Why doesn't the gov't legislate what people buy with food stamps?

[Al B. Sure!]

Since it would further limit the usefulness of food stamps, I think AS's proposal would actually lower the going rate on the black market.

Exactly

[giblets]

It might make sense to have a special class of food stamps for families, and require people to buy food that is deemed "healthy" with them, if your argument is that people should teach their kids to eat healthy.

[Wezil]

It would probably be much easier to set up poor people camps and be done with it.

[KrazyHorse]

This is something that would need to be further explored. Let's not take this as an established fact yet. Traditionally, as far as I've read and seen, it is viewed that health issues result in higher costs across the board.

In order to make any sense of this argument you need to demonstrate that:

a) there are significant health care cost externalities to obesity rather than a simple change of the timing and makeup of costs

b) the distortion caused by the presence of these externalities will be reduced by more than the distortion caused by the measures introduced

c) concentrating the distortion among a fairly small part of the population is better than spreading it out among the whole population

It took you most of a page to get to the point where you even CLAIMED the first point, and you haven't yet made any statement as to the second or third.

Instead, you spent ages blabbering about rights and other nonsense which is irrelevant to the actual discussion.

[KrazyHorse]

Since it would further limit the usefulness of food stamps, I think AS's proposal would actually lower the going rate on the black market.

Of course it would. It would also reduce the intrinsic value of the stamps to the recipients. Which effect would dominate? that is an empirical question which is determined by the relative elasticities. My feeling is that the second effect would dominate, based on the fact that food stamp recipients are a relatively small proportion of the general population, and show no indication of placing more value on eating healthy than the general population.

[Al B. Sure!]

based on the fact that food stamp recipients are a relatively small proportion of the general population

The number of Americans receiving food stamps reached 39.68 million in February 2010, the highest number since the program began in 1962.... As of late November 2009, one in eight Americans and one in four children are using food stamps and the program rate is growing at 20,000 people a day

As for WIC:

Currently, WIC serves 45% of all infants born in the US

Relatively small my ass.

[KrazyHorse]

1) What's the utility function of a toddler?

2) Who gives a **** about utility?!

There are more important things in this world than economic utility. Like not dying from heart disease. Like human betterment.

a) Utility IS human betterment. How the **** else do you define utility?
b) Not dying of heart disease has some value which needs to be measured relative to the values of other things. There is a tradeoff for many people between eating things they like to eat and not risking a heart attack. Some people like junk food more than others, and some people place more value on living a long time than others.

WTF is the matter with you?

[KrazyHorse]

It would probably be much easier to set up poor people camps and be done with it.

And since the government already tells poor people what to do, this is obviously a good idea.

[Al B. Sure!]

In order to make any sense of this argument you need to demonstrate that:

a) there are significant health care cost externalities to obesity rather than a simple change of the timing and makeup of costs

b) the distortion caused by the presence of these externalities will be reduced by more than the distortion caused by the measures introduced

c) concentrating the distortion among a fairly small part of the population is better than spreading it out among the whole population

It took you most of a page to get to the point where you even CLAIMED the first point, and you haven't yet made any statement as to the second or third.

Instead, you spent ages blabbering about rights and other nonsense which is irrelevant to the actual discussion.

I appreciate your critique of my discussion skills but I'm no social scientist and do not have the data to support my case except anecdotally.

[KrazyHorse]

As for WIC:



Relatively small my ass.

Are you ****ing retarded? You're talking about placing restrictions on FOOD STAMPS you ****ing moron. The number of infants fed by WIC is completely ****ing irrelevant to that discussion

[KrazyHorse]

The quality of your argumentation is extraordinarily low.

[Al B. Sure!]

a) Utility IS human betterment. How the **** else do you define utility?
b) Not dying of heart disease has some value which needs to be measured relative to the values of other things. There is a tradeoff for many people between eating things they like to eat and not risking a heart attack. Some people like junk food more than others, and some people place more value on living a long time than others.

WTF is the matter with you?

You're assuming informed individuals. Individuals can not be trusted to make appropriate decisions concerning their utility functions without proper information.

Am I maximizing my utility buying a car for $20K at a local dealership when, unbeknownst to me, I could purchase the same car a few blocks away for $19K? Information is important for making decisions concerning my utility.

[Al B. Sure!]

1 in 4 children are served by FOOD STAMPS, not WIC. that was just a side point.

[KrazyHorse]

I appreciate your critique of my discussion skills but I'm no social scientist and do not have the data to support my case except anecdotally.

The point is that you haven't even laid out the FRAMEWORK of a coherent argument.

You don't need actual numbers to provide a reasonable case. You need to be able to plot out what points lead you to your conclusion and provide SOME kind of rationale behind your belief in those points.

Holy ****, dude.

[giblets]

1 in 4 children are served by FOOD STAMPS, not WIC. that was just a side point.

Even if one in four people are recipients, they're still outnumbered by non-recipients three to one, so Krazyhorse seems to be right.