4 ms·

Not much of a paradox, is it? The more cheap, high-fat, high-sugar food is available, the more people will get fat. It's a truism masquerading as a profundity.

by dghf 6y ago

tgv 6y ago
It's only a paradox if you think abundance can't possibly be bad, or if you think that an abundance is the only way to counteract a shortage. Well, just wait until you're in an abundance of water.
DSingularity 6y ago
No. People believe that the dynamics of “free markets” where people have choices of what to consume/purchase lead to ever increasing quality. The author is claiming a the paradox in the markets of food/information where this is not true — abundance of choice ruins outcomes for most people while improving it for some. I believe he is correct.
- buran77 6y ago
  I think this sounds like a paradox for those who don't realize that the driving force in the market is profit not quality. Most of the options on the market are in a race to the bottom regarding price, with a tiny minority being in a race to the top regarding quality. In abundance competition makes cheap things get cheaper, and good things get better. The majority of the market will gravitate towards lower "price" and most options will target that, pulling down the median compared to scarcity. The smaller percentage of the population will afford to target the high quality thus pushing the maximum achievable higher than in scarcity.
  - benlivengood 6y ago
    > I think this sounds like a paradox for those who don't realize that the driving force in the market is profit not quality. Profit is the driving force in every rational market and the quality/price tradeoff is a huge factor in valuation of goods. A big problem is information asymmetry. Consumers must be experts on every product they buy while producers only have to be experts on the products they sell. Some consumers do not prioritize being experts on food and so undervalue nutritional/dietary properties and overvalue appearance, flavor, and convenience which require less expertise. A related effect is the paradox of choice making it difficult to judge the best value from a selection of seemingly identical products and this may also play a role in poor nutritional choices. The problem is excaserbated by mass advertising that promises foods are healthy or meet certain dietary guidelines while eliding the fact that the products should be eaten sparingly and not as a staple, or by directly advertising that a cheap food is shiny and yummy.
    - buran77 6y ago
      > Consumers must be experts You're right, the reason I said "price" in quotes is that it's usually both intellectual and financial. Very few can afford to be experts and make the right choice, then pay for that choice. The confusion related to the driving force is that people imagine more choices means more competition, and this must bring lower price and higher quality. In reality profit is the driving force and profit can come just as well from low cost, low quality as from high cost, high quality. Abundance brings in a drift between these 2 ends of the spectrum, you get extreme low cost with low quality, and extreme high quality with high cost. Most people have no intellectual budget to afford identifying the correct option, or the financial budget to acquire it. This gets compounded and has some network effects so the more low price, low quality choices they make, the lower their chances of gaining the necessary budget to recover.
      - mrkstu 6y ago
        I think a middle ground is observable in where retailers choose to focus- Walmart is targeting 'price first' customers, Costco is targeting 'quality with value' customers, Whole Foods is (or at least was, pre-acquisition) targeting 'quality first and sometimes only' customers. Customers get to outsource the detailed choices to the retailers and the retailers enforces the desired quality/cost ratios on their suppliers.
- dghf 6y ago
  > People believe that the dynamics of “free markets” where people have choices of what to consume/purchase lead to ever increasing quality. Some people may believe that -- extreme free-market libertarians being the most obvious example -- but I'd be surprised if it was a majority view. There doesn't seem to be a consensus that food safety regulations are an unnecessary irrelevance, for example.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Define quality. For most people for most of human history, more calories == more quality. It still tastes better most of the time. Then consider that people might not share your view of what quality is.
- watwut 6y ago
  Author did not shown that "abundance of choice" caused people to gain weight or that it caused lack of healthy restaurants in that parking lot. Based on article, there was no healthy choice available.
C19is20 6y ago
Agree with 'fat', but 'cheap.....high-sugar', does not necessarily produce fat. 200g of white sugar mixed with plain water will get you a long way on a bicycle. Carbs for the win.
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  The average person doesn't just consume 200g of white sugar + water and go for a long ride, run, swim, or row. It's a cheap and unsatiating 774 calorie (per a google search) product which is then combined with a calorie rich food (not beverage) to eventually sate the appetite. The food itself is often extra salty (if fast food) which entices the person to consume more of the calorie rich, unsatiating drink. And if the food is similarly high in sugar it is also unsatiating (compared to high fat or high protein food stuffs), which leaves the person eating even more calories. If someone consumed 5 beverages of that sort a week, that would be an extra 3500+ calories (approximately enough to gain one pound) on top of whatever their food calories were.

Not much of a paradox, is it? The more cheap, high-fat, high-sugar food is available, the more people will get fat. It's a truism masquerading as a profundity.

by dghf 6y ago

Not much of a paradox, is it? The more cheap, high-fat, high-sugar food is available, the more people will get fat. It's a truism masquerading as a profundity.

tgv 6y ago

It's only a paradox if you think abundance can't possibly be bad, or if you think that an abundance is the only way to counteract a shortage. Well, just wait until you're in an abundance of water.

DSingularity 6y ago

No. People believe that the dynamics of “free markets” where people have choices of what to consume/purchase lead to ever increasing quality. The author is claiming a the paradox in the markets of food/information where this is not true — abundance of choice ruins outcomes for most people while improving it for some. I believe he is correct.

buran77 6y ago
I think this sounds like a paradox for those who don't realize that the driving force in the market is profit not quality. Most of the options on the market are in a race to the bottom regarding price, with a tiny minority being in a race to the top regarding quality. In abundance competition makes cheap things get cheaper, and good things get better. The majority of the market will gravitate towards lower "price" and most options will target that, pulling down the median compared to scarcity. The smaller percentage of the population will afford to target the high quality thus pushing the maximum achievable higher than in scarcity.
- benlivengood 6y ago
  > I think this sounds like a paradox for those who don't realize that the driving force in the market is profit not quality. Profit is the driving force in every rational market and the quality/price tradeoff is a huge factor in valuation of goods. A big problem is information asymmetry. Consumers must be experts on every product they buy while producers only have to be experts on the products they sell. Some consumers do not prioritize being experts on food and so undervalue nutritional/dietary properties and overvalue appearance, flavor, and convenience which require less expertise. A related effect is the paradox of choice making it difficult to judge the best value from a selection of seemingly identical products and this may also play a role in poor nutritional choices. The problem is excaserbated by mass advertising that promises foods are healthy or meet certain dietary guidelines while eliding the fact that the products should be eaten sparingly and not as a staple, or by directly advertising that a cheap food is shiny and yummy.
  - buran77 6y ago
    > Consumers must be experts You're right, the reason I said "price" in quotes is that it's usually both intellectual and financial. Very few can afford to be experts and make the right choice, then pay for that choice. The confusion related to the driving force is that people imagine more choices means more competition, and this must bring lower price and higher quality. In reality profit is the driving force and profit can come just as well from low cost, low quality as from high cost, high quality. Abundance brings in a drift between these 2 ends of the spectrum, you get extreme low cost with low quality, and extreme high quality with high cost. Most people have no intellectual budget to afford identifying the correct option, or the financial budget to acquire it. This gets compounded and has some network effects so the more low price, low quality choices they make, the lower their chances of gaining the necessary budget to recover.
    - mrkstu 6y ago
      I think a middle ground is observable in where retailers choose to focus- Walmart is targeting 'price first' customers, Costco is targeting 'quality with value' customers, Whole Foods is (or at least was, pre-acquisition) targeting 'quality first and sometimes only' customers. Customers get to outsource the detailed choices to the retailers and the retailers enforces the desired quality/cost ratios on their suppliers.
dghf 6y ago
> People believe that the dynamics of “free markets” where people have choices of what to consume/purchase lead to ever increasing quality. Some people may believe that -- extreme free-market libertarians being the most obvious example -- but I'd be surprised if it was a majority view. There doesn't seem to be a consensus that food safety regulations are an unnecessary irrelevance, for example.
pjc50 6y ago
Define quality. For most people for most of human history, more calories == more quality. It still tastes better most of the time. Then consider that people might not share your view of what quality is.
watwut 6y ago
Author did not shown that "abundance of choice" caused people to gain weight or that it caused lack of healthy restaurants in that parking lot. Based on article, there was no healthy choice available.

C19is20 6y ago

Agree with 'fat', but 'cheap.....high-sugar', does not necessarily produce fat. 200g of white sugar mixed with plain water will get you a long way on a bicycle. Carbs for the win.

Jtsummers 6y ago
The average person doesn't just consume 200g of white sugar + water and go for a long ride, run, swim, or row. It's a cheap and unsatiating 774 calorie (per a google search) product which is then combined with a calorie rich food (not beverage) to eventually sate the appetite. The food itself is often extra salty (if fast food) which entices the person to consume more of the calorie rich, unsatiating drink. And if the food is similarly high in sugar it is also unsatiating (compared to high fat or high protein food stuffs), which leaves the person eating even more calories. If someone consumed 5 beverages of that sort a week, that would be an extra 3500+ calories (approximately enough to gain one pound) on top of whatever their food calories were.