3 ms·

It's sort of ironic that the NYT decided to caption a shot of a soda fountain calling for more taxes on sugary drinks when the high fructose corn syrup is only

It's sort of ironic that the NYT decided to caption a shot of a soda fountain calling for more taxes on sugary drinks when the high fructose corn syrup is only so cheap in the first place because of subsidies. Maybe instead of subsidizing on one end and taxing the other we could just stop subsidizing unhealthy foods?

toomuchtodo 7y ago
Perverse incentives. Corn farmers are in Iowa. Iowa is where presidential elections start [1], and several Congressional reps are from. Hence, the need to pander to these folks and their biofuel and ag subsidies if your run for office touches Iowa ag. If you can't dissuade unhealthy subsidies as a state or other jurisdiction, you're only left with enacting your own opposite disincentives. Farmers are going to hold onto their subsidies to the bitter end, no different than fossil fuel/O&G industry. I'm always surprised when people assume these economic actors would do the "right thing" voluntarily. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses
- novok 7y ago
  Iowa can grow more than one crop yes? Why not subsidize not corn?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- giggles_giggles 7y ago
  The Presidential caucus may have something to do with it but "and several Congressional reps are from" makes it sound like they have disproportionate representation in Congress, or don't deserve representation. Iowa has 4 reps. California, for comparison, has 48. I don't think those 4 reps are the reason for these subsidies. Maybe the Caucus makes it a political third rail. I think most voters are simply ignorant of the situation, however. That ignorance could be alleviated by better reporting by large organizations like the NYT.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > and several Congressional reps are from" makes it sound like they have disproportionate representation in Congress They do, specifically in the upper house of Congress: Iowa has about one Senator per 1.55 million people; the US as a whole has about 1 per 3.3 million, California has less than one per 19 million. > Iowa has 4 reps. California, for comparison, has 48. Actually, California has 53 seats in the House, but the House is approximately proportional to population; while there is a pretty big range in representation ratios for the songle-district states because of the limits of whole representatives, the real ddisproportion in Congress is in the Senate.
GuiA 7y ago
Sadly it seems like it is many times easier for politicians to push a soda tax (which also serves as a political gesture on its own that can be framed as being for the good of the every day people and against the controlling influence of Big Soda) rather than undo decades of agricultural policy, which would also be controversial amongst more rural bases. As you point out, it completely defies elementary logic - but politics and policy seem to have preoccupations and incentives that are orthogonal to elementary logic.
new2628 7y ago
I wonder why the downvotes -- this was a very insightful observation.
maxerickson 7y ago
Replacing HFCS with cane sugar basically doesn't add any cost to the consumer. It's cheaper and more profitable to use HFCS, but the sugar calories in a serving of soda are ~$0.10 either way…

toomuchtodo 7y ago

Perverse incentives. Corn farmers are in Iowa. Iowa is where presidential elections start [1], and several Congressional reps are from. Hence, the need to pander to these folks and their biofuel and ag subsidies if your run for office touches Iowa ag. If you can't dissuade unhealthy subsidies as a state or other jurisdiction, you're only left with enacting your own opposite disincentives. Farmers are going to hold onto their subsidies to the bitter end, no different than fossil fuel/O&G industry. I'm always surprised when people assume these economic actors would do the "right thing" voluntarily. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses

novok 7y ago
Iowa can grow more than one crop yes? Why not subsidize not corn?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
giggles_giggles 7y ago
The Presidential caucus may have something to do with it but "and several Congressional reps are from" makes it sound like they have disproportionate representation in Congress, or don't deserve representation. Iowa has 4 reps. California, for comparison, has 48. I don't think those 4 reps are the reason for these subsidies. Maybe the Caucus makes it a political third rail. I think most voters are simply ignorant of the situation, however. That ignorance could be alleviated by better reporting by large organizations like the NYT.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > and several Congressional reps are from" makes it sound like they have disproportionate representation in Congress They do, specifically in the upper house of Congress: Iowa has about one Senator per 1.55 million people; the US as a whole has about 1 per 3.3 million, California has less than one per 19 million. > Iowa has 4 reps. California, for comparison, has 48. Actually, California has 53 seats in the House, but the House is approximately proportional to population; while there is a pretty big range in representation ratios for the songle-district states because of the limits of whole representatives, the real ddisproportion in Congress is in the Senate.

GuiA 7y ago

Sadly it seems like it is many times easier for politicians to push a soda tax (which also serves as a political gesture on its own that can be framed as being for the good of the every day people and against the controlling influence of Big Soda) rather than undo decades of agricultural policy, which would also be controversial amongst more rural bases. As you point out, it completely defies elementary logic - but politics and policy seem to have preoccupations and incentives that are orthogonal to elementary logic.

new2628 7y ago

I wonder why the downvotes -- this was a very insightful observation.

maxerickson 7y ago

Replacing HFCS with cane sugar basically doesn't add any cost to the consumer. It's cheaper and more profitable to use HFCS, but the sugar calories in a serving of soda are ~$0.10 either way…