5 ms·

I realize this is an uncommon opinion but I'm ok with this. I am not overweight, am fairly active, and rarely eat anything unhealthy. I am ok with this simply b

by chime 13y ago

I realize this is an uncommon opinion but I'm ok with this. I am not overweight, am fairly active, and rarely eat anything unhealthy. I am ok with this simply because that is how the market works. If you think of the world as some list of good vs. bad rules to follow, then certainly the supermarkets of today are appalling. But if you think of them as a set of interdependent actors within a closed system, each trying to maximize their personal utility functions, it makes perfect sense. A few years ago I was enraged walking through a Whole Foods store (for the first time) and coming upon one Homeopathic remedy after another in an entire aisle of medicines that weren't. It took me some time to realize that Whole Foods is not in the business of keeping me healthy. They are in the business of selling products. And so is everyone else. It is in the supermarket's best interest (short-term at least) to not manually stock everything but rather let vendors of different product lines setup their special displays. That's how you get the entire Doritos-line product display. It is in the best interest of the Doritos agent to maximize the sales at this particular store to get the highest commission. Doritos has learnt that giving a commission based on store-specific sales is the best way to maximize sales. The same goes for the Weight Loss and Diabetes mags, and even the pharmaceutical aisles. Additionally, it is in the best interest (again, at least in the short term) of the residents of the neighborhood to have one store they can go to in order to buy everything. Think of everyone aligning their actions with the best of their abilities to benefit themselves the most, like a crowd of hundred gather around a street performance to give themselves the best vantage point, and you end up with the world as is today. This does not mean it is the best the world can be. Certainly it is possible to optimize for net good at the cost of specific losses to certain entities but then we come back to the debate of who decides who should pay more taxes or lose their license to engage in trade. So as it stands, I am ok with seeing obviously unhealthy products aimed at the most vulnerable because unless the market wants otherwise, doing anything to change that is going to shake up more than a few foundations that build our economy and society.

aliston 13y ago
I don't think that this is necessarily a debate that should be confined to market terms... but even debating it within those confines, I would actually argue that this is a perfect example of a market failure. For one thing, food distribution in the US acts essentially like an oligopoly. There are a surprisingly few number of food distributors with a huge influence on which products are emphasized in the store. Companies like Frito-Lay and Coca-Cola can use their size to push out smaller companies and local farmers that produce healthier foods before the consumer even has a chance to find those products on shelves. As a result, in economic terms, most consumers are operating without anything close to perfect information and, consequently, aren't really "maximizing their personal utility functions." Second, a big reason people are buying a lot of these calorie-dense, unhealthy, processed "foods" is that they are cheap compared to, say, fresh fruits and vegetables. However, there are massive health care cost externalities that aren't factored into the costs of those products. It's a classic market failure, and if those costs were properly factored in, consumers would probably consume a lot less of them.
- chime 13y ago
  I agree, it really does sound like the perfect example of economic market failure hitting the requirements of (1) monopoly/oligopoly and (2) causing negative externalities (in health) but I find it hard to call it so because of one reason - the demand curve intersects the supply curve at current market prices. The people are getting what they want to pay for and the suppliers are more than glad to provide them that. This is more like an unplanned emergence of manufactured consent in the agricultural/food/health industry. No single company, lobby, or agency planned on turning our world upside down and replacing grocery stores and farmer's markets with supermarkets and drive-thrus. What happened was that over the past hundred years, innovative companies in the food industry came out with delicious snacks, fast foods, and ready-to-eat meals that created a market that never existed before. When these companies grew and got stronger, their marketing message became embedded in the common sense - eat cereal for breakfast, drink 8 glasses of water etc. It was in the best interest of these companies to say "Tired at 2pm? Take some 5 hour energy!" And the consumers voluntarily started stocking up on 48 packs of Capri Sun and 128oz bags of Ruffles. As the companies grew, they were acquired and optimized to sell only the most profitable products. Over time organizations and agency sprouted up to protect the interests of the industry's capital, labor, and assets. If that meant ensuring corn was subsidized, so be it. If sugarcane sugar tariffs needed to remain high, so be it. It is easy to claim market failure looking at this solely from the supply side but from the demand aspect, the current market is paradise. Regardless of how good or bad the products are, people genuinely want them. Every now and then, I myself want a can of Pringles. Fulfilling the demands at prices low enough to satiate the consumers does not seem like a market failure to me.
nbouscal 13y ago
Basing your morality on the markets can't possibly turn out well.
- chime 13y ago
  I think the relationship is the other way. Markets are based on law, which are usually heavily influenced by morals (e.g. alcohol sales in wet vs. dry counties in the US). Unless legality comes into play, my rules of morality should not affect your economic purchases and vice versa.
  - nbouscal 13y ago
    > Unless legality comes into play, my rules of morality should not affect your economic purchases and vice versa. Completely agree. Of course in this particular case there's a lot more than just morals involved, since choosing to become obese has economic and other impacts on everyone in the society. I had understood your original point to be that this was all (morally) okay because it's how the market decided, which was what I was responding to. I may well have misunderstood your point.
acjohnson55 13y ago
"The market" you're talking about is not some natural process working itself out. It's a game played in an arena where a small number of players have an asymmetrical visibility of the field and an ability to influence the rules as its played. If our public policy is to simply do nothing and let "the market" figure it out, the result will be mass exploitation for the benefit of a few. The actual market is comprised of the decisions people make, given all the man-made rules and available information. It's not something we decide to adopt; it's simply the way humans allocate resources in the face of choice and scarcity. And for many reasons, it doesn't usually optimize for anything in particular, besides short-term utility. Going laissez faire is like riding a bike with no hands. You'll be stable for a while, but when you have to react to real-world changing conditions, if you don't take action, you're inevitably going to wreck.

by chime 13y ago

aliston 13y ago

I don't think that this is necessarily a debate that should be confined to market terms... but even debating it within those confines, I would actually argue that this is a perfect example of a market failure. For one thing, food distribution in the US acts essentially like an oligopoly. There are a surprisingly few number of food distributors with a huge influence on which products are emphasized in the store. Companies like Frito-Lay and Coca-Cola can use their size to push out smaller companies and local farmers that produce healthier foods before the consumer even has a chance to find those products on shelves. As a result, in economic terms, most consumers are operating without anything close to perfect information and, consequently, aren't really "maximizing their personal utility functions." Second, a big reason people are buying a lot of these calorie-dense, unhealthy, processed "foods" is that they are cheap compared to, say, fresh fruits and vegetables. However, there are massive health care cost externalities that aren't factored into the costs of those products. It's a classic market failure, and if those costs were properly factored in, consumers would probably consume a lot less of them.

chime 13y ago
I agree, it really does sound like the perfect example of economic market failure hitting the requirements of (1) monopoly/oligopoly and (2) causing negative externalities (in health) but I find it hard to call it so because of one reason - the demand curve intersects the supply curve at current market prices. The people are getting what they want to pay for and the suppliers are more than glad to provide them that. This is more like an unplanned emergence of manufactured consent in the agricultural/food/health industry. No single company, lobby, or agency planned on turning our world upside down and replacing grocery stores and farmer's markets with supermarkets and drive-thrus. What happened was that over the past hundred years, innovative companies in the food industry came out with delicious snacks, fast foods, and ready-to-eat meals that created a market that never existed before. When these companies grew and got stronger, their marketing message became embedded in the common sense - eat cereal for breakfast, drink 8 glasses of water etc. It was in the best interest of these companies to say "Tired at 2pm? Take some 5 hour energy!" And the consumers voluntarily started stocking up on 48 packs of Capri Sun and 128oz bags of Ruffles. As the companies grew, they were acquired and optimized to sell only the most profitable products. Over time organizations and agency sprouted up to protect the interests of the industry's capital, labor, and assets. If that meant ensuring corn was subsidized, so be it. If sugarcane sugar tariffs needed to remain high, so be it. It is easy to claim market failure looking at this solely from the supply side but from the demand aspect, the current market is paradise. Regardless of how good or bad the products are, people genuinely want them. Every now and then, I myself want a can of Pringles. Fulfilling the demands at prices low enough to satiate the consumers does not seem like a market failure to me.

nbouscal 13y ago

Basing your morality on the markets can't possibly turn out well.

chime 13y ago
I think the relationship is the other way. Markets are based on law, which are usually heavily influenced by morals (e.g. alcohol sales in wet vs. dry counties in the US). Unless legality comes into play, my rules of morality should not affect your economic purchases and vice versa.
- nbouscal 13y ago
  > Unless legality comes into play, my rules of morality should not affect your economic purchases and vice versa. Completely agree. Of course in this particular case there's a lot more than just morals involved, since choosing to become obese has economic and other impacts on everyone in the society. I had understood your original point to be that this was all (morally) okay because it's how the market decided, which was what I was responding to. I may well have misunderstood your point.

acjohnson55 13y ago

"The market" you're talking about is not some natural process working itself out. It's a game played in an arena where a small number of players have an asymmetrical visibility of the field and an ability to influence the rules as its played. If our public policy is to simply do nothing and let "the market" figure it out, the result will be mass exploitation for the benefit of a few. The actual market is comprised of the decisions people make, given all the man-made rules and available information. It's not something we decide to adopt; it's simply the way humans allocate resources in the face of choice and scarcity. And for many reasons, it doesn't usually optimize for anything in particular, besides short-term utility. Going laissez faire is like riding a bike with no hands. You'll be stable for a while, but when you have to react to real-world changing conditions, if you don't take action, you're inevitably going to wreck.