This guy loves to ban everything and its mom. Maybe Bloomberg can come hold my hand and walk me to work every day, I wouldn't want to have to figure shit out on my own or anything.
His brilliant idea for businesses who will surely lose a ton of money, as soda has the highest profit margin in most businesses:
"He also said he foresaw no adverse effect on local businesses, and he suggested that restaurants could simply charge more for smaller drinks if their sales were to drop."
Its a scary world out there, Mr. Bloomberg... please save us all.
Just saw the headline but I don't think this is idiotic from a financial standpoint at all. You know how many fucking kids are growing up to be obese from all the soda and shitty food they consumed as a child and then go on to bankrupt our healthcare system? Obesity poses one of the biggest risks to the financial stability of our country and any legislation that makes it less likely that I am going to have to pay for everyone and their mother to have bariatric surgery (while also hopefully making people healthier in the process) is fine by me.
I would vote for Bloomberg for President in a heartbeat. I don't even understand why he has waited so long to run. I know people from both sides of the political spectrum who have said they would love to have him in office.
He has been a very effective leader and legislator for the NYC economy throughout the crisis and recovery. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't sign a bill that would kill his effort because of tightening profit margins on soda, of all things. Where do you even get the random statistic that soda has the highest profit margin for most businesses? You're saying that soda profits are mainly what's keeping the NYC restaurants afloat? Last I heard, no one went into a steakhouse, a nice restaurant in the Flatiron district, or even a cheap fish fry on the river and ordered a 24oz Mountain Dew.
BLOOMBERG 2016
I actually agree with this kind of action. As JA said, smoking/sugary drinks/excess alcohol/bad foods all have deleterious effects on people and cost a lot of money via insurance, medicare, etc. Sure it may suck for those who smoke, but the benefits to society are a lot greater. There is nothing "gained" by smoking, other than cancer and bad skin / health. The same is true for sugary drinks. Tax them heavily to account for their negative externalities, but don't ban them (obviously no one drinking them would be ideal).
This objection to this new law has nothing to do with if it's right or wrong for someone to drink large sodas. It's the principal behind the law of making that choice for the person which is what is wrong and a violation of our rights to pick whatever the hell we want to put in our bodies. Now on the flip side I would never be for any type of free healthcare. If you want to play your going to pay and if you cant handle the consequences of your action then too bad. That's how people learn and become more responsible. If all of a sudden the safety nets we have in the system are yanked then their would be a lot of suffering and heartache but that would be temporary relatively speaking to the sense of responsibility for ones own actions that it would instill in most people. Those that still chose not make smart and informed decisions on how they handle their health or finances would just have to deal with it - that's the nature of our existence. You can't change human nature and people will take advantage of any free shit their given. Also I'm not for any one political stance here this stuff should be common sense.
I would agree but it's unrealistic to just yank safety nets away overnight. I may want it to happen but it just won't. Given the circumstances, this is the best course of action.
I would agree but it's unrealistic to just yank safety nets away overnight. I may want it to happen but it just won't. Given the circumstances, this is the best course of action.[/quote]
It's only unrealistic because this is what we have been raised to think and been around. It is not unrealistic even the slightest bit. It has to do with an underlying altruistic philosophical undertone that runs through most people's thoughts that is just flat wrong. People need to stop worrying about other people and take care of themselves. I'm all for charity but not government sanctioned charity that comes out of my paycheck against my will.
Yeah, because this law will stop anybody from putting anything into their bodies. If some fatass wants to slam 40 oz of redbull, they can just buy two 20 oz cans. I'm all for making it more expensive for obese people to become even more obese. This is just a form of a pigovian tax. And there's nothing wrong with that.
You have clearly missed the point of the principal behind what I said - you nor I have any right to impose a tax on someone that wants to willfully bloat themselves.
Hey you know what... SITTING AT THE OFFICE IN A CHAIR FOR 80 HOURS A WEEK is more unhealthy then having a Large Soda!
Lets outlaw sitting for prolonged periods at work. Its not fair that your lifestyle is effecting the healthcare system when you keel over from a heart attack. Sitting for more then 11 hours a day increases your risk of dying within 3 years by a whopping 40%, regardless if you are fit or not. Outlawing sitting for more then a couple hours is only fair to everyone.
As JohnAnthony7 says, Obesity poses one of the biggest risks to the financial stability of our country and any legislation that makes it less likely that I am going to have to pay for everyone and their mother to have bariatric surgery.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2121002/Stand-keel--Sitting-i…
[quote=Nobama88]Hey you know what... SITTING AT THE OFFICE IN A CHAIR FOR 80 HOURS A WEEK is more unhealthy then having a Large Soda!
Lets outlaw sitting for prolonged periods at work. Its not fair that your lifestyle is effecting the healthcare system when you keel over from a heart attack. Sitting for more then 11 hours a day increases your risk of dying within 3 years by a whopping 40%, regardless if you are fit or not. Outlawing sitting for more then a couple hours is only fair to everyone.
As JohnAnthony7 says, Obesity poses one of the biggest risks to the financial stability of our country and any legislation that makes it less likely that I am going to have to pay for everyone and their mother to have bariatric surgery.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2121002/Stand-keel--Sitting-i…]
You must get an extremely large boner when Ron Paul speaks.
I am sorry, did I say something that wasn't true?
It seems like you are all gun ho about banning soda because its supposedly for the greater good of society. I provided you with a perfect example for this board, which is much worse for your health then having a large soda and you dismiss it.
If you are for banning sugary sodas all together because you some how think it will keep society from paying more for obese people, then shouldn't you logically support banning sitting for prolonged periods of time?
Go on, tell me how we should ban sugary drinks because it is bad for our health, but not ban sitting for prolonged periods of time which is proven to be much worse for our health then any sugary drink...
Congress is ineffective because most of them are money (other people's) / power hungry bureaucrats that have the same bologna idea that everyone needs to be saved. Democrats believe we need to save everyone in America while Republicans think we need to save everyone in the world by butting into everyone's business via wars and sanctions. Majority of global activity is over natural resources that we have right here in America. We want to save our parks and destroy other people's landscape. Its hypocrisy 101 and its getting old. We cant change human nature. There will always be idiots that over eat or dictators that torture their people no matter what the bleeding hearts in Congress think.
I understand the intentions are good for such a law. Hell, it makes sense to me for people to watch what they eat and drink. However, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I just can't believe we are now (As a free people) are accepting laws that regulate such behavior for the "social" well being. So, in NYC an adult will not be able to purchase a Venti frap from starbucks because somebody knows better then them. I just wonder what happened to responsibility to oneself or to their children. I would never order a large sugary drink but I should have a right to order whatever size of soda I wanted. It is America dag nabbit.
Side Bar: Is having a 40oz malt liquor still legal?
Makes sense but I am reading articles stating otherwise. Still, if I want a big gulp why can I not have one. I run and work out everyday. I don't want to make a mountain of a mole hill here but I just don't like any law limiting individual behavior. What if it was red meat or just sugar (candy etc.) Where is the line and who sets it? Why can't people take the responsibility to act for themselves.
This is a tough subject. As a Libertarian, I obviously oppose it. It is not like his smoking ban. That was done (at least on the surface) to combat secondhand smoke. Someone else's shitty decision should not infringe on you. This is different (again, on the surface). However, obesity infringes on healthy people in the form of additional taxes, premiums, and a worsening fiscal situation for the country.
What we need to do is penalize people for being fat retards. Not through taxes, but let the market dictate it. If we are going to keep the broken ass healthcare system we have... at least let private insurers underwrite obesity risk into policies. Fucking A, no one is accountable for any of their actions anymore. I am going to stop before I break out a Tyler Durden-esque rant.
Edit: Why is Tyler Durden a keyword? haha
As a libertarian, how do you even support the smoking ban? Shouldn't a private establishment be able to dictate whether they want to allow smoking or not in its own establishment? If you dont like that an establishment allows smoking, then don't patronize them. Seems simple enough. But that is for an entirely different discussion.
I understand the apparent contradiction. However, Libertarianism can't exist in a total vacuum. In my opinion, too many Libertarian's are too strict and refuse to accept some compromise. It wasn't just smoking in bars and restaurants, it also applied to common spaces in apartments and the like. Also, I didn't actively advocate the smoking ban, but I instead tolerate it.
Just like the Libertarian argument to let the banks fail in the financial crisis. Sure, in pure capitalism, they should have failed, and we should have moved on. That would have been great. However, it didn't change the reality that they were too large and levered, and if they failed, your bank account would be reading $0.
Texsun and Nobama have some foolish economic notions.
Negative externalities exist in all inefficient economies. All economies in reality are inefficient to a degree. The current global economy is plagued with inefficiencies and this leads to systemically significant negative externalities. Texsun ridiculously offered "TOUGH" as a response to RagnarDanneskjold's comment about the bailout, but he missed RagnarDanneskjold's most important point: that if the big banks failed, every retail account that they held in the US would be frozen or possibly depleted. This is a catastrophe far beyond the banks taking responsibility for their actions and paying the price. That exacts an immense cost on the American people, a penalty which they have no reason to suffer. That is the definition of a negative externality.
The obesity problem also imposes a negative externality on American citizens, though one far less dramatic. As obesity spreads and obesity-related health complications increase, the amount that healthy citizens have to pay for public (Medicare etc) and private healthcare increases. This imposes a financial penalty on the healthy/not obese, as they pay more and more into other citizens' healthcare. Government intervention on behalf of all American citizens in this case can actually lead to a more efficient, traditionally capitalist healthcare market for this reason. Whether this is the most effective course to take is greatly debatable, but to say that government intervention in this scenario always leads to more inefficiency, or that it infringes on market freedom, etc etc shows your poor understanding of economics.
Where did I ever mention "economic notions" in this whole thread?
I stated two things:
1 - If we are going to ban sugary drinks because it is bad for you, then we need to ban prolong sitting because it is far worse for you then sugary drinks. Inactivity is THE cause for obesity, not drinking a 150 cal. sugary drink.
2 - The smoking ban is stupid. A private establishment should be able to choose whether they allow a LEGAL activity such as smoking or not.
Now which one had anything to do with an "economic notion"?
Your slippery slope argument is pretty stupid and not analogous at all. It is logistically simple to tax sugary drinks to punish people who increase negative externalities. It is impossible to tax someone for sitting on their ass all day.
You're giving the same argument in a better worded way. I have an Econ degree too so no need for the definitions of an externality. You say that the American people have no reason to suffer or be penalized for banks freezing up yet they were in the game just as much as the banks. Who signed on the dotted line for all those credit cards, mortgage, cars, boats, etc that they couldn't afford? Its a two way street and by no means an excuse to expand government and violate our rights. When people say the American people then bailed them out with our tax dollars that is a faulty statement as well. Majority of Americans pay no taxes so they did't bail out shit. It was crony capitalism at its finest and all the bailout did was further enforce the flawed system we have.
Laboriosam possimus non excepturi ut quidem quidem non. Sed aut repellendus perspiciatis qui et. Voluptas qui consequatur ut quibusdam qui officia qui.
Molestiae quo voluptatem provident vero consequatur ad enim. Omnis sed aut ut ullam quis. Est perferendis distinctio et facere nisi. Iste iste praesentium aut numquam. Dolor debitis aspernatur eum quia quos aspernatur dolor. Id suscipit qui facere dicta accusamus id ratione. Reiciendis explicabo recusandae similique temporibus.
Sit harum necessitatibus voluptas aperiam aut. Eveniet illum sed qui amet. Dolorem corrupti exercitationem qui occaecati delectus et.
Laudantium fugiat praesentium illum nostrum nobis. Unde vero odio itaque alias beatae ut laboriosam. Tempore quam consectetur inventore veritatis itaque eaque aut. Fugiat odio delectus qui autem reprehenderit. In dolorem magnam ullam in est qui beatae est.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Fugit labore et aperiam cum cum sequi ratione. Unde sint maxime placeat aut maxime. Voluptatem qui itaque aut dolores cumque. Magnam nulla voluptates eligendi.
Omnis iure nostrum quaerat accusamus rem. Quia voluptatibus magnam soluta et veritatis dolorum quo.
Similique quasi perferendis id omnis. Illum neque excepturi aut nihil. Occaecati eum quo fuga aut adipisci illo similique. Quas dolorem exercitationem veritatis sequi reprehenderit enim quis. Quia rem omnis illo est facere. Laudantium quis sint reiciendis eos rerum. Numquam sed eligendi in iure sunt numquam quisquam quod.
Autem sequi fugit et iusto voluptate blanditiis provident. Dolor totam quisquam neque animi laborum praesentium natus. Temporibus non mollitia cum minus enim. Eos ut voluptatem et repellat est. Aliquid et repudiandae odit non.