[iNow]

A Tripolation, on 8 February 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:

You are under the mistaken assumption that grocers buy from local farmers. This isn't so. Kroger, Wal-MArt, etc, import produce from mega farms that sell by volume.

There are some stores that have a "local farmer" section. But those prices are higher than normal. They have to be. There are organics stores that sell local produce. But they are incredibly expensive.

Small local farmers cannot compete with the mega-farms, even if their product is better.

Isn't that exactly what Phi is talking about, though? Using smart methods to shift the price pressures to one where local growers finally CAN compete and where consumers CAN act on their desire for the better/healthier product without sacrificing their ability to pay the electric bill and keep the heat on at their home?

[Phi for All]

A Tripolation, on 8 February 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:

You are under the mistaken assumption that grocers buy from local farmers. This isn't so. Kroger, Wal-MArt, etc, import produce from mega farms that sell by volume.

Sure, those stores have the distribution power to push perishables further out right now. As fuel prices increase and the climate changes, the mega farm model may lose out due to higher shipping and spoilage costs.

Quote

There are some stores that have a "local farmer" section. But those prices are higher than normal. They have to be. There are organics stores that sell local produce. But they are incredibly expensive.

I have a couple of local grower grocery chains near me, Sunflower Farmer's Market in particular, that aren't that expensive at all. Their organics aren't any more than my local Kroger affiliate, and some of their other produce is cheaper. If they do have some things at higher price, I don't find them incredibly higher.

Quote

Small local farmers cannot compete with the mega-farms, even if their product is better.

This is changing. President Obama supports legislation that's aimed at curtailing some of the detrimental practices perpetrated by the mega farms. They're horrible polluters, whether it's a growing farm or a factory farm (Confined Animal Feeding Operation), and recent studies have shown there are many hidden costs that are being caused but not accounted for in large scale farming. It's a falsely profitable model that shifts liability from the business to the consumer and taxpayers.

Quote

Find a way to cheapen the cost of fertilizer per tonne and lessen the cost of diesel. Food prices will go down.

Sure, but we're trying to get people to eat healthier while still allowing them choices. I don't think it's just the overall price of healthy foods that keeps people from buying them.

I see a tax on unhealthy foods to subsidize lower prices on healthy foods as a viable way to reach that goal. This will help people who are being responsible while penalizing those who aren't.

But there are obviously people who don't shop at the grocery for other reasons than price. Lack of cooking expertise, or a perceived lack of time to prepare healthy meals are some other factors. I heard about a concept a while back where vacant commercial buildings (there are a few of those around me, even some vacant grocery stores) are leased for farmer's markets where you can buy produce that's just been freshly chopped up for you and bagged with simple instructions to make stews, soups and casseroles. They only prep the raw food there, they don't cook it, which saves a ton on inspections and venting and all the costs involved in operating an oven.

I'm curious to know, from some of the members who DON'T cook or use the grocery store much, what it would take to get you to start? What are your biggest obstacles and drawbacks? Would you like to start eating healthier?

[A Tripolation]

iNow, on 8 February 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

Isn't that exactly what Phi is talking about, though?

It it is, I misinterpreted, and my apologies.

Quote

Using smart methods to shift the price pressures to one where local growers finally CAN compete and where consumers CAN act on their desire for the better/healthier product without sacrificing their ability to pay the electric bill and keep the heat on at their home?

This would be most excellent. And there wouldn't even need to be an increase in the number of farmers. Most small farmers have contracts with the mega-corporation farms (notably: Tyson) where they sell their locally raised product to the big boys just so they have a buyer.

But, here's where I don't understand. People keep screaming about cutting the subsidies for farmers and such. Making them pay carbon tax for their cattle and tractors. I ask you, how is that progressive to expanding local farming services to the actual locals? The cost of fertilizer has made small-farming (500 acres or less) economically irrelevant. And people want to get rid of the subsidies that make it relevant. Doesn't make sense to me.

Phi for All, on 8 February 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

Sure, those stores have the distribution power to push perishables further out right now. As fuel prices increase and the climate changes, the mega farm model may lose out due to higher shipping and spoilage costs.

Fuel price increase (which is directly correlated to fertilizer prices) would be worse for small farmers than factory farms. They can weather the storm. We can't.

Quote

I have a couple of local grower grocery chains near me, Sunflower Farmer's Market in particular, that aren't that expensive at all. Their organics aren't any more than my local Kroger affiliate, and some of their other produce is cheaper. If they do have some things at higher price, I don't find them incredibly higher.

Oh, sure, there are some successful farmers' market where a group of guys will get together and make it, but how many of those do you see? Trust me, we hate doing business with the factory farms. My dad loathes having to sell his cattle because he knows that they won't be treated as they should. If farmers could sell to their community, they would. But, honestly, we can't compete with the price of entities like Kroger.

Quote

This is changing. President Obama supports legislation that's aimed at curtailing some of the detrimental practices perpetrated by the mega farms. They're horrible polluters, whether it's a growing farm or a factory farm (Confined Animal Feeding Operation), and recent studies have shown there are many hidden costs that are being caused but not accounted for in large scale farming. It's a falsely profitable model that shifts liability from the business to the consumer and taxpayers.

Something tells me that if this causes food prices to go up, it won't pass at all.

Quote

Sure, but we're trying to get people to eat healthier while still allowing them choices. I don't think it's just the overall price of healthy foods that keeps people from buying them.

That and the time to prepare the meals is all I can think of why people wouldn't want a true garden fresh salad with their meal. Or fresh cilantro thrown into their selection of sauteed vegetables. Mmmmm.

Quote

I see a tax on unhealthy foods to subsidize lower prices on healthy foods as a viable way to reach that goal. This will help people who are being responsible while penalizing those who aren't.

I wouldn't normally agree with this since it's far too Big-Brother-y, but hey, since they're doing it to cigarettes, I don't mind them doing it to junk food.

[JustinW]

Quote

If you are not of average length, the body mass index will give an error.

To show the error, you should check out NBA basketball players. They are top athletes. But they somehow all get into the very dangerously fat category.

The reason is that they are so tall. Weight scales with the 3rd power of length (like volume). The BMI only scales with the 2nd power of length. And that is just a really crappy fit.

I wonder how this affects the averaging of the whole country, and maybe this so called crisis isn't as bad as some would like it to seem. Even though I still believe that junk food does have some bearing on the healthcare system I wonder just how much and also am weary of the overall accuracy of the stats.

Quote

The slippery slope leading down to your sleeping habits example is a fallacious one unless you can show how those habits might infringe on the rights of others. OTOH, if your snoring keeps enough townspeople awake at night and you fail to do anything about it....

Man I hope there's not a sleep walking epidemic.

Quote

You're bringing business into my example to make it less... better. And then you're arguing against my examples rather than the original point.

The reason I was arguing against your examples was because it didn't fall into the same kind of scenario. Let's take the car scenario. A better example of the relation between the two would be what I was thinking earlier along the lines that junk food was the big vehicles while cars were the health food. A proper relation would be taxing big vehicles and subsidising the smaller vehicles. But you don't tax big vehicles then turnaround and subsidise the smaller vehicles with it. That would be like taxing Peterbuilt and using that money to subsidise GM. Does that sound reasonable? It doesn't to me.

Quote

I'd have to think about the rest. Overall, my goal would be to make healthy food less expensive to attract more demand, increasing supply and lowering costs further.

And you don't think there is other ways to do that? With all the inventiveness that we've had in the financial sector this past decade someone is bound to have that rabbit in there hat. But I would have to admit that I have no answer to covering the cost that needs to be cut in order to boost the health food market.

Quote

You are under the mistaken assumption that grocers buy from local farmers. This isn't so. Kroger, Wal-MArt, etc, import produce from mega farms that sell by volume.

There are some stores that have a "local farmer" section. But those prices are higher than normal. They have to be. There are organics stores that sell local produce. But they are incredibly expensive.

Small local farmers cannot compete with the mega-farms, even if their product is better.

Uh Oh Phi, I think A Tripolation has sniffed out another one of those pesky corporations. I wonder how many congressmen would bank on a surge in health food sales.

Quote

Find a way to cheapen the cost of fertilizer per tonne and lessen the cost of diesel. Food prices will go down.

That is an interesting thing to think about.

This post has been edited by JustinW: 8 February 2012 - 10:59 PM

[iNow]

A Tripolation, on 8 February 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

But, here's where I don't understand. People keep screaming about cutting the subsidies for farmers and such. Making them pay carbon tax for their cattle and tractors.

I'm not too closely connected to this, and really don't have strong feelings myself. However, my sense is that the concern (the screaming over subsidies) is that the things being subsidized don't need it, or that the wrong people are being subsidized. It strikes me as similar to people saying we shouldn't subsidize oil companies. They're already making insanely large profits, and they're hurting the environment, as well. IINM, the people screaming about subsidies think that agro-corporations... these monster mega growers... are already making large profits and growing things that are hurting the health of the public... like with corn that is used for corn syrup, etc. Regardless, I suspect strongly that you understand the fertilizer and other issues better than I do.

[iNow]

[iNow]

"Every dollar raised by taxing harmful activities is one dollar less that we must raise by taxing useful ones."

--Robert H. Frank, The Darwin Economy: Liberty, Competition, and the Common Good


h/t Brad DeLong

[A Tripolation]

iNow, on 8 February 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

that the things being subsidized don't need it, or that the wrong people are being subsidized.

Yes, but it's more like everyone is subsidized for a certain thing and that includes the super-rich farmers that don't need it. I can understand being upset with that. But the movement isn't to refine the subsidies. It is to end them completely because they're "pork". That is ridiculous. There is a reason that Americans spend less than 20 cents of every dollar on food. It's, in large part, because the government helps to keep prices down.

Quote

like with corn that is used for corn syrup, etc.

You're good at finding figures, so I'll let you look it up. The amount of corn used to make corn syrup is negligibly small.

iNow, on 11 February 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

"Every dollar raised by taxing harmful activities is one dollar less that we must raise by taxing useful ones."

--Robert H. Frank, The Darwin Economy: Liberty, Competition, and the Common Good

I completely agree. It is being done with cigarettes. I don't understand why they don't do it with alcohol though. I largely suspect it's because the majority of adult Americans drink while a minority smoke. Seems quite hypocritical to me.

[Phi for All]

A Tripolation, on 11 February 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

Yes, but it's more like everyone is subsidized for a certain thing and that includes the super-rich farmers that don't need it. I can understand being upset with that. But the movement isn't to refine the subsidies. It is to end them completely because they're "pork". That is ridiculous. There is a reason that Americans spend less than 20 cents of every dollar on food. It's, in large part, because the government helps to keep prices down.

I have to wonder though. Since the government is artificially keeping food prices down by using taxpayer dollars to give directly to food-producing businesses, how much would prices go up without the subsidies? Would it be more than we're paying in taxes? Since the subsidies aren't subject to the same kinds of market pressures that prices are adjusted by, it seems to me that we're paying more in taxes than we'd end up paying at the grocery store.

I think subsidies should only be used to help emerging sustainable technologies gain a foothold in the market. The subsidies should be time-limited so all involved can prepare for their removal as well as use. Giving taxpayer dollars (from everyone, regardless of whether you use the products or not or how much) to already wealthy sectors (like oil) is just criminal in my opinion, made more so because so many of the companies that benefit are extremely outspoken about shrinking the federal government. They loves the handouts but hates the regulations. They basically want it all their way, with no balance to the greed.

Quote

I completely agree. It is being done with cigarettes. I don't understand why they don't do it with alcohol though. I largely suspect it's because the majority of adult Americans drink while a minority smoke. Seems quite hypocritical to me.

There are quite a bit of taxes on liquor, but I'm not sure if any of those go to pay for any of the consequences of alcohol abuse.

http://microliquor.c...tilled-spirits/

Quote

Don't forget that the Federal Government charges a Federal Excise tax of $2.14 per 750ML bottle of 40% (80 proof) spirits. This is built into the retail price. The final retail price of liquor is taxed again with the State Sales Tax (which is different from State Excise Tax).

It's interesting that they do it this way. The federal and state taxes must get built in so when you buy a $20 bottle of scotch you don't get rung up for $25. Probably the same people who would scream at that wouldn't blink at having the same scotch marked at $24 with just $1 in local taxes.

[A Tripolation]

Phi for All, on 11 February 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

I have to wonder though. Since the government is artificially keeping food prices down by using taxpayer dollars to give directly to food-producing businesses, how much would prices go up without the subsidies? Would it be more than we're paying in taxes? Since the subsidies aren't subject to the same kinds of market pressures that prices are adjusted by, it seems to me that we're paying more in taxes than we'd end up paying at the grocery store.

This is a very good question. Most of what I know on this topic comes from my father who is a farmer, receives subsidies, and closely follows the economics of the trade. I'll ask him to point me to some reading I can do to see if I can answer this. But IIRC, the market prices for stuff like grain is mostly controlled (check that, dominated by) the price of fertilizer. Fertilizer increases yield to astronomical levels. And it's pretty much all of the perennial overhead. I do not think subsidies are in control that much so that a completely free market system would result in lower prices.
The subsidies we receive are from everything to using more environmentally-friendly farming techniques (because they are a tad more inefficient) to setting a certain amount of acreage aside for produce (other than the more profitable things like tobacco).

Quote

There are quite a bit of taxes on liquor, but I'm not sure if any of those go to pay for any of the consequences of alcohol abuse.

None that are comparable to cigarettes. The tax on one pack exceeds $6.00 in New York.

This post has been edited by A Tripolation: 14 February 2012 - 03:58 AM

[Vent]

I find it difficult to believe some of the stuff said here. Most notably, the idea that junk food is cheaper than healthy food for one, and the idea that people don't know the difference between healthy food and non-healthy food for another.

Considering the two viewpoints argued seem to both be arguing from a rights-based perspective, where one side is don't increase tax because you're infringing on people's liberty to pay for others' eating habits, and on the other side is increase tax because people's eating habits are infringing on others' liberty, if we assent to the first paragraph and side with the second argument, and assuming that health care is to remain social, would it not be more humane, ethical and, basically, nice, to use some of the US military defense budget instead? Why not? Maybe US education could get some love as well with some of that budget?

Just a thought.

[Phi for All]

Vent, on 14 February 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

would it not be more humane, ethical and, basically, nice, to use some of the US military defense budget instead?

All that stands in the way are the corporations that manufacture armaments, the corporations that have military contracts, and the corporations that hire lobbyists to manipulate Congress into sending the military to pave the way for their business investments. Get past them and you're good to go.

[Vent]

No, because the biggest consumer is the US government. Lobbyists are a bane of course, but the one that capitulates is again the US government. I believe the power resides on its shoulders.

[JohnB]

Santalum,

Quote

If that is how you interpret it then so be it!

No interpretation is needed.

Quote

If there are enough failed adults making bad choices and harming wider society in the process then screw their individual rights to make those bad choices!

As with badly behaving children, they ought do what they are told not what they want to do.

If people disagree with you they are obviously wrong and have no right to opinion or choice. People can bleat about Godwin if they wish but the simple fact is that those who believe that people who disagree do not have the right to an opinion are in the mould of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Only the psychotic feel that those opposed to them should "do as they are told". Some 70 years ago there was a bit of a problem with people who thought that way and I hoped that we were rid of them. It would appear not and they will, eventually, have to be dealt with as their predecessors were.

I think a big problem is that the definition of "good" and "bad" food moves a bit with time. To a degree we can all agree that most fast food is junk and isn't all that healthy, but once past that point of agreement, then what? A vegetarian would say that meats should be taxed more. Are meats good or bad? Is free range meat better than grain fed and should it therefore get a tax reduction?

If yiou are going to use a tax regime to attempt to change peoples eating habits are you going to encourage high carb or low carb diets? The idea is great in theory but I think fundamentally unworkable in practice.

[imatfaal]

JohnB, on 17 February 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

If people disagree with you they are obviously wrong and have no right to opinion or choice. People can bleat about Godwin if they wish but the simple fact is that those who believe that people who disagree do not have the right to an opinion are in the mould of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Only the psychotic feel that those opposed to them should "do as they are told". Some 70 years ago there was a bit of a problem with people who thought that way and I hoped that we were rid of them. It would appear not and they will, eventually, have to be dealt with as their predecessors were.

The equating of using tax regimes and punitive excise duty to influence public action, with the totalitarian states of the 20th century who killed, maimed, and imprisoned those who even voiced dissent is ridiculous. It is practically a definition of society that proscriptive rules are made and enforced - there is a complete qualitative difference with the ideological totalitarian states who attempted to quash any form of unorthodox action and eventually preclude the possibility of unorthodox thought.

Quote

I think a big problem is that the definition of "good" and "bad" food moves a bit with time. To a degree we can all agree that most fast food is junk and isn't all that healthy, but once past that point of agreement, then what? A vegetarian would say that meats should be taxed more. Are meats good or bad? Is free range meat better than grain fed and should it therefore get a tax reduction?

I agree with you - the decision are all arbitrary to an extent. I like having a free at the point of need Health Service - and if we pay for that (even if not ring-fenced) by taxing those who smoke, drink , and eat crap more than we tax those who play sports, go veggie, or are abstemious then it is fine with me (even though I pretty much fall into the former category)

Quote

If yiou are going to use a tax regime to attempt to change peoples eating habits are you going to encourage high carb or low carb diets? The idea is great in theory but I think fundamentally unworkable in practice.

taxing most often works on an proscriptive rather than prescriptive basis - you tax X, you don't tax every thing but Y. a tax on junk food, with funds being used to subsidize fresh food at a good price on a local basis excludes a very few forms of food; and is very inclusive, in that most food groups can get into the subsidy regime.

[JohnB]

Quote

The equating of using tax regimes and punitive excise duty to influence public action, with the totalitarian states of the 20th century who killed, maimed, and imprisoned those who even voiced dissent is ridiculous.

I was equating the mindsets involved. Totalitarianism starts when you decide your opponent has no right to an opinion. Once you have defined your opponents as untermenschen who have no right to be heard, then you have decreed they have no rights at all.

I'll call out totalitarianism anytime I see it