Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-05-2013, 09:36 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
I don't mean to be answering for amy, she's done a fine job of explaining the difference between coercion and persuasion. i.e. Government and business.

I just wanted to touch a few of these questions...

(20-05-2013 07:30 PM)I and I Wrote:  Do you think that what people eat and consume is learned from their culture?

Depends on the person and how they were raised.

Quote:Why do you think that obesity is worse in the U.S.?

Corn subsidies and sugar tariffs. High fructose corn syrup has replaced almost all of the natural sugars we used to consume. This throws our body into a panic for natural sugars and causes it to store up vast quantities of hfcs, since that's the closest thing it can find to real sugar. However, the body cannot convert hfcs into energy like it can real sugars so most of it winds up in fat deposits.

That shit also promotes diabetes.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bbeljefe's post
20-05-2013, 10:35 PM
Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(20-05-2013 09:36 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  I don't mean to be answering for amy, she's done a fine job of explaining the difference between coercion and persuasion. i.e. Government and business.

I just wanted to touch a few of these questions...

(20-05-2013 07:30 PM)I and I Wrote:  Do you think that what people eat and consume is learned from their culture?

Depends on the person and how they were raised.

Quote:Why do you think that obesity is worse in the U.S.?

Corn subsidies and sugar tariffs. High fructose corn syrup has replaced almost all of the natural sugars we used to consume. This throws our body into a panic for natural sugars and causes it to store up vast quantities of hfcs, since that's the closest thing it can find to real sugar. However, the body cannot convert hfcs into energy like it can real sugars so most of it winds up in fat deposits.

That shit also promotes diabetes.

The government doesn't produce and mass market corn syrup products. The government gives out subsidies to corporate interest groups. Why would corporations make corn syrup? Did the people demand corn syrup?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2013, 11:11 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(20-05-2013 10:35 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(20-05-2013 09:36 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  I don't mean to be answering for amy, she's done a fine job of explaining the difference between coercion and persuasion. i.e. Government and business.

I just wanted to touch a few of these questions...


Depends on the person and how they were raised.


Corn subsidies and sugar tariffs. High fructose corn syrup has replaced almost all of the natural sugars we used to consume. This throws our body into a panic for natural sugars and causes it to store up vast quantities of hfcs, since that's the closest thing it can find to real sugar. However, the body cannot convert hfcs into energy like it can real sugars so most of it winds up in fat deposits.

That shit also promotes diabetes.

The government doesn't produce and mass market corn syrup products. The government gives out subsidies to corporate interest groups. Why would corporations make corn syrup? Did the people demand corn syrup?

I never asserted that the government makes hfcs. I said exactly what you just said, with the addition that the state also places tariffs on cane sugar... which is essentially the same thing as handing out subsidies to corn growers, in that it makes sugar far too expensive to use in the manufacture of foods.

Most consumers don't mind hfcs because they don't understand what it is. All they know is that the FDA says it is safe (although it is not) and that it makes their processed foods less expensive.

This whole scenario wouldn't exist without the state... because the state makes sugar high and hfcs low, and the state makes false claims about the safety of hfcs. And if you care to dive a little deeper into the economics of the situation, the state also makes it necessary for the poor to buy these cheap, unhealthy foods by way of monetary inflation and burdensome regulation on the production and sale of fresh goods.

Ray Croc didn't get rich because he builds the best hamburger around. He got rich because he builds cheap hamburgers. If Americans demanded the former, McDonald's wouldn't be the largest and most successful restaurant business in the world.

Free enterprise responds to market demands. The state makes demands of the market.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2013, 02:38 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(20-05-2013 11:11 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(20-05-2013 10:35 PM)I and I Wrote:  The government doesn't produce and mass market corn syrup products. The government gives out subsidies to corporate interest groups. Why would corporations make corn syrup? Did the people demand corn syrup?

I never asserted that the government makes hfcs. I said exactly what you just said, with the addition that the state also places tariffs on cane sugar... which is essentially the same thing as handing out subsidies to corn growers, in that it makes sugar far too expensive to use in the manufacture of foods.

Most consumers don't mind hfcs because they don't understand what it is. All they know is that the FDA says it is safe (although it is not) and that it makes their processed foods less expensive.

This whole scenario wouldn't exist without the state... because the state makes sugar high and hfcs low, and the state makes false claims about the safety of hfcs. And if you care to dive a little deeper into the economics of the situation, the state also makes it necessary for the poor to buy these cheap, unhealthy foods by way of monetary inflation and burdensome regulation on the production and sale of fresh goods.

Ray Croc didn't get rich because he builds the best hamburger around. He got rich because he builds cheap hamburgers. If Americans demanded the former, McDonald's wouldn't be the largest and most successful restaurant business in the world.

Free enterprise responds to market demands. The state makes demands of the market.

Did the state make the demand for High Fructose Corn Syrup? NO Did people demand to consume High Fructose Corn Syrup? NO In fact nobody demands to consume FIRST and then a product is made SECOND to fit that demand, this doesn't happen in this order. Most of the foods you eat were around long before you were born and are a part of your culture that influenced you in forming your eating habits...and any other habits for that matter. Have you ever demanded to consume a food or food chemical that didn't exist yet? NO, that is not humanly possible to do. After being influenced from a young baby and child to an adult, your eating habits are formed by the influences upon you from outside of you from your society. There is no intrinsic eating habits that people are born with and one can't control what influenced their eating habits as a young child. Once you are an adult, your "decisions" are not "free choice" at all, they are a result of your upbringing and this goes for eating habits as well.

That is why corporations spend money on ads, to influence you to consume x. You guys act like you don't know why they spend money on advertisements.

You keep wrongly assuming the state and corporations are two DISTINCT-SEPARATE-OPPOSED entities. History says they are not, and that they work in collusion with one another, and for every 1 example you can provide for your claim, I can provide 10 to show the opposite. I would say that the state is the tool in which capitalists use to maintain power, but I am sure you disagree and that is a different topic. Why do you even word it in the way you do?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2013, 05:12 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
regarding the thread, it's an I&I thread so I'm not going to lose braincells reading it.

In regards to the title, junk food should be taxed much heavier then it is now and fruit and veg and milk and bread and maybe some other things like low fat/sugar yogurt etc.. should be completely tax free.

It's the exact same principle behind taxing heavily tobacco and alcohol. These things cause problems in society and cost money (though tobacco not so much in the states, but we have public healthcare here so it does here). ie: Drunks wasting police resources.
As such those that use the product should have to pay, thus higher taxes on alcohol etc..

Same principle with junk food. People eat junk food and get fat, that clogs up the health system like the fat to their arteries and as such they should have to bear the brunt of the problem, aka tax junk food.

And as an incentive, make healthy shit cheaper.

It's not rocket science.
Junk food = fat
Healthy food = healthy
fat = bad
healthy = good

thus, "punish" bad and "reward" good.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
21-05-2013, 07:30 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
This is becoming comical...

(21-05-2013 02:38 AM)I and I Wrote:  Did the state make the demand for High Fructose Corn Syrup? NO Did people demand to consume High Fructose Corn Syrup? NO

Yes. But not through some conspiracy or otherwise nefarious mechanism. The state made hfcs cheap and it made sugar expensive. Consumers demanded cheap food and what they got was food with hfcs in it. When a minority of consumers asked the state if hfcs was safe, the state said oh yes, it's safe... go ahead and eat all you want. And they did.


Quote:Did people demand to consume High Fructose Corn Syrup? NO
Rewording questions won't net you different answers from someone who is consistent. See above.

Quote:In fact nobody demands to consume FIRST and then a product is made SECOND to fit that demand, this doesn't happen in this order. Most of the foods you eat were around long before you were born and are a part of your culture that influenced you in forming your eating habits...and any other habits for that matter.

Humans have been eating for millions of years. We crave certain foods when we need certain nutrients. And yes, we do tend to eat foods that are popular in our societies.

Quote:Have you ever demanded to consume a food or food chemical that didn't exist yet? NO, that is not humanly possible to do.

Impossible is it? It's true that no one demanded an iPod in 1996. It is not true that no one demanded smaller, less expensive portable media players. iPods used the mp3 audio compression format which was invented because consumers demanded higher quality, lower cost movie storage media. But again... no one demanded a DVD in 1994. Likewise with food, people didn't demand Oreo cookies, they demanded tasty, inexpensive cookies that they didn't have to prepare.

That's not to say that inventions for which there is no demand aren't made, because they certainly are. And they far more often than not, fail, while successful companies do market research in order to find out what consumers want before they make it.

Quote:After being influenced from a young baby and child to an adult, your eating habits are formed by the influences upon you from outside of you from your society. There is no intrinsic eating habits that people are born with and one can't control what influenced their eating habits as a young child.

Rubbish. Have you ever seen a dog (a carnivore) consuming grass? Did the dog eat the grass because he saw a commercial on tv? No. He eats grass when his body needs the nutrients in grass. Humans are biological creatures also. When you randomly crave chocolate cake, your body isn't responding to ads, it is responding to a need for sugars. And when you see an ad for chocolate cake you may or may not be compelled to go get some. If you choose not to get some, your body doesn't need the sugars.

Quote:Once you are an adult, your "decisions" are not "free choice" at all, they are a result of your upbringing and this goes for eating habits as well.

More rubbish. If there were any truth whatever to that claim, no one who was raised by sedentary parents could ever be healthy and that's simply not the case. We certainly are heavily influenced by our environments but to assert that we have no choice is patently absurd.


Quote:That is why corporations spend money on ads, to influence you to consume x. You guys act like you don't know why they spend money on advertisements.

I know exactly why businesses spend money on advertising. You're slaying a stawman there.

Quote:You keep wrongly assuming the state and corporations are two DISTINCT-SEPARATE-OPPOSED entities. History says they are not, and that they work in collusion with one another, and for every 1 example you can provide for your claim, I can provide 10 to show the opposite.

The state is the state.... private enterprise is private enterprise.
And again with the straw men? I've never said government and corporate special interests are opposed to one another. Quite the opposite. My wife and I collude all the time but we are not the same person.

You can show me about a thousand examples of the corporations you're complaining about and I can show you tens of millions of small business owners who have never paid a lobbyist or courted a politician.

Quote: I would say that the state is the tool in which capitalists use to maintain power, but I am sure you disagree and that is a different topic. Why do you even word it in the way you do?

I word things the way I do because I value accuracy and truth. Capitalism isn't what happens when corporate lobbyists leverage the state. I've explained this to you ad nauseum.

Corporate interests do indeed leverage the state to gain power. I've been arguing that point for years. The problem most people (and I'm assuming you) have with my position is that I also hold the people who call themselves government to account for doing the bidding of corporate interests. In fact, I hold them to a higher standard of morality for the exact same reasons why I hold my wife to a higher standard of morality than I would some stranger she might choose to bed. After all, the stranger didn't promise not to cheat on me... she did. Likewise with politicians.... they promise to protect your interests and as soon as you walk away from the voting booth, they jam a shiv right into your fucking neck.

You blame the free market for your stab wounds and go bleating to your attackers for a solution. I blame the motherfucker holding the knife.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like bbeljefe's post
21-05-2013, 11:31 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(20-05-2013 09:36 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  That shit also promotes diabetes.

Yup. But banning them would be impossible, it's easy enough to make my own. Taxing them don't make no sense either, manufacturers would just find ways to circumvent the tax much the same way as underground labs circumvent the illegal drugs and steroid laws. Another example is ManlyGirl who rolls her own cigarettes. Pipe tobacco ain't subject to the same taxes as cigarette tobacco. So what has the roll your own community done, they collectively identify those pipe tobaccos which work just fine as cigarettes and tell the other members of the club about it with a RYO (roll you own) designation on their forums and effectively and legally avoid the tax.

If the shit were a pharmaceutical the FDA would require Black Box warnings on it. But the same can be said of nitrates, nitrites and nitrosamines in processed food and fertilizers. What can and is being done is to regulate those foods which may be purchased with food stamps and WIC vouchers. And this is just fucking scary: WIC serves 53 percent of all infants born in the United States. That says something about the USA which don't bode well in Girly's mind.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2013, 11:36 AM (This post was last modified: 21-05-2013 12:01 PM by amyb.)
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(20-05-2013 07:30 PM)I and I Wrote:  When did you decide to start liking pizza?

When my mom made it for me as a kid. And now I make my own, completely from scratch, so I don't think it's due to advertising (I hate pizza hut, too bready and too cheesy).

But on that note, my brother and I were raised by the same 2 parents, in the same culture, etc. and he eats only processed junk foods and fried food, drinks only sugary crap. I eat pretty much the opposite. We probably saw a lot of the same advertisements. How do explain that, if you think we are all victims of our upbringing and have no choice in what we eat and drink?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2013, 11:56 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(21-05-2013 07:30 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  This is becoming comical...

(21-05-2013 02:38 AM)I and I Wrote:  Did the state make the demand for High Fructose Corn Syrup? NO Did people demand to consume High Fructose Corn Syrup? NO

Yes. But not through some conspiracy or otherwise nefarious mechanism. The state made hfcs cheap and it made sugar expensive. Consumers demanded cheap food and what they got was food with hfcs in it. When a minority of consumers asked the state if hfcs was safe, the state said oh yes, it's safe... go ahead and eat all you want. And they did.


Quote:Did people demand to consume High Fructose Corn Syrup? NO
Rewording questions won't net you different answers from someone who is consistent. See above.

Quote:In fact nobody demands to consume FIRST and then a product is made SECOND to fit that demand, this doesn't happen in this order. Most of the foods you eat were around long before you were born and are a part of your culture that influenced you in forming your eating habits...and any other habits for that matter.

Humans have been eating for millions of years. We crave certain foods when we need certain nutrients. And yes, we do tend to eat foods that are popular in our societies.

Quote:Have you ever demanded to consume a food or food chemical that didn't exist yet? NO, that is not humanly possible to do.

Impossible is it? It's true that no one demanded an iPod in 1996. It is not true that no one demanded smaller, less expensive portable media players. iPods used the mp3 audio compression format which was invented because consumers demanded higher quality, lower cost movie storage media. But again... no one demanded a DVD in 1994. Likewise with food, people didn't demand Oreo cookies, they demanded tasty, inexpensive cookies that they didn't have to prepare.

That's not to say that inventions for which there is no demand aren't made, because they certainly are. And they far more often than not, fail, while successful companies do market research in order to find out what consumers want before they make it.

Quote:After being influenced from a young baby and child to an adult, your eating habits are formed by the influences upon you from outside of you from your society. There is no intrinsic eating habits that people are born with and one can't control what influenced their eating habits as a young child.

Rubbish. Have you ever seen a dog (a carnivore) consuming grass? Did the dog eat the grass because he saw a commercial on tv? No. He eats grass when his body needs the nutrients in grass. Humans are biological creatures also. When you randomly crave chocolate cake, your body isn't responding to ads, it is responding to a need for sugars. And when you see an ad for chocolate cake you may or may not be compelled to go get some. If you choose not to get some, your body doesn't need the sugars.

Quote:Once you are an adult, your "decisions" are not "free choice" at all, they are a result of your upbringing and this goes for eating habits as well.

More rubbish. If there were any truth whatever to that claim, no one who was raised by sedentary parents could ever be healthy and that's simply not the case. We certainly are heavily influenced by our environments but to assert that we have no choice is patently absurd.


Quote:That is why corporations spend money on ads, to influence you to consume x. You guys act like you don't know why they spend money on advertisements.

I know exactly why businesses spend money on advertising. You're slaying a stawman there.

Quote:You keep wrongly assuming the state and corporations are two DISTINCT-SEPARATE-OPPOSED entities. History says they are not, and that they work in collusion with one another, and for every 1 example you can provide for your claim, I can provide 10 to show the opposite.

The state is the state.... private enterprise is private enterprise.
And again with the straw men? I've never said government and corporate special interests are opposed to one another. Quite the opposite. My wife and I collude all the time but we are not the same person.

You can show me about a thousand examples of the corporations you're complaining about and I can show you tens of millions of small business owners who have never paid a lobbyist or courted a politician.

Quote: I would say that the state is the tool in which capitalists use to maintain power, but I am sure you disagree and that is a different topic. Why do you even word it in the way you do?

I word things the way I do because I value accuracy and truth. Capitalism isn't what happens when corporate lobbyists leverage the state. I've explained this to you ad nauseum.

Corporate interests do indeed leverage the state to gain power. I've been arguing that point for years. The problem most people (and I'm assuming you) have with my position is that I also hold the people who call themselves government to account for doing the bidding of corporate interests. In fact, I hold them to a higher standard of morality for the exact same reasons why I hold my wife to a higher standard of morality than I would some stranger she might choose to bed. After all, the stranger didn't promise not to cheat on me... she did. Likewise with politicians.... they promise to protect your interests and as soon as you walk away from the voting booth, they jam a shiv right into your fucking neck.

You blame the free market for your stab wounds and go bleating to your attackers for a solution. I blame the motherfucker holding the knife.


Nobody ever said you have NO FREE CHOICE. I said that your "choice" isn't a free one. The options you choose from are already influenced by societal upbringing...meaning the choice doesn't come out of sky, the choice is a result of societal influences, which is why a person can't demand something or desire something that doesn't exist yet.

How does a person come to desire a product in the first place? Through societal up bring and commercials.


Lets just cut to the chase here this is a nature vs nurture debate, do you or do you not believe commericals influence people to consume more in any way whatsoever?

Why do people buy snuggles? because they need them? NO because they demand them? NO They buy them because some idiot on an infomercial knew how to sell a product. We buy lots of things we don't need but these commercials convince millions of idiot consumers that the juicer x is better than the juicer A and you need this juicer in your life.

I know that you guys have to deny this, or at least deny the strong impact commericals have on influencing consumption because that would blow the "free will" argument out of the water. But to be in such denial of the amount of influence commercials have is to simply deny reality.

Nature vs nurture Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2013, 12:13 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(21-05-2013 11:36 AM)amyb Wrote:  
(20-05-2013 07:30 PM)I and I Wrote:  When did you decide to start liking pizza?

When my mom made it for me as a kid. And now I make my own, completely from scratch, so I don't think it's due to advertising (I hate pizza hut, too bready and too cheesy).

But on that note, my brother and I were raised by the same 2 parents, in the same culture, etc. and he eats only processed junk foods and fried food, drinks only sugary crap. I eat pretty much the opposite. We probably saw a lot of the same advertisements. How do explain that, if you think we are all victims of our upbringing and have no choice in what we eat and drink?

I never said that all influences affect people in the same way or to the same extent. You and your brother were not born with set tastes in food, your tastes in food were influenced from your environment.

This is why corporations have to spend so much money on ads, the ads are based on psychological research and the corporate types pick the best ad they think can influence the most people. Nobody forced you to start liking pizza, however your liking for pizza was not a "free" choice either. Just letting people choose to eat healthy if they want doesn't work obviously, if it did then we wouldn't have so many overweight people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: