Economics, Not Supersize
This article points out an interesting aspect of personal gluttony: that you actually lose, rather than save money, by choosing "supersize" portions, because of subsequent extra costs this choice implies.
This is further proof that we really need a new economics that takes into account these factors - just as we need a commons-based economics to factor the true cost of environmental destruction into things like wood, beef and soya.
Posts
6 comments:
I'm not sure that we need a "new economics" as much as we need to agree upon standards of how we carry out existent cost-benefit analyses. In many ways, the debate on the "cost" of "bad" food isn't so different from the debates of the early 70's around the cost of lead in gasoline. I think we can all agree that there are hidden costs to many things that impact our day to day lives. For all of our economic and scientific progress, we have still not been able to place a dollar value on a human life- that's probably a good thing.
The problem here is that eating what one would like to eat is considered a freedom (I suppose one could lump in smoking and carrying a gun here in America). If the cost were to only be carried by the individual making the choice, then the problem would be solved. However, the price is spread out through private and public health insurance.
Moreover, as genetics moves forward, I am certain that we will find that some people simply have a kind of "immunity" to bad foods. We already know that there are genetic mutations that lead to hypercholesterolemia- these tend to have heart attacks early in life. There are probably others who can consume high amounts of cholesterol with little adverse impact. Does everyone pay the extra costs of unhealthy food? How is pricing achieved in an environment where players (and their insurance carriers) know their personal risks. There are also issues of social equity too. In the US, the poorest segments of the population are the biggest consumers of the least healthy food. This is mostly because fruits and vegetables are increasingly expensive while processed foods are mostly unchanged. The tradeoff becomes one of too many calories versus too few. Anyhow, one could go on and on...Great topic!
Would HENRY CLAY agree?
No, you're right: what I really meant was we need to come up with a new economics framework, rather than an entirely new kind of economics.
Until we do so, all these factors will be ignored, and decisions will be made on the basis of skewed information.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
As for Henry Clay, I don't know enough about him to comment: what do you think?
"Skewed" is the right term. The health impacts created by cheap unhealthy foods are (in a sense) externalities. When a coal-burning energy plant releases pollutants- these are negative externalities. Someone has to pay for negative externalities. In the case of unhealthy food, insurance companies or governments (the public regardless) pay the price- especially in societies with some highly sophisticated and expensive means of diagnosing and treating related problems.
Traditionally, the way to treat negative externalities is to tax the producer to the extent that the product is harmful to the public. It is my understanding (perhaps incorrectly) that part of the reason that European energy taxes are so high is to reflect the negative impacts of pollution- as noted, I may be wrong. In the U.S. we tend to tax "vices" such as alcohol and tobacco with this idea in mind but seldom do the proceeds go back to alcohol treatment centers or respiratory care units. Some money goes towards prevention and the rest goes towards other varied activities including natural resources and tax relief. Anyhow, a tax on unhealthy food would be a daunting and complex prospect if for no other reason than the connections between certain foods and their deleterious impacts are not always black and white. I once suggested an externality driven tax on fast-food outlets and cigarette makers simply because of the amount of litter on the side of the road- pretty tough to enforce!
Anyhow, I have to get back to my ridiculously large bowl of ice cream. Thanks!
Thanks for your analysis. Yes, it was the issue of externalities that I had in mind.
It doesn't seem so hard to come up with a framework to address some of the issues: the difficult bit is probably the political will to implement it.
I'm not holding my breath (though if we cut down any more rainforests, we all may have to....)
Post a Comment