Super Size Me
Obesity is a creeping problem emerging in most developed nations. However it seems to have reached epidemic proportions in the USA. Tonight for the first time I watched the movie “Super Size Me”. Contrary to what I expected it was not just peddling an excuse for fat people to dodge responsibility for what they eat and to blame big business for personal weight problems, although it certainly explores that side of the debate. If there was a central message in the movie it was that if you want the world to change you first need to change yourself. Whilst there was plenty of corporate bashing I think it was really just saying that this company (McDonalds) sells a product that is crap for your health and will make you depressed and sick if you decide to depend on it. And according to the movie a huge proportion of McDonalds customers in the USA (over 70%) are regulars who come at least once per week and a large slice of the customer base eats there several times a week. People really should face facts; most fast food is junk food.
As an advocate of libertarian philosophy I am not generally of the view that governments should intervene to solve social problems such as this issue of obesity. However there are a couple of key things that governments could and really should do that are consistent with my philosophical outlook and move us in the right direction on the health question.
Governments, particularly the US government, should stop subsidising sugar and beef (and several other things like corn starch etc). The Australian government could assist by ceasing to prop up the sugar and beef industry through industry adjustment funds and drought assistance. On health grounds alone it is insane that governments subsidise products that much of the population consumes in excess, whilst things such as fruit and vegetables generally have to stand on their own feet in the market place. If you increase sugar production and beef production through artificial incentives then one way or another it will find it’s way into the food supply and somebody (generally the poor or the ignorant) will end up eating extra sugar and extra beef. In a real sense extra supply will create extra demand just as Baptise Say# postulated all those years ago.
Governments that make it mandatory that we hand over our children for compulsory schooling should ensure that where public schools exist they include a consistent dose of physical education and have sufficient real estate devoted to play grounds with room to run and jump and roll and wrestle. And that food promoted and sold in such schools is consistent with the highest health and nutrition aspirations of parents rather than the lowest common denominator.
And whilst I don’t think governments should regulate to ban advertising or mandate menus I do think that as a society (i.e. via non-government civil society), it can do a lot of good if we occasionally scream at corporations like McDonalds for making crappy products and advise their customers that they are buying into a bad deal. For instance apparently just a few months after the movie “Super Size Me” was released McDonalds stopped selling “Super Size”.
I thought that it was a movie worth watching, especially if you are responsible for raising kids.
# Actually “Says Law” is essentially a macroeconomics postulation not a microeconomic one. However this artistic licence does not alter my point.
33 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Recent Comments
TerjeP on Burn that book? 
Shem Bennett on Adopted by homosexuals 
Tim Andrews on Pacific Rim Policy Exchan… 
boacledob on Internet filter developme… 
papachango on Surreal in Cuba 
. on Pacific Rim Policy Exchan… 
P.M.Lawrence on Burn that book? TerjeP on Adopted by homosexuals papachango on Surreal in Cuba 
'Nuke' Gray on Surreal in Cuba
Catallaxy Files- 61% in US Say Cut Spending to Create JobsAs the headline says, “61% Say Cutting Spending Will Create More Jobs Than Obama’s New $50 Billion Program”. These are Americans who say this in a poll done in the US last week. Much is in the question asked, of course. But it is a sign that the message is getting through. And the question [...]
- Open Forum September 11, 2010
- Warming to the TaskI went along yesterday to see Alan Moran in the Lion’s Den. Well, not really a lion’s den; more like an opportunity to form a circular firing squad with everyone shooting at the only person in the room trying to tell them that they are asking for $500+ electricity bills with all other prices scaled [...]
- 61% in US Say Cut Spending to Create Jobs
- Andrew Norton
- Skills matching for recent graduatesAndrew Carr asks if I can compare the skills mismatch of international and local students. To re-cap, a study of former overseas student migrants in 2006 found that: 18 months after their arrival found the skills match for former overseas students at the following levels: accounting 35%, business/commerce 5%, education 31%, engineering 23%, IT 35%, [...]
- Should the government change migration laws to suit universities?Australia’s universities are in a bit of a panic. With international student applications down, and much bigger drops in the ‘feeder’ colleges, the next few years are looking particularly grim. While issues such as the high dollar, student safety and more intense competition for even-more broke universities in the UK and US are affecting th […]
- Australia’s still surprisingly secure workersThe ABS released their labour mobility survey yesterday, and as I predicted two years ago Labor’s legislated job security provisions, which took effect about five months into the survey, did not stop retrenchments going up. 3.7% of workers who were employed in the year to February 2010 were retrenched, compared to 1.8% under WorkChoices in [...]
- Skills matching for recent graduates
- IPA news
- Expect Libs to go in for the kill September 7, 2010Despite calls for consensus politics, for the next three years Australians should expect a Liberal-led opposition to...
- Minority government gridlock good for the ALP September 7, 2010Labor lost the war. But it won the reconstruction handily. Nobody thought the Gillard team could come together as it did...
- A cynical look at parliamentary reform September 6, 2010We're usually a distrustful lot. When it was revealed Andrew Wilkie had asked for federal funds to redevelop the Royal...
- Expect Libs to go in for the kill September 7, 2010
Its interesting to wonder what factors might be responsible for a large % of the population getting fat, but I think the main one is cultural (at least for rich countries — its not like people don’t know they shouldn’t eat large amounts of garbage), and has very little relationship to food prices after some point.
THis is because 1) I think you’ll find that fruit and veggies don’t have to stand on their own feet in the market place either (there’s a reason you can buy a 99c can of tomatos). It also doesn’t stop people from getting fat in places where the relationship between prices is reversed vs. the US (like some European countries — where a small leg of lamb can set you back $40) or in places where everything is more expensive (like almost all other countries — the UK being a good example of horrifically expensive food but fat people).
2) Obesity is pretty uncommon in most Asian countries (especially with children), but the amount of space their schools have for excersize is often almost zero (and that is also true of just general public space). That includes rich ones with pretty cheap food (like HK) and ones with more expensive food.
3) Decent quality cheap food is available in the US & Aus, its just that some people seem to prefer garbage.
Given this, I’m not sure of the value of screaming at large corporations. If more people took their health seriously, I’m sure every junk food outlet would be selling something of reasonable nutritional value without anybody having to tell them
I tend to agree with you, Conrad. I was a bit surprised to see the author writing about the subsidy of sugar and beef at the expense of subsidising vegetables. If this is indeed true then I agree the subsidies for vegetables and fruits should be created, but something tells me this will have little impact on solving the problem.
Clive Hamilton in ‘Growth Fetish’ points out that obesity is simply another form of overconsumption which doesn’t occur just for food (esp junkfood) but for cars (think 4WDs), clothes (think of the extra $ paid to brandish the brandname), etc. This makes the problem not just a cultural one but a socio-economic one. That is, while the dominant economic model is skewed toward eternal growth, consumption must somehow be eternally increasing to match. So obesity is just a by-product. I think this is an interesting idea.
Adding to Conrad and Lisa, there is no excuse for anyone in Australia not eating vegetables. The dole and welfare payments would easily ensure that individuals could eat a healthy diet.
“We” (the government?) should certainly not be screaming at corporations simply because individuals choose to consume their products.
As you indicate the application of Say’s law is not appropriate – especially given that landed sugar would be cheaper than locally produced sugar.
This prevalence of statism is a real widespread problem, not an imaginary windmill for us libertarians.
As I keep on pointing out in the climate change debate, rather than adding to the myriad of regulations and taxes, an analyst or politician should first look at what current policies contribute to the problem.
Subsidies and tariffs are major contributing factors in both cases of the choice to use inefficient cars and the prevalence of corn syrup in fast food.
The that we tax an externality after it is caused largely by or made non-trivial by another tariff is absurd.
Conrad, on this issue I think quantity is more relevant than price. If it gets produced because production is essentially enforced then the price will keep dropping until it gets put into the food supply by somebody somewhere.
Lisa, I was not suggesting that fruit and vegies get subsidised. I was suggesting an end to beef and sugar subsidies.
People eat junk because it is cheap, fast and tastes good. The sugar reinforces the habit with a brief pleasure hit.
Beef production in Australia does not receive “adjustment funds”. Sugar does (but not for long), but it has the effect of increasing domestic prices. Brazilian sugar, which is produced without any government assistance, is cheaper than Australian sugar and competes in export markets. However, it cannot be imported.
While I agree with opposition to drought support and similar forms of assistance, in general Australian agricultural production operates with little support. The main barrier to a free market is the use of quarantine regulations to prevent imports.
On the obesity issue, it is questionable whether beef and sugar are major contributors. Beef includes protein and fat. While fat is probably a factor for most overweight people, it has both animal and vegetable sources. Fruit also contains considerable quantities of sugar (in the form of fructose).
Some nutritionists claim carbohydrates such as wheat products are also important. If you add up all the theories, there is not much that is not contributing.
McDonalds food is not “junk” at all – it is nutritionally pretty reasonable although the fat content is generally high (depending on the product). The problem with McDonalds, if there is one, is the quantity consumed. I don’t think screaming at McDonalds is the answer to that.
Exercise and diet are undoubtedly factors in the growth in obesity, but there is more to it. Evolution has taught the human body to store nutrition in the form of fat in anticipation of a shortage. But what makes the body think a shortage is likely? Why do some bodies go even further and become diabetic? Why don’t bodies in Asia think a shortage is as likely? These are questions for which we do not have good answers.
As a libertarian I am dead against the government interfering in our food choices. That includes limiting advertising. I am especially opposed when the facts are not sufficiently understood. It’s a bit like global warming – the potential to make things worse is far too high.
For parents, enough is known to make a few safe choices. Encourage kids to play energetically (including walking to school if possible), avoid a lot of sweets and don’t each fatty foods such as chips (McDonalds or otherwise). Oh, and they should hope they chose their parents well.
McDonalds food is not “junk” at all – it is nutritionally pretty reasonable although the fat content is generally high (depending on the product). The problem with McDonalds, if there is one, is the quantity consumed.
David makes the obvious point.
When Spurlock started on “Super-Size Me”, he went from eating 3000 to over 5000 calories per day.
This would make you fat and sick whether the calories came in the form of McDonalds or 5 star restaurant fare.
Another writer copied Spurlock’s experiment for a month, but chose healthier McDonalds options and kept her calorie count at the same level as her normal diet, and had no ill-effects at all.
The entire movie was just an excuse to bash McDonalds.
The fact is that McDonalds and similar fast-food restaurants provide a great service to the working poor in America and other countries, enabling them to get a decent, nutritious meal in under 5 minutes for cheaper than what they could make it themselves.
The fact that some people then choose to eat until they are physically sick isn’t the fault of McDonalds, Burger King or any fast-food restaurant.
BTW, McDonalds is better for you than either Burger King or KFC, but still seems to get picked on because it is the biggest corporation. That should give you a hint to where people like Spurlock are coming from. It’s not fast food they are opposed to, but profit itself.
No doubt and that is certainly what I expected. However in the movie Spurlock did include interviews with a “Big Mac” fan who ate at McDonalds pretty much ever day and had done most of his adult life. He was pretty slim and looked quite healthy. He said he very rarely ate the fries. I thought that Spurlock was fair and balanced as well as good humoured in pretty much all the interviews he did. However I agree that the editing of the film did imply a clearly anti-McDonalds, anti big business slant (ie a leftist agenda). In the bonus material on the DVD the interview with the above “Big Mac” fan is more comprehensive (and he really loves his Big Macs).
I took the main criticism of McDonalds to be predominantly about quantities rather than food quality. That in itself is interesting. Obviously the film had some impact on McDonalds because they withdrew the “Super Size” class of product shortly after the film was released.
When I traveled in the USA I found it very hard everywhere (ie not just MacDonalds) to buy meals that were not oversized. Eventually I worked out that I didn’t need to buy the advertised combo meals, I could just buy a hot dog and drink without the chips and cookies even though the pricing on individual items was rarely displayed and people were intitially confused that I didn’t want all the “bonus food”.
I do think physical education and physical activity needs to be given lots of emphasis in schools. The problem in the USA does seem to relate to a considerable extent to the near absents of physical education and physical activity amoungst many young Americans.
” it can do a lot of good if we occasionally scream at corporations like McDonalds for making crappy products and advise their customers that they are buying into a bad deal.”
Fish&Chips are worse for you. Do you advocate screaming at Fish&chip shops as well?
What yobbo said.
what the heck do you have against McDonalds, Terje? Perfectly fine product. If you don’t like fast food, don’t eat it.
“The problem in the USA does seem to relate to a considerable extent to the near absents of physical education and physical activity amoungst many young Americans.”
Let’s see you get in a pair of shorts & t-shirt and go for a 5 mile run in a chicago winter Terje.
Terje hangs around the Quiggler too much for his own good, jase. He used to be normal and had good things to say. Now he’s quiggler’s twin.
When I traveled in the USA I found it very hard everywhere (ie not just MacDonalds) to buy meals that were not oversized.
When I was in USA, I obviously missed the signs that said “not eating everything on your plate will result in a fine”.
And I didn’t find it hard at all. You are either blind or making it up.
Do you consider a 6 inch subway sandwich “oversized”? I sure don’t and neither do the heart council.
The fact is you are seeing what you want to see. Even if McDonalds meals are too big, nobody is forced to eat the whole lot.
But yes american meals are big. Compare that to the small shitty little portions you end up getting in Eurotrashville. you would have to be an anorexic dwarf to feel satisfied with the mico portions of food you get there. Too big, don’t eat it. is that solution to hard for you?
Jason,
I have nothing against McDonalds. Their product (burgers, chips and soft drink) is not highly nutricious and I don’t eat it often. Perhaps you can have a look at the policy remedies for obesity that I outlined in the article and tell me which of them you agree or disagree with?
The “Super Size Me” movie is simply free speech in action. Before I had watched it I was under the mistaken impretion that it was an activist call for state intervention. From what I saw it was mostly just consumer activism along the same lines as somebody test driving a car and writing a review for public consumption. Essentially the movie just states an opinion about the product in the same way that a few people around here stated their views about the Ashes product.
Maybe the “Super Size Me” movie was laking in fibre and nutition. However it won’t kill anybody to believe that a balanced diet might improve their life.
Regards,
Terje.
Maybe the “Super Size Me” movie was laking in fibre and nutition. However it won’t kill anybody to believe that a balanced diet might improve their life.
That’s the problem. How are you gopinmg to force people to eat tuna slad every day?
JC,
Eating tuna salad every day would probably not be very balanced. And if anybody advocates that people should be forced to do so then I think they are nuts.
Regards,
Terje.
Pro-Terje. I thought it was a decent movie & the guy had a sense of humour. Much better than the Mike Moore efforts. And as Terje has pointed out — the movie was more about (voluntary) consumer activism than about pleading to the government. Especially for parents, it is relevant to consider what makes up a good diet.
Anti-Terje. American meals are big, but as yobbo so elequently put it — it’s not compulsory to finish your food. I can’t see any role for government in this issue. Of course we should remove business subsidies (including farm subsidies) but I doubt that will have a big difference. Eating bad food is an individual choice similar to smoking, gambling, drugs etc.
Well it was when I was growing up. Mum and Dad both grew up in occupied territories during WWII and in our house not completing a meal was a mortal sin. It would have been like pissing on your hands before dinner. I remember refusing to finish my weet bix once as a kid and having to sit at the table from 8am through til midday when the breakfast bowl was replaced with lunch.
However my comment was not a plea for government action. It was a cultural observation. There were places in the USA where I had to haggle to get individual items rather than combos. Sure I could have just bought the combo and binned the surplus however that does not sit easily with my own cultural mores. It’s a waste of money and a waste of food, so I haggled.
A lot of studies have shown that on restricted diets rats live longer and are generally healthier. It does not seem unreasonable to postulate that excessively large offerings of food will lead many people, and maybe even most people to over eat. If McDonalds no longer feels the need to offer a “Super Size” combo then I’m not going to shed a tear.
In the mean time I’ll practice pissing on my hands before dinner.
Terje says
A lot of studies have shown that on restricted diets rats live longer and are generally healthier. It does not seem unreasonable to postulate that excessively large offerings of food will lead many people, and maybe even most people to over eat. If McDonalds no longer feels the need to offer a “Super Size” combo then I’m not going to shed a tear.
—
It’s called caloric restriction and its health benefits are truly remarkable. It is the only known method for prolonging life in the laboratory(in the real world it makes animals infertile and creates other problems) However our modern lifestyles mitigates against CR as a viable strategy. I’ve tried it, I do practice it, but I’ve done enough research at the primary literature level to know that one doesn’t have to practice CR in its strict form. The trick is lifestyle and dietary habits that promote the types of nuclear and second messenger changes that facilitate a cell going into “suspend mode”. This strategy works for everything from worms to primates.
Terje gut problems.
Start taking some probiotics and boost your omega 3. Reduce saturated fat, boost monounsaturated fats. May help, can’t be sure, when confronted with such conditions you have to experiment. Don’t just give, just keep looking.
McDonald’s
The biggest problem with McDonalds is the fat ratios are totally wrong. Have a look at the saturated fat content on the 1/4 pounder – ridiculous. Eating fast food occasionally is not a problem, it is only a problem when it becomes a lifestyle.
An interesting twise on obesity:
cf New Scientist, Nov 4, 2006, p38
In this brief article they reveal how many pesticides increase weight in lab animals. You have been warned.
So why are you dead?
Terje
So why are you dead?
Because I don’t believe we are autonomous selves. I don’t even believe “selves” exist. Long complicated story I won’t bother you with. It comes about from spending too much time trying to understand how brains work. Better left alone. Strange thing is that the emerging picture in neuroscience (many neuroscientists don’t believe in selves) is very similiar to some ideas espoused by Zen Buddism. However, what I think of Zen is very different from what most people think of Zen: they carry on with all this metaphysical mumbo jumbo and reincarnation. Such has nothing to do with Zen but sadly metaphysical mumbo jumbo still permeates a good deal of cognitive neuroscience. It shouldn’t be there either … .
“Dead soul” is actually a reference to a Russian novel. The term referred to deceased serfs still counted on the books. Hence I am a Risen Serf but Dead! I first came across the term in the great Joy Division song, “Dead souls” … they keep calling me. I intend to have that played at my funeral.
Be well Terje
The long complicated story sounds interesting. Perhaps you should try and tell it some time.
Thanks for the dietary advice.
You don’t believe selves exist or you don’t believe metaphysical free will exists? I thought Dan Dennett did a good job of showing that you could mount an interesting deteminist argument for the useful concept of a self.
But I agree about the cross over between anatma (ie no self) religions and the deterministic concept of no real metaphysical free will.
Response to John Humphreys:
I read Dennett, Pinker (how the mind works), Penrose (The Emperor’s new Mind), Crick (The Astonishing Hypothesis), Damasio (the Feeling for what happpens), and … . I threw Penrose across the room in disgust, Dennett’s explanation aren’t worth two knob’s of goatshit, Damasio was interesting, Crick is always interesting, Pinker’s work explained how the publishing industry works, not the mind. By the way, I don’t beleive in “minds” either.
“Free will” is a moot concept to me because it offers no way of moving forward in understanding behavior. For me, a concept must be what physicists refer to as “fertile” ie. it must proffer some promise of advancing our understanding. So at that level the concept “free will” fails to meet my utilitarian demands for concepts.
Over and above those concerns, there are too many studies which demonstrate how subtly our decision making processes can be influenced. Even the colours in a room can change our responses etc etc etc. One problem I do have in relation to libertarian ideas is that these seem to be predicated on the notion that human beings are possessed of an absolute free will and hence will eventually come to rationally based deductions. This is to be expected because our cultural milieu is steeped in this belief. Essentially I am a strict empiricist but not within a postivistic frame. “Knowing” is a great quandry to me. I’ve just raised this issue on a neuroscience forum and you should see the bullets fly … . Currently I have 3 bods going head to head over it.
I am not a libertarian, probably never will be. I am leftist in my orientation but I am convinced that we need to remove government from some areas of life and we need to restructure commerce dynamics so that the full benefits of an economy can be realised. I am here because I am impressed by the likes of yourself, Terje and a few others. What I am not impressed about is the ranters but they occur on every discussion forum.
Reflecting my own personal bias, what I would like to see is libertarians, economists, policy makers, and think tanks learn much more about human behavior. For example, I just read an excellent text by an economist from the the London School of Economics. R. Layard: Happiness: lessons From a New Science. This touches on the sorts of issues I think need more attention and I am pleased to see that economists are beginning to pay more attention to this. There are even a few journals specifically devoted to this(eg. Behavioral Economics).
There is more to state, so much more to state, but I’ll leave it there for now.
Thanks.
Response to Terje,
Now don’t get alarmed but I reason I proffered the advice is because chronic gut problems can induce “leaky gut syndrome”. This can have significant long term implications for cardiovascular and cerebral health. So don’t sweat it yet but don’t ignore this problem.
If it continues to be a problem, contact me and I’ll do some digging around for you. I am very good at digging up medical research, with some luck we may be able to sort this out. Alternatively and in the first instance, get on your doctor’s case about it. If he\she isn’t proactive enough, find one who will be proactive.
DS: “One problem I do have in relation to libertarian ideas is that these seem to be predicated on the notion that human beings are possessed of an absolute free will and hence will eventually come to rationally based deductions”
Then I presume you also have a problem with government solutions, considering that the government is made up of people. I think it was Jefferson who quiped that if you don’t trust people to make their own decisions, how could you trust them to make other people’s decisions?
I don’t have a reference, but I understand Hayek approached the existence of absolute free will by pointing out that it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that people act as though they have free will.
I’m disapointed you didn’t like Dennett. I think his claim of defending deterministic free will was a semantic trick of no great import, but (like hayek) I thought he showed the politically more important point that a fake free will is good enough.
Btw, I’m not willing to give up on the existence of a “soul/mind/self” yet. But I consider it a unfalsifiable religious issue that doesn’t impact on politics. And even on the religious front I think that perhaps asking the question is more important than answering it.
dead soul
I am way ahead of you in all this.
http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2075
I have done almost a dozen posts on this.
Libertarianism doesn’t require any metaphysical assumptions. The presumption to rely on markets would be just as rational in a society made up of robots .
All points of view hold metaphysical assumptions. As Lee Smolin, Professor of Physics once quipped: the search for a theory of everything finds its origins in the idea of God. Platonism is essentially deism in disguise. As the philosopher Quine once quipped, “all facts are theory laden”. Nearly all our ideas about human nature are medieval and metaphysical. The modern spin on free will probably finds its origins in the religious debates between calvinists, arminians, an pelegians. Metaphysical assumptions are not a problem, the problem is choosing the right ones.
The difference between us is that you are adopting a positivistic frame of reference. I do not have that much faith in human logic. Science is provisional in its claims, naturalism is not. To give you an example: since the time of Darwin the concept of Larmarkian transmission of traits has been considered heretical. It aint so no more, there is clear evidence of Larmarckian tranmission. It is only a small part of the story but it does make a difference and it illustrates the dangers of dogma in science.
By the way, I perceive the no intrinsic relationship between the question of free will and determinism. We may not have free will but that does mean our behavior is determined.
This is very good (from your link) except this: it explains bugger all about human behavior.
This takes a bit of explaining, so hang in there. Even though we don’t have contra-causal free will (which is to say we are fully caused creatures) it’s still true that we very much want certain things to happen, and very much don’t want other things to happen. We very much want to live, and don’t want to die. We love our friends, children and our families (maybe even some of our neighbors), and we want them and our communities kept safe and secure. What this means is that even though we don’t have free will, we are still very strongly motivated to want certain outcomes in life, namely we want ourselves and our loved ones to flourish. And this means that we still will want to make sure that people, including ourselves, act in ways to ensure this flourishing, which generally means behaving morally: not stealing, cheating, lying, or murdering. So we don’t lose our moral compass in accepting naturalism.
—
However, I do not believe that at this point in time we can safely say that we can come with a model of human nature and behavior that avoids metaphysics. Indeed, concepts like self, soul, are metaphysical because these are not objects that we can grasp, we imagine them. Naturalism is just another philosophy. I like it but to me it is just another theory of everything.
This is why I think the future lies in ideas from people like Patricia Churchland: that eventually we may be able to create a “neuro philosophy” ie. a view of human nature and behavior based on our scientific understanding of the same, not the conceptual baggage that we pick up from our culture.
Jason,
The presumption to rely on markets would be just as rational in a society made up of robots .
Actually that is an indictment on free markets because it denies the value of human agency. It is essentially metaphysical because it presupposes “markets” are some mysterious entity that act independently of the agents which actually make the markets happen. Yet the point here you are making may touch on why markets do fail: we assume that a market, independent of the foibles of human agency, will always work well. Like us, markets do not always work well. Efficient markets require cultural preconditions. In any event, if robots do not have wants and needs there would be no demand. If they did have wants and needs, just how different would they be from us?
Markets works precisely because of human agency. These fail for the same reason. As I previously stated, the goal is to structure markets to achieve maximum efficiency. This “structuring” does not mean intervention, it means that if people want to get the best out of market dynamics then there are certain rules that will facilitate this. Like honesty, trust in trading, property rights, rule of law, … . One economist I read recently stated that one of the primary reasons countries fail economically is because trust is all but absent in the society.
John,
Yes, the “idea” of free will is very important, or at least appears to be. Yet you would be surprised at the number of people who completely repudiate the idea yet there is no way of knowing it by their behavior. I’ve just jumped over from a discussion forum where various people don’t accept free will and they were all hard working publishing academics.
“Then I presume you also have a problem with government solutions, considering that the government is made up of people.”
Obviously! Politicians are like nappies, you have to change them frequently and for the same reason.
To be blunt I am very annoyed at what governments are now doing. They are increasingly curtailing our freedom, they are using scare tactics to keep us in line, and they reify a line from Tom Waits, Whistling Past the Graveyard, “I never told the truth so I can never tell a lie.”
Dead Soul,
I hope you stick around. You are losing me on some of the references but otherwise what you say makes a lot of sence, or at the very least interesting reading. I do think humans are very programable and once programmed any notion of free will is rendered weak. The main reason I programmed myself to avoid bacon (which I used to adore) was to come to terms with the maluability of the mind. Unfortunately I have not yet had as much success on a broader scale as I had hoped in this regard. The mind is a difficult puzzle even if I restrict the topic to my own.
Even though free will is very weak in the face of programmed behaviour (I do assume that free will is real, although I didn’t always), I think this makes it even more necessary to defend freedom. Without freedom, free will and the small dose of hope it represents is all but snuffed and we disappear back into the soup of oblivion.
Regards,
Terje.
Politicians and nappies. The soup of oblivion. I love it.
DS — you say markets work best when you have: “Like honesty, trust in trading, property rights, rule of law”
I note that the last two actually are necessary in the definition of markets so their inclusion is tautological (free markets work best when they are free markets). Regarding the first two, there are reasons to believe that honesty and trust are encouraged by a free market as rewarding strategy, while dishonesty and breaking trust makes more sense as a strategy in a more controlled market.
The reward for dishonesty is dependent on the repeat nature of transactions and the mobility of information. So the second hand car salesman who may not expect any repeat business from the current customer for a very, very long time is likely to be rewarded by dishonesty more than the baker who expects to see the same customers from week to week.
Obviously notional property rights are necessary for a market to function, however the fact that there are markets for stolen goods and markets for human slaves shows that markets operate quite readily even in hostile environments. If anything it is the sometimes brutal and amoral efficiency of markets that causes people concern. Markets are essentially inevitable. Although of course John did refer to “free markets” which have a more specific meaning.
Terje, John
Thanks for the corrections, in economics my terminology is poor. So please feel free to correct and educate me in such matters. I’ve been a bit cruel in that I’ve introduced you to concepts about human nature that are not easily absorbed. Ideas like “there is no self” “no free will” require some thinking. I’m still thinking about such matters because it requires a botttom reconstruction of what being human is about and that can take years. For your own purposes, as John has pointed out, I don’t think it makes any significant difference in the short term. Over generations though I suspect the gradual dissemination and acceptance of new ideas about human nature will impact on our behavior and the way we structure our cultures. What I hope to see in the future, and to some extent it is already happening, is that economics can learn from social psychology and related disciplines. Economics, after all, is really about human behavior.
PS: the comment about pollies and nappies, not mine, I saw it in a book and it was simply Anon. I don’t want to take credit for such a gem of a statement!