Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Farm Subsidies

ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 7:28:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Some farm subsidies should definitely be dropped. The corn, meat, and dairy subsidies are incredibly harmful for our health and the animals.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 7:29:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The corn subsidy is the one I have a particular vendetta against. It distorts the market so the unhealthy foods are made cheaper, which directly contributes to our obesity problem.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 7:35:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 7:29:04 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
The corn subsidy is the one I have a particular vendetta against. It distorts the market so the unhealthy foods are made cheaper, which directly contributes to our obesity problem.

Yeah. The problem is that farm subsidies are a sacred cow, I would be really shocked if they were ever cut. A few months ago the republicans in the house didn't pass "the farm bill" and there was an enormous uproar. There was pretty much no discussion I saw about the merits of farm subsidies, and no questioning of *why* the bill is always unquestionably passed. My understanding was that the republicans always intended to pass it anyway, just a bit differently. It's kind of sad because you're right. I remember a while ago Skep made a really good post on farm subsidies and why they're bad but I couldn't find it.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 7:35:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 7:29:04 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
The corn subsidy is the one I have a particular vendetta against. It distorts the market so the unhealthy foods are made cheaper, which directly contributes to our obesity problem.

Regarding both posts, would you care to explain more? Are you suggesting that corn is blanketly (made up word to mean objectively, similar to a blanket statement) unhealthy?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 7:37:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 7:35:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:29:04 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
The corn subsidy is the one I have a particular vendetta against. It distorts the market so the unhealthy foods are made cheaper, which directly contributes to our obesity problem.

Regarding both posts, would you care to explain more? Are you suggesting that corn is blanketly (made up word to mean objectively, similar to a blanket statement) unhealthy?

I think he's talking about corn syrup mostly
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 7:42:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 7:37:39 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:35:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:29:04 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
The corn subsidy is the one I have a particular vendetta against. It distorts the market so the unhealthy foods are made cheaper, which directly contributes to our obesity problem.

Regarding both posts, would you care to explain more? Are you suggesting that corn is blanketly (made up word to mean objectively, similar to a blanket statement) unhealthy?

I think he's talking about corn syrup mostly

I don't think there is an issue with HFC inherently, beyond over consumption. Most sugar is 50/50 between fructose and glucose, while HFC is 55/45. It is not a significant difference.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Sugar is a requirement to survive, but the issue comes from over consumption. I'd hardly blame the sugar for that. That would be like blaming water for when people OD on water.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 7:45:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I haven't delved too deep into the current Farm subsidies, but in general, I'm supportive of the concept of subsidies for certain industries, and farming is definitely one that I support.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 7:49:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 7:45:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I haven't delved too deep into the current Farm subsidies, but in general, I'm supportive of the concept of subsidies for certain industries, and farming is definitely one that I support.

One of the main reasons I support it is because of its importance for true sovereignty. While trade is definitely an important thing and does help lower prices, it is important to not become too dependent upon other nations, since you never know if they will stay allies . If other nations have strong trade ties, that gives them more power in sanctions, should they decide that they don't like what you are doing. To maintain true sovereignty, a balance needs to be reached where you maintain some power against sanctions, but still engage in sufficient trade to allow your people to prosper.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 7:53:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 7:42:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:37:39 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:35:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:29:04 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
The corn subsidy is the one I have a particular vendetta against. It distorts the market so the unhealthy foods are made cheaper, which directly contributes to our obesity problem.

Regarding both posts, would you care to explain more? Are you suggesting that corn is blanketly (made up word to mean objectively, similar to a blanket statement) unhealthy?

I think he's talking about corn syrup mostly

I don't think there is an issue with HFC inherently, beyond over consumption. Most sugar is 50/50 between fructose and glucose, while HFC is 55/45. It is not a significant difference.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Sugar is a requirement to survive, but the issue comes from over consumption. I'd hardly blame the sugar for that. That would be like blaming water for when people OD on water.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Maybe you're right. I don't know too much about this at all other than a public consensus that corn syrup is bad but that definitely doesn't make it true. I'll read up on it more when I'm not procrastinating on homework
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 8:05:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 7:53:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:42:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:37:39 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:35:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:29:04 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
The corn subsidy is the one I have a particular vendetta against. It distorts the market so the unhealthy foods are made cheaper, which directly contributes to our obesity problem.

Regarding both posts, would you care to explain more? Are you suggesting that corn is blanketly (made up word to mean objectively, similar to a blanket statement) unhealthy?

I think he's talking about corn syrup mostly

I don't think there is an issue with HFC inherently, beyond over consumption. Most sugar is 50/50 between fructose and glucose, while HFC is 55/45. It is not a significant difference.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Sugar is a requirement to survive, but the issue comes from over consumption. I'd hardly blame the sugar for that. That would be like blaming water for when people OD on water.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Maybe you're right. I don't know too much about this at all other than a public consensus that corn syrup is bad but that definitely doesn't make it true. I'll read up on it more when I'm not procrastinating on homework

The only compelling thing that I've heard (and I'm not well versed by any means) is that the subsidies make the sugar so cheap, that it makes it too easy to get way too much to be healthy. It would be like is something made soda cost only $0.10 a gallon. The laws of supply and demand say that if the cost is dropped, demand will increase. And if it increases to too high of a level, health concerns (with the sugar) arise.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 8:20:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 7:42:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:37:39 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:35:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:29:04 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
The corn subsidy is the one I have a particular vendetta against. It distorts the market so the unhealthy foods are made cheaper, which directly contributes to our obesity problem.

Regarding both posts, would you care to explain more? Are you suggesting that corn is blanketly (made up word to mean objectively, similar to a blanket statement) unhealthy?

I think he's talking about corn syrup mostly

I don't think there is an issue with HFC inherently, beyond over consumption. Most sugar is 50/50 between fructose and glucose, while HFC is 55/45. It is not a significant difference.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Sugar is a requirement to survive, but the issue comes from over consumption. I'd hardly blame the sugar for that. That would be like blaming water for when people OD on water.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Right, and the subsidies encourage drastic overconsumption by making it significantly cheaper than it should be. The same problem goes with the meat and dairy- the subsidies lead to overconsumption.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 8:24:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 8:20:01 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:42:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:37:39 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:35:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:29:04 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
The corn subsidy is the one I have a particular vendetta against. It distorts the market so the unhealthy foods are made cheaper, which directly contributes to our obesity problem.

Regarding both posts, would you care to explain more? Are you suggesting that corn is blanketly (made up word to mean objectively, similar to a blanket statement) unhealthy?

I think he's talking about corn syrup mostly

I don't think there is an issue with HFC inherently, beyond over consumption. Most sugar is 50/50 between fructose and glucose, while HFC is 55/45. It is not a significant difference.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Sugar is a requirement to survive, but the issue comes from over consumption. I'd hardly blame the sugar for that. That would be like blaming water for when people OD on water.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Right, and the subsidies encourage drastic overconsumption by making it significantly cheaper than it should be. The same problem goes with the meat and dairy- the subsidies lead to overconsumption.

Should the government regulate the consumption rate of food by making it (or allowing it to be) more expensive (which undoubtedly harms the poor and working class far more than the wealthy, who can over consume all they want) or should the government regulate on the back end? You can get your needed food for cheap, but can't get more than that. Or dedicate resources to helping people actually learn the importance of healthy diets in school so they can take it with them as they grow?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 8:28:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 8:24:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:20:01 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:42:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:37:39 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:35:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:29:04 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
The corn subsidy is the one I have a particular vendetta against. It distorts the market so the unhealthy foods are made cheaper, which directly contributes to our obesity problem.

Regarding both posts, would you care to explain more? Are you suggesting that corn is blanketly (made up word to mean objectively, similar to a blanket statement) unhealthy?

I think he's talking about corn syrup mostly

I don't think there is an issue with HFC inherently, beyond over consumption. Most sugar is 50/50 between fructose and glucose, while HFC is 55/45. It is not a significant difference.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Sugar is a requirement to survive, but the issue comes from over consumption. I'd hardly blame the sugar for that. That would be like blaming water for when people OD on water.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Right, and the subsidies encourage drastic overconsumption by making it significantly cheaper than it should be. The same problem goes with the meat and dairy- the subsidies lead to overconsumption.

Should the government regulate the consumption rate of food by making it (or allowing it to be) more expensive (which undoubtedly harms the poor and working class far more than the wealthy, who can over consume all they want) or should the government regulate on the back end? You can get your needed food for cheap, but can't get more than that. Or dedicate resources to helping people actually learn the importance of healthy diets in school so they can take it with them as they grow?

This really isn't the government inflating prices, but removing it's deflation of prices. This would likely encourage more market lowering of prices for the healthier foods that currently have the unfair disadvantage of no subsidies.

That being said, I did see an interesting proposal for a consumption tax to replace income and corporate taxes which would be structured to be more progressive (basic necessities wouldn't be taxed).
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 8:32:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 7:29:04 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
The corn subsidy is the one I have a particular vendetta against. It distorts the market so the unhealthy foods are made cheaper, which directly contributes to our obesity problem.

It's actually the tariffs on imported sugar that are the reason for HFCS in the United States, but the fact that corn is also heavily subsidized certainly does complicate things further. Blame the floridian sugar industry (the agricultural lobby that makes imported sugar impractical for, say, Coca Cola to use instead of HFCS). It's their fault.
Tsar of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 8:35:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 8:28:24 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:24:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:20:01 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:42:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:37:39 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:35:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:29:04 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
The corn subsidy is the one I have a particular vendetta against. It distorts the market so the unhealthy foods are made cheaper, which directly contributes to our obesity problem.

Regarding both posts, would you care to explain more? Are you suggesting that corn is blanketly (made up word to mean objectively, similar to a blanket statement) unhealthy?

I think he's talking about corn syrup mostly

I don't think there is an issue with HFC inherently, beyond over consumption. Most sugar is 50/50 between fructose and glucose, while HFC is 55/45. It is not a significant difference.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Sugar is a requirement to survive, but the issue comes from over consumption. I'd hardly blame the sugar for that. That would be like blaming water for when people OD on water.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Right, and the subsidies encourage drastic overconsumption by making it significantly cheaper than it should be. The same problem goes with the meat and dairy- the subsidies lead to overconsumption.

Should the government regulate the consumption rate of food by making it (or allowing it to be) more expensive (which undoubtedly harms the poor and working class far more than the wealthy, who can over consume all they want) or should the government regulate on the back end? You can get your needed food for cheap, but can't get more than that. Or dedicate resources to helping people actually learn the importance of healthy diets in school so they can take it with them as they grow?

This really isn't the government inflating prices, but removing it's deflation of prices. This would likely encourage more market lowering of prices for the healthier foods that currently have the unfair disadvantage of no subsidies.

As already said (and I have not seen anyone argue against it in this thread) the "unhealthiness" is due to the lower prices causing over consumption. It is not from the product being unhealthy on its own. Therefore, those "healthier" foods that you talk about, if they become more economic (in comparison), that will make them more likely to be over consumed and thus they can become the "unhealthy" foods.

A 12 oz Coke has 39 grams of sugar. A 12 oz glass of Apply Juice has 40.5 grams of sugar (granted, the AG has other things of value that the Coke doesn't). The over consumption of either is going to be unhealthy.


That being said, I did see an interesting proposal for a consumption tax to replace income and corporate taxes which would be structured to be more progressive (basic necessities wouldn't be taxed).

Of those that I've seen, they all require extremely complex tax codes to go over everything you buy. Think of if every single family had to do their taxes as if they owned a small business, or risk grossly over paying their taxes.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 8:36:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 8:32:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:29:04 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
The corn subsidy is the one I have a particular vendetta against. It distorts the market so the unhealthy foods are made cheaper, which directly contributes to our obesity problem.

It's actually the tariffs on imported sugar that are the reason for HFCS in the United States, but the fact that corn is also heavily subsidized certainly does complicate things further. Blame the floridian sugar industry (the agricultural lobby that makes imported sugar impractical for, say, Coca Cola to use instead of HFCS). It's their fault.

But it is also clear, from our growing waste lines, that we are producing more than enough sugar for ourselves, so something limiting supply is not such a bad thing.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 8:42:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 8:36:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:32:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:29:04 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
The corn subsidy is the one I have a particular vendetta against. It distorts the market so the unhealthy foods are made cheaper, which directly contributes to our obesity problem.

It's actually the tariffs on imported sugar that are the reason for HFCS in the United States, but the fact that corn is also heavily subsidized certainly does complicate things further. Blame the floridian sugar industry (the agricultural lobby that makes imported sugar impractical for, say, Coca Cola to use instead of HFCS). It's their fault.

But it is also clear, from our growing waste lines, that we are producing more than enough sugar for ourselves, so something limiting supply is not such a bad thing.

Waste lines? Explain.
Tsar of DDO
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 8:50:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 8:35:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:28:24 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:24:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:20:01 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:42:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:37:39 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:35:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:29:04 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
The corn subsidy is the one I have a particular vendetta against. It distorts the market so the unhealthy foods are made cheaper, which directly contributes to our obesity problem.

Regarding both posts, would you care to explain more? Are you suggesting that corn is blanketly (made up word to mean objectively, similar to a blanket statement) unhealthy?

I think he's talking about corn syrup mostly

I don't think there is an issue with HFC inherently, beyond over consumption. Most sugar is 50/50 between fructose and glucose, while HFC is 55/45. It is not a significant difference.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Sugar is a requirement to survive, but the issue comes from over consumption. I'd hardly blame the sugar for that. That would be like blaming water for when people OD on water.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Right, and the subsidies encourage drastic overconsumption by making it significantly cheaper than it should be. The same problem goes with the meat and dairy- the subsidies lead to overconsumption.

Should the government regulate the consumption rate of food by making it (or allowing it to be) more expensive (which undoubtedly harms the poor and working class far more than the wealthy, who can over consume all they want) or should the government regulate on the back end? You can get your needed food for cheap, but can't get more than that. Or dedicate resources to helping people actually learn the importance of healthy diets in school so they can take it with them as they grow?

This really isn't the government inflating prices, but removing it's deflation of prices. This would likely encourage more market lowering of prices for the healthier foods that currently have the unfair disadvantage of no subsidies.

As already said (and I have not seen anyone argue against it in this thread) the "unhealthiness" is due to the lower prices causing over consumption. It is not from the product being unhealthy on its own. Therefore, those "healthier" foods that you talk about, if they become more economic (in comparison), that will make them more likely to be over consumed and thus they can become the "unhealthy" foods.

A 12 oz Coke has 39 grams of sugar. A 12 oz glass of Apply Juice has 40.5 grams of sugar (granted, the AG has other things of value that the Coke doesn't). The over consumption of either is going to be unhealthy.

Are you saying that naturally increased consumption of healthier foods likes vegetables by removing subsidies on things like corn would be just as bad as the current overconsumption of sugar and corn syrup? It seems pretty clear that it would lead to an overall healthier country, it would decrease the severity of the obesity epidemic to a certain extent, and it would reduce the health gap between wealthy and poor people.

To go back to your example of coke and apple juice, assume that a person drinks a coke five nights a week, and treats himself over the weekend to more expensive apple juice. Would it not be healthier to have those two switched?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 8:53:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 8:42:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:36:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:32:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:29:04 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
The corn subsidy is the one I have a particular vendetta against. It distorts the market so the unhealthy foods are made cheaper, which directly contributes to our obesity problem.

It's actually the tariffs on imported sugar that are the reason for HFCS in the United States, but the fact that corn is also heavily subsidized certainly does complicate things further. Blame the floridian sugar industry (the agricultural lobby that makes imported sugar impractical for, say, Coca Cola to use instead of HFCS). It's their fault.

But it is also clear, from our growing waste lines, that we are producing more than enough sugar for ourselves, so something limiting supply is not such a bad thing.

Waste lines? Explain.

waist*
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 9:01:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 8:53:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:42:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:36:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:32:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:29:04 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
The corn subsidy is the one I have a particular vendetta against. It distorts the market so the unhealthy foods are made cheaper, which directly contributes to our obesity problem.

It's actually the tariffs on imported sugar that are the reason for HFCS in the United States, but the fact that corn is also heavily subsidized certainly does complicate things further. Blame the floridian sugar industry (the agricultural lobby that makes imported sugar impractical for, say, Coca Cola to use instead of HFCS). It's their fault.

But it is also clear, from our growing waste lines, that we are producing more than enough sugar for ourselves, so something limiting supply is not such a bad thing.

Waste lines? Explain.

waist*

When I'm talking about sugar, I'm talking about C12H22O11 (white sugar). I'm opposing HFCS, the chemical formula for which I don't know off the top of my head.

The issue is that we're using the wrong kind of sugar (HFCS).
Tsar of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 9:24:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 8:50:57 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:35:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:28:24 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:24:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:20:01 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:42:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:37:39 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:35:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:29:04 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
The corn subsidy is the one I have a particular vendetta against. It distorts the market so the unhealthy foods are made cheaper, which directly contributes to our obesity problem.

Regarding both posts, would you care to explain more? Are you suggesting that corn is blanketly (made up word to mean objectively, similar to a blanket statement) unhealthy?

I think he's talking about corn syrup mostly

I don't think there is an issue with HFC inherently, beyond over consumption. Most sugar is 50/50 between fructose and glucose, while HFC is 55/45. It is not a significant difference.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Sugar is a requirement to survive, but the issue comes from over consumption. I'd hardly blame the sugar for that. That would be like blaming water for when people OD on water.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Right, and the subsidies encourage drastic overconsumption by making it significantly cheaper than it should be. The same problem goes with the meat and dairy- the subsidies lead to overconsumption.

Should the government regulate the consumption rate of food by making it (or allowing it to be) more expensive (which undoubtedly harms the poor and working class far more than the wealthy, who can over consume all they want) or should the government regulate on the back end? You can get your needed food for cheap, but can't get more than that. Or dedicate resources to helping people actually learn the importance of healthy diets in school so they can take it with them as they grow?

This really isn't the government inflating prices, but removing it's deflation of prices. This would likely encourage more market lowering of prices for the healthier foods that currently have the unfair disadvantage of no subsidies.

As already said (and I have not seen anyone argue against it in this thread) the "unhealthiness" is due to the lower prices causing over consumption. It is not from the product being unhealthy on its own. Therefore, those "healthier" foods that you talk about, if they become more economic (in comparison), that will make them more likely to be over consumed and thus they can become the "unhealthy" foods.

A 12 oz Coke has 39 grams of sugar. A 12 oz glass of Apply Juice has 40.5 grams of sugar (granted, the AG has other things of value that the Coke doesn't). The over consumption of either is going to be unhealthy.

Are you saying that naturally increased consumption of healthier foods likes vegetables by removing subsidies on things like corn would be just as bad as the current overconsumption of sugar and corn syrup? It seems pretty clear that it would lead to an overall healthier country, it would decrease the severity of the obesity epidemic to a certain extent, and it would reduce the health gap between wealthy and poor people.

Corn is a vegetable and look where that has gone, lol.


To go back to your example of coke and apple juice, assume that a person drinks a coke five nights a week, and treats himself over the weekend to more expensive apple juice. Would it not be healthier to have those two switched?

In regards to overall weight and diabetes, no.

http://www.diabetes.org...

You should also remember that if we make some other veggie super cheap, rather than have high fructose corn syrup, we would have high fructose beet syrup, or whatever.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 9:28:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 8:19:35 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.skepticalraptor.com...

This can be a helpful resource.

YYW, I presume that you did not read this link?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 9:32:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 9:01:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:53:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:42:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:36:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:32:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/9/2014 7:29:04 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
The corn subsidy is the one I have a particular vendetta against. It distorts the market so the unhealthy foods are made cheaper, which directly contributes to our obesity problem.

It's actually the tariffs on imported sugar that are the reason for HFCS in the United States, but the fact that corn is also heavily subsidized certainly does complicate things further. Blame the floridian sugar industry (the agricultural lobby that makes imported sugar impractical for, say, Coca Cola to use instead of HFCS). It's their fault.

But it is also clear, from our growing waste lines, that we are producing more than enough sugar for ourselves, so something limiting supply is not such a bad thing.

Waste lines? Explain.

waist*

When I'm talking about sugar, I'm talking about C12H22O11 (white sugar). I'm opposing HFCS, the chemical formula for which I don't know off the top of my head.

The issue is that we're using the wrong kind of sugar (HFCS).

They are the same, as far your body is concerned.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 9:33:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 9:28:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:19:35 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.skepticalraptor.com...

This can be a helpful resource.

YYW, I presume that you did not read this link?

lol, no... do you want me to provide a response to it, though?
Tsar of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 9:35:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 9:33:06 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/9/2014 9:28:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:19:35 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.skepticalraptor.com...

This can be a helpful resource.

YYW, I presume that you did not read this link?

lol, no... do you want me to provide a response to it, though?

You can if you like, but I'll summarize it when I get home if you prefer to wait.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 9:40:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 9:35:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 9:33:06 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/9/2014 9:28:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:19:35 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.skepticalraptor.com...

This can be a helpful resource.

YYW, I presume that you did not read this link?

lol, no... do you want me to provide a response to it, though?

You can if you like, but I'll summarize it when I get home if you prefer to wait.

Excellent.
Tsar of DDO
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 9:53:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 7:35:08 PM, thett3 wrote:

Yeah. The problem is that farm subsidies are a sacred cow, I would be really shocked if they were ever cut. A few months ago the republicans in the house didn't pass "the farm bill" and there was an enormous uproar. There was pretty much no discussion I saw about the merits of farm subsidies, and no questioning of *why* the bill is always unquestionably passed. My understanding was that the republicans always intended to pass it anyway, just a bit differently. It's kind of sad because you're right. I remember a while ago Skep made a really good post on farm subsidies and why they're bad but I couldn't find it.

The "farm bill" has always been an omnibus bill of food assistance coupled with farm subsidies. The reason it was halted in the house is because the Republicans wanted to remove the food assistance and pass it separately which is what they did in committee. Food assistance is the Dems sacred cow and farm subsidies are the Reps sacred cow. Splitting them up and passing one before the other takes away considerable amount of leverage. It was kind of low ball move because there was always a mutual understanding you passed them together for at least the past 40 years. Eventually the Republicans dropped their bill and another bill from committee brought to the floor with food assistance although there were minor cuts to the program.

I don't think this has been brought up yet but farm subsidies also have a negative effect on developing countries who rely heavily on agriculture exports. In fact an economy based on agriculture is a prominent trait of developing countries because GDP is a clear indicator of industrial manufacturing capacity. Subsidies discourage imports. They drive down prices because they inject capital directly into overhead. The cost of production is cheaper which creates downward pressure for lower prices. Exporters simply cannot compete against such an unfriendly market. It's like what China is doing in the labor market.

So is this a bad thing? I don't know. Part of me feels like the path of least resistance would be continuing the subsidies. They support the agriculture market and all things related by guaranteeing price stability. Farm and agriculture related jobs account for about 16 million of the 155 millions jobs in the country. That's 10% of the market. Price stability is not only important for business owners too. They clearly benefit the consumer which frankly is the majority of the population who are around the poverty level.