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

[Kuciwalker]

I was just explaining to you the blatantly obvious point that humans, especially drug addicts, are not rational economic agents and that there are more important things than finding points on a utility frontier.

Where does "if LESS STUFF EXISTS than LESS STUFF CAN BE CONSUMED" rely on people being rational economic agents?

[Kuciwalker]

Jesus Christ, I'm not sure if you are genuinely this dumb or are just deliberately disingenuous in a failed attempt to score rhetorical points.

[giblets]

And you know what, age by itself does not impart wisdom - if paternalism is fine for a ten year old, it will be just as fine for a 30 year old, because there is no rational reason to think that in that time the individual has "outgrown" the reason for paternalism, ie. lack of information or the ability to analyze that information accurately or correctly.

i.e. you've decided the masses are retarded and should be told how to live

of course you're enlightened and know what's best for everyone else

AGAIN, the point of the Food Stamp program is to help poor people by allowing them to buy nutritious food. JUNK food isn't nutritious, and nothing about the tast changes that. It is paternalistic to punish people for not putting on their seatbelts, or for speaking on a cell phone while driving. I approve of both those policies because people have shown, though their actions, NOT to be the wonderful rational agents that you seem to assume they are. And it has nothing to do with being poor or not. I am sure that there are plenty of poor people who know better than to waste food stamp money on junk food. That doesn't stop the correctness of allowing the government to impose further limits on food stamp puchases.

The value of food depends on not just nutritional content but also how much someone likes it, and the only person who knows the latter is the person eating the food. Food is subjective while with seat belts there's nothing gained by not wearing one, so it's much more reasonable to claim that any rational actor would wear a seat belt.

Driving while using a cell phone is different because it's a threat to public safety, while eating junk food doesn't cause anyone else to get fat.

At the end, while you and KH want to makes this an economics arguement, IT ISN'T, at least no for me, so appeals to economic thought and theory mean ****, especially if they hinge on the idea that all individuals always know what is best for them better than anyone else, which is in and of itself patent nonsense.

WTF? Food stamps are used to buy things, how is a discussion of food stamps not economics related? And how do you know how much someone else enjoys eating a twinkie?

[Al B. Sure!]

The problem is that people discount their own future welfare when making decisions, which results in choices that are suboptimal in a predictable and [possibly, partially] correctable way through incentives.

Take this and add an extra heaping of irrationality (plus some **** economics; what about plain old human betterment not defined by utility but by other values?) and you have a reason to support nutritional guidelines with regards to food stamps.

[Kuciwalker]

Take this and add an extra heaping of irrationality (plus some **** economics; what about plain old human betterment not defined by utility but by other values?) and you have a reason to support nutritional guidelines with regards to food stamps.

Don't pretend you actually understand anything I said there, peon.

[Al B. Sure!]

Where does "if LESS STUFF EXISTS than LESS STUFF CAN BE CONSUMED" rely on people being rational economic agents?

Why are you still talking about this? You're right that if there's no drugs, no one can use drugs. Did I say that is wrong? You're missing the forest for the tree.

[Kidlicious]

In your "real world", apparently addicts' desire for a drug magically increases the amount of the drug available, regardless of how much is actually produced.

This thread is about how americans eat remember. Americans eat unhealthy food, which is irrational. They also become addicted to things too often. That's reality. People aren't rational.

[Kuciwalker]

Why are you still talking about this? You're right that if there's no drugs, no one can use drugs. Did I say that is wrong?

Yes. Repeatedly.

[Al B. Sure!]

Food is subjective while with seat belts there's nothing gained by not wearing one, so it's much more reasonable to claim that any rational actor would wear a seat belt.

Sure there's something to be gained... people think it looks cool.

And how do you know how much someone else enjoys eating a twinkie?

What if they value it so much because they're addicted to it? What if a withdrawal from eating twinkies caused their tastes to change and that changed their value of the twinkie?

[Al B. Sure!]

Don't pretend you actually understand anything I said there, peon.

[Hauldren Collider]

Albert Speer has been making the same misbegotten point for a few thread pages now and needs to learn a new song or actually learn.

[Al B. Sure!]

Yes. Repeatedly.

Where? Show me. I apologize if I wasn't clear. I sometimes think people have the same knowledge on these things that I do and I say half-points assuming people would fill in the rest of the blanks themselves and not misunderstand me.

[giblets]

What if they value it so much because they're addicted to it? What if a withdrawal from eating twinkies caused their tastes to change and that changed their value of the twinkie?

Then there's very little that would prevent an addict from getting his twinkies... especially food stamp regulations.

[Hauldren Collider]

What if they value it so much because they're addicted to it? What if a withdrawal from eating twinkies caused their tastes to change and that changed their value of the twinkie?

This is not a relevant factor. We never argued that individuals always know what is best for them (though this is often the case, and the alternative is government which is most of the time much worse at determining this). We argued that only an individual best knows what he wants (among a set of things of which he is aware) and how much he wants it. Whether he SHOULD want it is not relevant.

At the time that the individual puchases the twinkie, he wants the twinkie. This is the critical point.

[Al B. Sure!]

Then there's very little that would prevent an addict from getting his twinkies... especially food stamp regulations.

Good point. Fortunately, sugar isn't crack.

I see that wasn't a good rhetorical question with regards to this. Won't use it next time.