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

[Kuciwalker]

People eat what they eat as part of their food culture - poor people who grew up eating junk food are accostumed to eating it, like the taste, and therefore buy it. It remains JUNK food because of its low nutritional value, and actually, you can find much cheaper calories at a supermarket than junk food, food that is still not great for you, but at least provides mjore nutrition than something like a bag of cheetos.

i.e. they are deciding to trade nutrition for flavor because they value the latter more highly than the former

Junk food is not good for someone - period. And how does taste "offset" the health effects????

Negative health effects are only bad because they make people unhappy. Yummy flavor is only good because it makes people happy. There is a tradeoff between the two and some people value the latter more highly than the former.

[Kuciwalker]

Duh.

[Al B. Sure!]

Negative health effects are only bad because they make people unhappy.

Umm... it affects more than the person who is unhealthy. It affects their family and friends and the whole of society though higher healthcare costs.

Plus, unhealthy eating is taught to children.

[Al B. Sure!]

Trade a high for the health consequences of heroine. Sound like a reasonable exchange of utility to you, Kuci?

[Hauldren Collider]

Negative health effects are only bad because they make people unhappy.

Untrue. Poor health affects the productivity of the workforce.

[Kuciwalker]

1) I didn't figure you as one to support the drug war.

2) There's a reasonable distinction to be drawn between physiological and psychological addiction.

3) I didn't say I agree with KH's POV on paternalism.

xpost

[Kuciwalker]

Untrue. Poor health affects the productivity of the workforce.

An unproductive individual is foremost harming himself. Individuals may choose to be unemployed without penalty; they should just as well be permitted to choose unproductivity.

[Kuciwalker]

There is a coherent argument to be made for limited paternalism*. Unfortunately, neither AS nor GePap are intelligent enough to make it.

*especially if, as KH does, you deny the validity of a nonzero discount rate on human welfare

[Al B. Sure!]

And besides, the taste is transient. I only know of this anecdotally but I'm sure it's been established by someone... Avoiding sweet junk food for a sustained period results in progressively less sugary foods having a perceptively stronger taste... and high consumption of sugars results in the need for progressively stronger foods for the same benefits.

[Al B. Sure!]

There is a coherent argument to be made for limited paternalism*. Unfortunately, neither AS nor GePap are intelligent enough to make it.

*especially if, as KH does, you deny the validity of a nonzero discount rate on human welfare

WHO THE **** CARES ABOUT ECONOMICS?!

There are more important things in this world than what can be counted and measured!

Am I in the twilight zone or something where people don't comprehend this?

[Hauldren Collider]

An unproductive individual is foremost harming himself.

You're forgetting a few possibilities:

1. An uninsured man who gets hospitalized due to his poor eating habits and cannot pay the costs, which get passed on to others.
2. Clearly an increase in the workforce's productivity is beneficial to everyone even if it is most beneficial to the now-more-productive individual. Imagine for instance if Bill Gates or Richard Feynman had chosen to simply not work. At an individual level it would have been most detrimental to themselves but it also would be detrimental to everyone else.

[Kidlicious]

Not being healthy is irrational.

[Hauldren Collider]

WHO THE **** CARES ABOUT ECONOMICS?!

There are more important things in this world than what can be counted and measured!

Am I in the twilight zone or something where people don't comprehend this?

Economics is the science of counting and measuring things that you seem to think can't be counted and measured, you dumb ****. The only interpretation of your statement that would make you seem anything greater than a total idiot is "economics is currently extremely inaccurate".

[Al B. Sure!]

1) I didn't figure you as one to support the drug war.

Why the **** not? I have always despised drugs. The only thing is that I have always been a proponent of education and shorter sentences for drug dealers and stricter penalties for users. The dealers are only finding a way to profit from an established horrible situation brought on by the demand for drugs. You have to strike at the demand not the supply to get rid of the drug situation.

[Kidlicious]

In other words, the government knows better than poor people do what will improve their lot in life.

Paternalist nonsense, and something which violates the foundations of virtually all modern economic thought.

Huh? You're a fringe radical. You don't represent economists. Most economists recognize that a government is needed to correct what individuals screw up and to keep the economy functioning properly.