4 ms·

This is just moving goalposts based on your weird biases. Even on an almost 1:1 comparison, you're handwaving away because "Americans just like shitty food". O

This is just moving goalposts based on your weird biases. Even on an almost 1:1 comparison, you're handwaving away because "Americans just like shitty food". OP claimed that the market would balance things out when given subpar foods. When Hershey first made these subpar chocolates the market didn't correct it, despite OP's claims. Just like how the market didn't correct meat glue use in Europe, until it was regulated out.

eru 3y ago
> OP claimed that the market would balance things out when given subpar foods. No, I never claimed that. The claim that I wanted to make is the one that sublinear made: the market provides what the people care enough about that they are willing to pay for. Eg Germany has good pork and decent chocolate in mainstream supermarkets. But the boil-in-bag rice those places sell would make your average Asian through up a little. Consumer regulation does the least harm, when it is the least necessary: when the mainstream consumer already agrees with it, and when it's reasonably easy for knowledgeable people with different tastes to side-step. Eg the German 'Reinheitsgebot' purity law has some strict rules about what you can put in your beer and still call it 'Bier'. But it doesn't actually restrict the knowledgeable consumer: your supplier can concoct whatever they feel like, they might just have to get creative with the name. If Americans like 'shitty food', that's up to them. Who are we to judge them?
- deaddodo 3y ago
  Your point might apply if Lindt, Ghirardelli and Guitard weren't the most popular chocolates after Hershey's; all considered pretty high quality. That's like saying "Germans like shitty meat because you can buy cheap, low-quality sausages at the corner store" (which I can attest to myself, anecdotally). The point being, a lack of regulations allowed for low quality chocolates that are available and some people purchase. There's no reason to believe the same wouldn't happen in other countries; Germans, French, Japanese, etc aren't somehow more enlightened about food.
  - eru 3y ago
    Yes, I agree. Thanks for elaborating. Though I don't think what you are saying disagrees with my point at all. My point is that when people are willing to pay, the market will provide. As long as regulations allow it. (Or sometimes even when regulations ban the desired product, but providing things via the grey or black market typically drives up costs.) > The point being, a lack of regulations allowed for low quality chocolates that are available and some people purchase. And that's fine by me. Personally, I'm ok with whatever people prefer as long as I can also easily buy the stuff I like without too much hassle. Do you think the point of regulation should be to keep other people from buying stuff you and me don't approve of?
    - deaddodo 3y ago
      I never made a statement towards my personal preference for or against regulations, because it's moot to the topic. I simply was countering the claim that regulations were unnecessary to block the production and sale of low-quality foods, based on cultural merits (or, in general). If my personal opinion matters at all, I'm a hardline libertarian on any issues that directly affect (to avoid going down a conversational pigeonhole of obesity affecting the medical system, or otherwise) solely the individual. Drug consumption, food, prostitution (e.g. a single person/entity choosing to sell their body/intimate services to another person/entity in a consensual and legally protected manner), personal data encryption, etc: zero regulations, beyond commercial ones forcing full disclosure by corporations ("our food was sprayed with these pesticides", etc)/the authority entity (full disclosure on STD testing by sex work provider and consumer). Trafficking (including the less savory forms of sex work, such as pimping and brothel work that constitutes servitude/slavery), gun ownership/sales, drug sales, fraud, employer relations, tenant protections, etc: regulated (including banning, in many cases) in favor of the general public. If someone is fully aware that Hershey's has butyric acid and vegetable oil in it, and still chooses to consume it; go for it. If Hershey's add a heavy carcinogen to their recipe which increases general risk for cancer, probably should regulate it. It's a muddy line, but it's like they say about porn: "you know it when you see it"; and one feels like a clear societal problem.
  - nebulousthree 3y ago

eru 3y ago

> OP claimed that the market would balance things out when given subpar foods. No, I never claimed that. The claim that I wanted to make is the one that sublinear made: the market provides what the people care enough about that they are willing to pay for. Eg Germany has good pork and decent chocolate in mainstream supermarkets. But the boil-in-bag rice those places sell would make your average Asian through up a little. Consumer regulation does the least harm, when it is the least necessary: when the mainstream consumer already agrees with it, and when it's reasonably easy for knowledgeable people with different tastes to side-step. Eg the German 'Reinheitsgebot' purity law has some strict rules about what you can put in your beer and still call it 'Bier'. But it doesn't actually restrict the knowledgeable consumer: your supplier can concoct whatever they feel like, they might just have to get creative with the name. If Americans like 'shitty food', that's up to them. Who are we to judge them?

deaddodo 3y ago
Your point might apply if Lindt, Ghirardelli and Guitard weren't the most popular chocolates after Hershey's; all considered pretty high quality. That's like saying "Germans like shitty meat because you can buy cheap, low-quality sausages at the corner store" (which I can attest to myself, anecdotally). The point being, a lack of regulations allowed for low quality chocolates that are available and some people purchase. There's no reason to believe the same wouldn't happen in other countries; Germans, French, Japanese, etc aren't somehow more enlightened about food.
- eru 3y ago
  Yes, I agree. Thanks for elaborating. Though I don't think what you are saying disagrees with my point at all. My point is that when people are willing to pay, the market will provide. As long as regulations allow it. (Or sometimes even when regulations ban the desired product, but providing things via the grey or black market typically drives up costs.) > The point being, a lack of regulations allowed for low quality chocolates that are available and some people purchase. And that's fine by me. Personally, I'm ok with whatever people prefer as long as I can also easily buy the stuff I like without too much hassle. Do you think the point of regulation should be to keep other people from buying stuff you and me don't approve of?
  - deaddodo 3y ago
    I never made a statement towards my personal preference for or against regulations, because it's moot to the topic. I simply was countering the claim that regulations were unnecessary to block the production and sale of low-quality foods, based on cultural merits (or, in general). If my personal opinion matters at all, I'm a hardline libertarian on any issues that directly affect (to avoid going down a conversational pigeonhole of obesity affecting the medical system, or otherwise) solely the individual. Drug consumption, food, prostitution (e.g. a single person/entity choosing to sell their body/intimate services to another person/entity in a consensual and legally protected manner), personal data encryption, etc: zero regulations, beyond commercial ones forcing full disclosure by corporations ("our food was sprayed with these pesticides", etc)/the authority entity (full disclosure on STD testing by sex work provider and consumer). Trafficking (including the less savory forms of sex work, such as pimping and brothel work that constitutes servitude/slavery), gun ownership/sales, drug sales, fraud, employer relations, tenant protections, etc: regulated (including banning, in many cases) in favor of the general public. If someone is fully aware that Hershey's has butyric acid and vegetable oil in it, and still chooses to consume it; go for it. If Hershey's add a heavy carcinogen to their recipe which increases general risk for cancer, probably should regulate it. It's a muddy line, but it's like they say about porn: "you know it when you see it"; and one feels like a clear societal problem.
- nebulousthree 3y ago