t help that public policy has prohibited students from bicycling to school in many areas and parents are so paranoid of child abduction that they ignore the real risk of a sedentary lifestyle.
I do not like that these project tend to be wrapped in pseudoscience about local organic, raw, foods, and previous posters are correct that lentils and legumes are a better idea than high calorie fruits. But we are at a point like we were with smoking in the 50’s and it will take a while before all the pieces are in place to move people forward.
I was having lunch at the famous Pikes place market here a while back and was amazed how many people were winded by walking up a single flight of stairs.
Warning the following link is a PDF.
[
](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_249.pdf)
Yet we watch on average of 4 hours of TV, trading a decade of reduced life span to watch dancing with stars.
OK.
Cash for Clunkers.
Absolutely conceded, although I don’t agree with two of your examples, for different reasons.
Laissez-faire capitalism works just fine, in that it appropriately lets people be free to make their own destiny. If it delivers individual results that seem sad, that’s like saying evolution “doesn’t work” because the mastodon died off.
“Teaching the debate” works reasonably well, given that the goal is to foster doubt about evolution. It’s a poor idea to adopt, for that reason, but it’s not because it doesn’t do what proponents wish it to do.
Yes, that’s both a true observation and a fair argument.
But what I am trying to point out is that the board is filled with people who won’t give an inch on any claim. You craft arguments and direct them at me, and I concede the good points you make.
Why, when other posters spew forth a litany of unrestrained error about conservatives, aren’t they the target of similar reasoning?
And don’t think governments won’t increasingly consider this option, ostensibly to improve health but in reality mostly to raise cash to spend on things other than health care. I’ll help vote out politicians who try to pull this, or maybe support laws preventing markedly obese politicians from running for office (look out, Chris Christie).
Unless this represents brain farting for effect, it’s another inane example of trying to shoot down concerns because they’re not “important” enough. “How can you worry about X, when you should be worrying about Y instead?”
You solve the problem of child abuse, and I won’t yell at you for not working to obtain peace in the Middle East. 
Setting aside the rest of your post, which I think is pretty good, even though I’m a reasonably healthy eater and seriously into physical fitness now, I would be loathe to work at a place where people were coming up and using “social pressure” to comment on my food, either quantity or quality. In fact, I can not see that going very well at all; it would probably result in me telling them to mind their own damn business, or throwing stones at their glass houses.
When you redefine “success” as “failure,” nothing can succeed. Cash for Clunkers sold a lot of cars, hombre, and you’re in denial to suggest otherwise.
I remember cash for clunkers coinciding with a higher average fuel economy for cars on the road, and growth in the auto industry (although admittedly at a cost of lower market share for American manufacturers) for negligible cost.
Did you oppose the program? If I had any serious problems with the program, it would be that foreign automakers weren’t excluded from the deal. They benefited more than American makers did, because they made cars more people wanted. It was a tough call to make, and I’ll concede that that particular decision (not to exclude foreign makers) was in error. But the program in general? No way. It got some of the worst polluting cars off the road and improved the average fuel economy of cars on the road by something like 2%, for less than 2billion net cost to the taxpayers. Big success, in terms liberals value.
The Laissez-faire approach to banking regulations is largely blamed for the recent economic crisis. It doesn’t work as well as an economic system that blends capitalism with socialist regulation. People acting in their own economic self interest will literally enslave other people unless stopped by legal (sometimes literal!) force, yet libertarians (who in this case are allied with conservatives) routinely attack any and all economic regulations, apparently still convinced that it’s the way to keep a healthy economy! I don’t believe the libertarians actually intend for wealth to be concentrated into the hands of a few elite overlords, but that is the consequence of a policy of complete non-intervention in the economy.
As for teaching the debate, I’ll concede your point. It’s not an example of a policy that “doesn’t work.”
I can’t speak for anyone else, so I won’t answer that except to say that not everyone is able or willing to objectively evaluate their own opinions.
Do you agree in general with the concept of public efforts to reduce obesity rates? Do you see it as a public health burden, the cost of which is partially borne by society in general, not just individuals?
Liberal hypocrisy? Could that be it?
Well, you know, that’s just like evolution causing the mastodon to die out. So long as the ideological process is adhered to, the results don’t matter.
Cash for clunkers is the broken window fallicy writ large.
Additonally, there are numerous studies out there that conclude cash for clunkers was a loser. All that it did was transfer some tax money to new car buyers who pushed up or pushed back their purchases.
I will post cites when i am at a real computer, not on my phone.
Slee