The Obesity Epidemic

Libertarianmonarchy.com

Many people believe that the reason the U.S. and much of the western world has an obesity crisis is because people are just disgraceful. They have no self-control. They are unable to prevent themselves from shoving Twinkies into their mouths and watching tv all day. It is believed that Capitalism has created a society with cheap and unhealthy food and a bunch of sluggish fat people. What is the solution? …Of course we need the almighty government and our wise overlords to save us from ourselves.

I believe that this is completely untrue. The reason there is an obesity crisis is not because of the people. It’s not even because of easy accessibility to unhealthy food and a trend towards a more sedentary lifestyle. The reason there is an obesity crisis is because of the government. Now the socialists reading are going to be skeptical. “You Libertarians always blame everything on the government. If it rains it must be the government’s fault.” Alright. Alright. Granted, but just hear me out.

The true reason that there is an obesity epidemic can be explained by understanding the praxeological concept of time preference. In case you don’t know, praxeology is a deductive science. It is the study of human action(human decision-making). Time preference is the degree of discounting made for current consumption relative to future consumption. It is deduced, through praxeology, that humans distinguish between time periods in relation to satisfying wants. What encourages humans to save is an interest rate. If they delay consumption they will get to consume more in the future. If you have a very high degree of time preference, you need to consume immediately, and you are only capable of delaying consumption if you are rewarded with a very high interest rate. On the other hand, someone with a low degree of time preference, is capable of delaying consumption fairly easily and does not require a very high interest rate.

Once you understand the concept of time preference you can understand how the government has taken many actions to increase societies degree of time preference. The government has created social security(also known as the pension plan or a ponzi scheme) to prevent people from saving for retirement. The government has created employment insurance so people don’t save in case they lose their job. The government constantly rewards spending and punishes savings. The most significant way they do this is through ultra low interest rates, set by the central banks. Money is printed by central banks that push down interest rates and create inflation. If prices are rising that devalues savings, and if interest rates are low you are not incentivized to save because you do not get a high return. By encouraging a high degree of time preference, we have created a society that prefers current satisfaction, eating unhealthy food, to future satisfaction, the health consequences of eating healthy food. Furthermore, let’s say the interest rate is 30%. It’s very very high so everyone saves and by saving it prevents them from consuming. As you start to lower interest rates people are now forced to spend money. You can either save or spend and savings is dependent on the interest rate. As interest rates fall it forces people to stop saving which forces them to spend. Considering how in America no one saves they have very little money which means they are forced to spend on inexpensive short-term consumption goods. Consumption goods are the kind of goods that you see in the malls such as clothing and, more importantly, food. It is possible that people with high degrees of time preference choose to buy television sets or refrigerators but those things have very steep marginal utility curves. Food and clothing, and other consumption goods, have a very flat marginal utility curve. You can consume more and more and your satisfaction will continue to rise. Of course it is true that Americans do own too many television sets, or other luxury items, but it is capped because of the steep marginal utility curve. American consumers have on average 29 pairs of shoes and they all own too much clothing. Consumers clearly purchase too much food as well. The American society is filled with a very child-like population. Children are always concerned with immediate gratification. This is why they are always screaming for CANDY! Similarly, the adults within this society are very child-like. They consume unhealthy food. They ingest alcohol and drug-like substances. And they buy everything that catches their eye and never consider saving any of their money for the future.

It can be argued that the higher degree of time preference has only negligibly increased unhealthy eating and that people would still eat at restaurants just as much if interest rates were higher because it’s a small part their income. I don’t think that is true. If you think of 3 meals a day for 10$ each. That is 30$ times 365 days which comes up to almost 11,000$ a year. That’s a huge amount of money for most people.

Many will argue that the reason people are eating unhealthy food is because of evil corporations like McDonalds. My response: McDonalds doesn’t make people fat. Fat people make McDonalds. Companies cater to consumers. Consumers decide exactly what type of food the companies produce.

Others will argue that we are wealthier today and so we can afford to buy more food and work less. Also we have computers so people are more sedentary. Although, in the 1950’s people had televisions and people were arguably wealthier than today and yet there was not an obesity epidemic. The obesity epidemic is a recent phenomenon and it is clearly correlated with the recent increase in the degree of time preference. As the government has discouraged savings they have encouraged the consumption of food and thereby have created the obesity crisis.

Many governments try to prevent obesity by banning fast food restaurants or creating health organizations. They try to regulate and ban trans fats or limit the amount of sodium etc. They assault our liberties in the name of safety. But as Jefferson and Franklin have said “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Governments always create problems and then call it a market failure. Then they use it as a justification for why they must interfere within the economy and rob us of our freedom.

The interest rate doesn’t matter in terms of saving vs consumption. You just save in terms of investment (stocks, commodities, real estate) instead of cash holdings. Epidemic home ownership flies in the face of your “government promotes low-time preference” hypothesis.

But why are people fat? High density palatable foods decrease Leptin sensitivity which results in appetite deregulation. In the Laissez-faire world, without the Dept of Agriculture pushing up food prices, food gets substantially cheaper and there are even fewer short term penalties to chronic overfeeding. Combine this with drug deregulation, and insulin prices fall, bromocriptine gets used to treat diabetes, etc etc.

Long story short the market ECONOMIZES and makes it easier for you to get away with stupid crap.The leftists are correct that a 200% tax on cheeseburgers will decrease consumption. Stop buying into their silly little middle class mid-life crisis suburban 90’s morality or stop advocating liberty. The market enhances our freedom, which includes freedom of debauchery.

It doesn’t have anything to do with the government subsidizing empty calories?

Even if the government subsidizes a subset of foods, ALL food prices would fall under a free market.

Also its like… subsidized compared to what? Okay Coke’s relative price is lower with the subsidy. But brown rice and oatmeal are still some of the cheapest calories on the market. Fast food is ungodly expensive compared to anything you homecook (and takes more time to procure). Truly poor people eat oatmeal, peanut butter, and eggs.

I don’t think subsidies matter from the consumption side. People eat what they wanna eat. Its just not that expensive in the first place.

With respect to the physiology of it, sugar per se doesn’t cause overeating. What’s going on is that high density palatable foods are both bypassing and desensitizing us to the myriad of appetite regulation mechanisms our body uses. French fries aren’t high in sugar but you can overeat them very easily.

The medical and dietary community just like to have their little scapegoats. First it was fat, and then they figured out that fat wasn’t that bad. Now its high fructose corn syrup even though it’s almost chemically identical to sucrose. When they figure out that they can’t get any controlled studies to indict HFCS, they’ll go for trans fat or some other misc toxin that is causing people to get so fat. Raw statistical regressions show all sorts of crazy nonsensical stuff. Its actually a lot like mainstream economics :slight_smile:

On the other hand, people who aren’t insane can point out that when you consume 3800 calories/day (the average), you’re going to get fat. That’s all. Getting a free market and making food even cheaper isn’t going to help people eat less. Putting a 200% tax on cheeseburgers would help people eat less though. Guess the socialists win this one hmm?

My point was that the government subsidies make unhealthy food cheaper, thus encourageing lower incomes to purchase it.

Subsidies don’t increase consumption but taxation decreases consumption.

That is some great logical reasoning right here.

The difference is night and day. Watch the video at the link that i posted. Fructose is a poison to your liver and pancreas. Corn Syrup is not bad in moderation, but Fructose is. Corn Syrup is also different that High Fructose Corn Syrup (There is almost no corn syrup in HFCS)

If the government sets up the situation where people get fat (ex. subsidizing corn - externalities include feeding cows grains rather than grass, which is what they evolved on and which makes them sick and diseased, and encouraging the use of fructose [excessive use leads to diabetes]) then to tax people’s behavior when they act on the now cheaper empty calories is somehow a victory for the socialists?

It sounds more like a failure of intervention to me.

Cheaper compared to what? A free market would drastically lower the price of all foods, subsidized or not. As is you’ve given no reasoning to even support the idea that consumers are price sensative on food - McDonalds is very very expensive calorie over calorie and poor people STILL patronize it.

Additionally, the subsidies in question support HFCS over sucrose, but the most common brand of HFCS is 55% fructose. Sucrose is 50% fructose. Do you really believe that the extra 5% - which amounts to maybe 5-10g of fructose/day - is relevant?

You’ll notice I’m talking about a 200% tax versus maybe what amounts to a 10% subsidy. My point is that the effect of subsidies in the status quo are small. Sure if you had a subsidy to make cheeseburgers free people would eat more of them, but that’s not what we have. Conversely a 10% tax on cheeseburgers would not make a dent either, which is why I said 200%. If you don’t buy that, say its 10,000%.

But yeah thanks for chipping in. I clearly do not understand consumer price sensitivity.

No. I’m not spending 1.5 hours of my time just so I can get ipse dixit from some wannabe academic or lied to by some gary taubes. Show me controlled (read: not epidemiology) studies showing that fructose is da baddy.

Well now you’re shifting the goalposts aren’t you. You can have unhealthy organs and not be obese. But that’s okay. Fructose is preferentially metabolized in the liver where it is either stored as glycogen or converted into triglycerides. It actually does not elicit an insulin response because it doesn’t enter circulation as a sugar, and therefore actually takes stress off your pancreas (which produces insulin).

Mfw this is an epidemiological study and shows that when people eat 4000 calories a day it causes problems. No idea why you can blame fructose. If anything, since fructose goes preferentially to filling up liver glycogen, its going to be a stronger appetite supressant to other carbs. Its because liver glycogen status sends a “fullness” signal to the brain. I’m just going to go with the very simplest explanation and say that 4000 calories a day without exercising leads to diabetes.

Oh no now you’re being vague. Corn Syrup can be 0-95% fructose. But that’s okay because I was never talking about Corn Syrup vs HFCS.

From wiki, HFCS “comprises any of a group of corn syrups that has undergone enzymatic processing to convert some of its glucose into fructose to produce a desired sweetness.”

Sounds like it contains corn syrup to me.

Uhh… sure. Although it would make more sense for them to remove the subsidies and then tax it if they want to reduce consumption further.

On a FREE MARKET food will be very cheap. You do not dispute this claim. A free market will therefore exacerbate fast food consumption, since I’ve already proven by observation that people do not simply choose the cheapest calories, frequently paying 2-4x more for their high density yum yums. A very heavy consumption tax would actually reduce consumption, if only because people would run out of money. Therefore, socialists actually can reduce consumption of fast foods compared to the free market. Fighting them on this point is a losing battle.

Btw the high density/leptin analysis also explains why people are eating more. The “fructose is bad” hypothesis cannot explain dietary habits - why would people steadily eat more food over time? Why wouldn’t they use their increasing income on something else?

i think it’s quite unfair to blame the government on peoples obesity problem. it’s a matter of self discipline and emotional stress problem that people try to eat too much and don’t even bother to take care of themselves. These people needs a lot of counseling.

“i think it’s quite unfair to blame the government on peoples obesity problem. it’s a matter of self discipline and emotional stress problem that people try to eat too much and don’t even bother to take care of themselves. These people needs a lot of counseling.”

You misunderstand my point. I wasn’t talking about a tiny minority of Morbidly obese. I’m speaking about the fact that “About one-third of U.S. adults (33.8%) are obese.”(http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html) How can so many people have no “self discipline”. The reason that it is nation-wide is because the government has made people irresponsible and child-like through constant expropriation of savings and encouragment of consumption.

Appetite deregulation mediated via leptin resistence. People do not routinely seek out the cheapest calories, and are therefore not price sensitive within a fairly large range (+/-50% cost) for their food choices.

Except this flies in the face of all the long term investments people make like home ownership and higher education, both of which are significantly on the rise. You also don’t explain why people with short time preferences overconsume food, when there’s all sorts of other goodies they could be buying. Why don’t the buy more video games or brand name clothing?

People get fat from calories. Not cheesburgers. You’d have to limit calorie intake, then you’ll have skinny and hughry peopole. But what a statist way, absent of any knowledbe of basic economics, of looking at the world. Even if you consider people getting fat as a cost, you still have to consider the benefit or net gain for your analysis. Let’s see. Skinny and hungry with no market, or fat and not hungry with market. I will opt for the latter and I believe most poeople will also. They probably will also live longer and healthier. There are far more health problems associated with hunger and calorie deficiency then the opposite.

People can opt for more food because they are fat, and not the other way around; people are fat because they opt for more food. Cause and effect? which is which? You just assume that it is one way and one way only. On what grounds?

There is far more evidence to show that it is the other way around: people are predisposed by their genetic makeup to be in a certain weight category. Their feeding regulatory system is pretty hardwired. The behaviour you see is the effect, not the cause. Now obviously, if you disconnect their life support (food supply) they will be skinny, but then they will be hungry. That’s why people are fat. Because when they don’t eat enought to sustain their weight, they are hungry. But since you are skinny or slim (I presume) you couldn’t relate to this and give yourself a pat on the back for being such a wise and strong willed individuals, while the fat people are weak and stupid.

“You also don’t explain why people with short time preferences overconsume food, when there’s all sorts of other goodies they could be buying. Why don’t the buy more video games or brand name clothing?”

You should have read my entire article. I explain in the article how people do buy too many “goodies”, including “video games and clothing”. Did you know that the amount of pair of shoes owned by the average american is 29? Look at the average american consumer they have so much junk in their houses. Americans buy too much alcohol, drugs, food, clothing, video games, and everything else you can think of.

“Except this flies in the face of all the long term investments people make like home ownership and higher education, both of which are significantly on the rise.”

You’re simply wrong. As central banks exproriate savers they make credit cheaper for consumers and encourages them to buy houses and higher education. Education and housing are in a credit-induced bubble. The low interest rates encourage consumers to buy everything with credit to satisfy their immediate wants.

You can read my articles here, I explain the education bubble, and the massive crisis that is happening within the western world.

http://www.libertarianmonarchy.com/education.htm

http://www.libertarianmonarchy.com/thecrisis.htm

Remember the food pyramid the US Government was pushing?

The current understanding of human metabolism and nutrition has proven the food pyramid not only to be unhealthy, but a recipe for obesity. Thank you FDA!

Government intervention won’t work. First, they use bad science or pseudoscience. Second, they are beholden to corporatists who want to push their food products onto the public often with subsidies. Third, unless you want to insert a feeding tube into someone and hold a gun to their head people are going to eat what they want to eat.

I find it amazing how statists will argue for the sanctity of a mother’s right to an abortion, yet want to dictate what people eat.

How do people determine their daily caloric intake? Do they count calories manually or do they use their body’s own appetite regulation mechanisms?

Do you not remember who I am? This is prima facie absurd.

Which I don’t. Its subjective.

Which I don’t either. Its also subjective.

You see, the OP is arguing that government policies make people fatter. I’m actually arguing that a pure free market would make people even fatter than they are now. I’m not saying this is good or bad, I’m just saying that the market doesn’t automatically live up to the expectations of hardcore leftists.

That’s actually a false dichotomy but who cares about biochemistry right?

Oh man. Really? Okay you came into this conversation patronizing me for not knowing anything about economics. Not only is this false, but you have negative knowledge of applied nutrition. As in, you know more wrong things than right things. Calorie restriction activates SIRT gene expression which reduces oxidative stress markers by up to 90%. The life extension movement is ALL about calorie restriction and/or intermittent fasting.

Fat people are weak and stupid, but not in the way you think they are. As we have seen in this thread, the majority of dietary advice is simply wrong. The best diet is the diet you can stick to and this depends heavily on your hormonal sensitivity and brain chemistry. Fat people aren’t weak because they fail diets that are wrong for them, they’re weak because they’re not prioritizing long term health and figuring out what nutritional strategies work with their genetics, lifestyle, and schedule.

Or they just subjectively value eating more cheeseburgers now.

I like to believe people just like to eat more gross, processed, unhealthy food that they think is healthy compared to healthy food.

I have never deviated from cut lean since about 13-15. I’ve never had a gym membership. I eat breads and noodles like everyone else. I’m financially poor. The newer physiological excuses for obesity are merely an attempt to replace responsilbity with victimhood. The reason that poor people tend to be in worse health is not because good health is expensive. It is because the poor mentality and the unhealthy mentality are exactly the same. I made the choice at a young age that I am worth the effort to improve, that I want to be sexy, that I want to live long and strong. I know not what permanant McD’s workers and beached whales eat, their gene expression, their stress levels, etc. I do know that they are psychologically as unlike me as it gets.

Succeed

Attribute success to superior willpower

Attribute other’s failures to lack of willpower

Ignore physiology

Wrong. Try again.