"And it’s something very simple, very obvious,
something that few want to hear: The epidemic was
caused by the overproduction of food in the United
States."
Overproduction? Does a factory intentionally produce more cars than it can sell? Probably not. How about a baker? Does a baker produce more cookies than she can sell? Not for long. Maybe a farmer? No. Not really. That is not an economically sustainable position to take.
If we take the "overproduction" assertion as fact, this begs the question: Why is this happening?
One answer is that consumers have more money to spend and they are choosing to spend some of it buying (and consuming) more food. Fair enough.
Another answer could be that, in certain segments, government geniuses decided they know better than to let free market work. They go in and throw money around to make producers do what they would not under normal circumstances. That triggers over-production of certain goods. Which triggers lower prices. Which triggers higher consumption. And so on.
Another possible answer is a combination of the above. I am, admittedly, against government meddling in our lives. I want them out of nearly everything. Go throw parties for foreign dignitaries and balance our books. Maybe do a few more things. Oh, yes, those borders. Deal with them will ya? Any time these guys dip their ignorant toes into the water of our lives they invariably create a mess that our children and our children's children will have to pay for.
Of course, this philosophy extends to self-responsibility. In my family we might have a soft drink or two at parties here and there. Just like having ice-cream, in moderation it is an occasional treat. Aside from that, water only. What the hell is wrong with people that go into a gas station and order a 64 ounce soft drink? That's like consuming a cup full of sugar while you drive to work.
This is where another angle in this equation comes into play: A third-payer system of health does not penalize bad behavior. Someone who is a complete moron when it comes to how they take care of their bodies and what they put into it should suffer the financial consequence of having to pay a lot more for healthcare. Today, those of us who try to be sensible are paying for the idiots who are not. That is fundamentally wrong.
If you want a healthy and slim population, again, get government the hell out of the way. Yes, it can be that simple. Don't manipulate markets and don't get involved in healthcare. People should buy and pay for their own health insurance, just like they do car insurance. If you drive like a mad-man and get tickets and accidents your insurance goes up or it could be cancelled. The end result is that people modify their behavior to what is a financially sensible state.
The same would happen with healthcare if people were directly responsible for their own insurance and suffered the consequences of their dumb decisions. Smoke and destroyed your lungs? Your insurance should cost you $50K per year. Enjoy. Drink alcohol like an animal and turned your liver into mush? $75K a year. Have fun. The rest of us would have sensible policies which would reward us for being responsible while covering us in the case of catastrophic events or serious illness outside of our control.
To be clear, I don't have a problem contributing to the pot to help out those afflicted with cancer or similar horrible diseases. A portion of everyone's premiums would cover these out-of-the-norm cases. Then there's the case of obesity caused by diseases like Cushings Syndrome (pituitary gland tumor) that's potentially deadly and has nothing to do with over-eating. We need to collectively help those people. Nothing wrong with that.
I do have a problem supporting the moron who has a Double Big-Gulp every day chased by a large pizza and no exercise other than playing XBox for hours every day.
That said, the app for the model looks interesting. I had my basal metabolic rate measured last year before I started a Master's Swimming program. I like numbers and wanted to have some data. It was 1850 kcal/day. According to the Human Weight Simulator I have to consume 2576 kcal/day to maintain my weight. That, for some reason, feels way too high. I haven't counted calories in a long time, but might do it for a few weeks just to get a sense of what this model is doing. I doubt that I am consuming much more than 1700 kcal/day on average. But, I could be wrong.
I'd be nice if they released a paper with this equation the article mentions. Is that published anywhere?
I know. I went back to edit that but it was too late. I meant to say "raises the question" but fell into an all-too-common trap. This is easy to do in English if you are not on your toes because the word "question" has two meanings and "beg", in my opinion, makes it even more confusing. In other languages, for example, Spanish, the equivalent phrase is not ambiguous at all: petición de principio
I actually studied Logic in Spanish while my family was living abroad. Sometimes that does a number with my brain because I actually think about the fallacies in Spanish!
The government encourages overproduction of foodstuffs because it is better to have food and not need it (and consequently sell or store the unused food) then to need food and be without. That is, and always has been, the government's purpose in subsidizing agricultural production (even if that purpose is not shared by any of market participants).
Comments
If we take the "overproduction" assertion as fact, this begs the question: Why is this happening?
One answer is that consumers have more money to spend and they are choosing to spend some of it buying (and consuming) more food. Fair enough.
Another answer could be that, in certain segments, government geniuses decided they know better than to let free market work. They go in and throw money around to make producers do what they would not under normal circumstances. That triggers over-production of certain goods. Which triggers lower prices. Which triggers higher consumption. And so on.
Another possible answer is a combination of the above. I am, admittedly, against government meddling in our lives. I want them out of nearly everything. Go throw parties for foreign dignitaries and balance our books. Maybe do a few more things. Oh, yes, those borders. Deal with them will ya? Any time these guys dip their ignorant toes into the water of our lives they invariably create a mess that our children and our children's children will have to pay for.
Of course, this philosophy extends to self-responsibility. In my family we might have a soft drink or two at parties here and there. Just like having ice-cream, in moderation it is an occasional treat. Aside from that, water only. What the hell is wrong with people that go into a gas station and order a 64 ounce soft drink? That's like consuming a cup full of sugar while you drive to work.
This is where another angle in this equation comes into play: A third-payer system of health does not penalize bad behavior. Someone who is a complete moron when it comes to how they take care of their bodies and what they put into it should suffer the financial consequence of having to pay a lot more for healthcare. Today, those of us who try to be sensible are paying for the idiots who are not. That is fundamentally wrong.
If you want a healthy and slim population, again, get government the hell out of the way. Yes, it can be that simple. Don't manipulate markets and don't get involved in healthcare. People should buy and pay for their own health insurance, just like they do car insurance. If you drive like a mad-man and get tickets and accidents your insurance goes up or it could be cancelled. The end result is that people modify their behavior to what is a financially sensible state.
The same would happen with healthcare if people were directly responsible for their own insurance and suffered the consequences of their dumb decisions. Smoke and destroyed your lungs? Your insurance should cost you $50K per year. Enjoy. Drink alcohol like an animal and turned your liver into mush? $75K a year. Have fun. The rest of us would have sensible policies which would reward us for being responsible while covering us in the case of catastrophic events or serious illness outside of our control.
To be clear, I don't have a problem contributing to the pot to help out those afflicted with cancer or similar horrible diseases. A portion of everyone's premiums would cover these out-of-the-norm cases. Then there's the case of obesity caused by diseases like Cushings Syndrome (pituitary gland tumor) that's potentially deadly and has nothing to do with over-eating. We need to collectively help those people. Nothing wrong with that.
I do have a problem supporting the moron who has a Double Big-Gulp every day chased by a large pizza and no exercise other than playing XBox for hours every day.
That said, the app for the model looks interesting. I had my basal metabolic rate measured last year before I started a Master's Swimming program. I like numbers and wanted to have some data. It was 1850 kcal/day. According to the Human Weight Simulator I have to consume 2576 kcal/day to maintain my weight. That, for some reason, feels way too high. I haven't counted calories in a long time, but might do it for a few weeks just to get a sense of what this model is doing. I doubt that I am consuming much more than 1700 kcal/day on average. But, I could be wrong.
I'd be nice if they released a paper with this equation the article mentions. Is that published anywhere?
Http://begthequestion.info
I know. I went back to edit that but it was too late. I meant to say "raises the question" but fell into an all-too-common trap. This is easy to do in English if you are not on your toes because the word "question" has two meanings and "beg", in my opinion, makes it even more confusing. In other languages, for example, Spanish, the equivalent phrase is not ambiguous at all: petición de principio
I actually studied Logic in Spanish while my family was living abroad. Sometimes that does a number with my brain because I actually think about the fallacies in Spanish!
Thanks for pointing that out.
The government encourages overproduction of foodstuffs because it is better to have food and not need it (and consequently sell or store the unused food) then to need food and be without. That is, and always has been, the government's purpose in subsidizing agricultural production (even if that purpose is not shared by any of market participants).