Quote :

"Zoning is one thing-- micromanaging businesses is entirely different, and is about a million times more likely to suck."

wrong, we already do it with health inspections

we can do it this way as well

7/24/2008 11:36:14 AM

^^Somehow, I doubt going from the "humungo"-size fries to the "large" size is really going to solve the problem of unhealthy lifestyle choices.

But that's just me.

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 11:36 AM. Reason : ^^]

7/24/2008 11:36:22 AM

Quote :

"So, preventing any further competition in your market would have no impact upon your profitability. Especially if you prevent new players from entering once old players leave. ...probably a good thing you didn't go into business, now isn't it?"

Making blanket statements about a market that neither of us really knows much detail about isn't going to get anything accomplished.

I'm going on the idea that fast food might as well be considered a commodity and the population growth in those poorest areas probably doesn't sustain a lot of extra restaurants.

7/24/2008 11:37:45 AM

^^

look it up

why does hardee's serve these giant fucking sandwiches that could feed a family of four?

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 11:38 AM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 11:37:53 AM

Quote :

"wrong, we already do it with health inspections we can do it this way as well"

We also have building codes and labor laws.

But they're not at all similar to telling a business how to run their business.

7/24/2008 11:40:29 AM

Quote :

"I'm going on the idea that fast food might as well be considered a commodity and the population growth in those poorest areas probably doesn't sustain a lot of extra restaurants."

I agree - go with that assumption, and then see where it follows. If we assume demand is constant, and now we limit supply, and then further assume, as national franchises, prices are stable, what effect should we expect, other than from profit from the new entrants we bar to cycle back into the existing suppliers? Particularly if we see volatility, and fast food places are leaving with no one to take their place.

In short - how does this not pretty much work to the exclusive benefit of existing fast food restaurants in the area?

7/24/2008 11:41:28 AM

^^

sure it is

you have to prepare the food in the correct way

you have to keep a clean premise

you can't serve alcohol without a license (OH NO HE DIDN'T...)

if you don't comply we will shut you the fuck down

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 11:42 AM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 11:42:23 AM

This is sort of unrelated but if we really wanted people to be healthier through government regulation we could try to ensure that they weren't eating meat from animals treated with antibiotics and hormone therapies for their whole lives. Do we even know the extent of the health issues that causes?

Also regardless of this Hardee's Prime Rib burgers are pretty delicious just sayin

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 11:44 AM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 11:42:46 AM

good deal

i'm down with that

7/24/2008 11:43:06 AM

despite what people think, one of the functions of government is to protect us

whether it be from foreign enemies who want to kill us or greedy corporation who want to fuck us

the probably is that people tend to think in either black or white and do not see the middle ground that might actually help towards solving problems

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 11:45 AM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 11:44:18 AM

i think most fast food restaurants nowadays have salads, and some of them have wraps and basically some food items that arent as bad for you...at wendys now with combos you dont have to get fries, you can get a cup of fruit...but apparently those steps arent enough to combat peoples' choices

^maybe the govt should step in and protect us from ourselves...just kill us all so we arent tempted to eat any evil chick fil a nuggets

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 11:46 AM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 11:45:17 AM

Quote :

"look it up why does hardee's serve these giant fucking sandwiches that could feed a family of four?"

So people are just going to stop going to fast food places altogether because the fries are in a slightly smaller size? Even though before portion sizes went up they were probably still relying on these places as a primary eating establishment?

Seems to me that their recourse might be to gripe about the slightly smaller portions and keep eating there. Perhaps, as you claim, in slightly smaller sizes, but regardless - if they're choosing to go there as is, I somehow doubt changes on the margin are suddenly going to deter them to healthier alternatives in droves.

Quote :

"despite what people think, one of the functions of government is to protect us whether it be from foreign enemies who want to kill us or greedy corporation who want to fuck us"

You forgot "from ourselves (because we're too stupid to make our own choices)" from that list, which is where you've been going this whole time.

That's okay though - easy to overlook.

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 11:48 AM. Reason : Corrected your omission]

7/24/2008 11:46:01 AM

Here's what would solve all of our problems:

Stop medicaid/medicare coverage of preventable diabeetus




Once fat, poor people actually had to pay the consequences for their crappy eating habits, they'd straighten up.


Instead, there's almost an incentive to get fat. Eat three combos a day, and we'll pay you disability and buy you a hover-round!

7/24/2008 11:49:26 AM

Quote :

"i think most fast food restaurants nowadays have salads, and some of them have wraps and basically some food items that arent as bad for you...at wendys now with combos you dont have to get fries, you can get a cup of fruit...but apparently those steps arent enough to combat peoples' choices"

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120709864540082145.html

interview with Burger King Holdings Inc. CEO John Chidsey

Quote :

"WSJ: You added salads to the menu but other executives say they're not big sellers. Why keep them? Mr. Chidsey: If your brand promises "Have it your way," you can't have a mom or a dad who pulls up to Burger King with the kids and says, "I'm not going to go here, I'm going to go to McDonald's or Wendy's because I can get a salad." Why do you have Apple Fries and this new Kraft macaroni and cheese and applesauce and fun drinks for kids? I've got to tell you, the vast majority of parents do not substitute [those items into kids' meals]. I think you want to have it there so people who say, "I'd rather my son or daughter have carrots or Apple Fries," it's there."

"healthy items" are a marketing gimmick, nothing more

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 11:50 AM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 11:49:44 AM

Quote :

"I agree - go with that assumption, and then see where it follows. If we assume demand is constant, and now we limit supply, and then further assume, as national franchises, prices are stable, what effect should we expect, other than from profit from the new entrants we bar to cycle back into the existing suppliers? Particularly if we see volatility, and fast food places are leaving with no one to take their place. In short - how does this not pretty much work to the exclusive benefit of existing fast food restaurants in the area?"

Sorry, I'm not so well versed in econ to know what you're asking though I think we get the gist. My gut feeling is there will always be enough competition there to keep the prices in check, and if it means the franchise owners have an easier time making money while the population gets healthier, then I'd be all for that. If it really looks like they are profiting more from this zoning restriction, put a small tax on this government given 'monopoly' to skim a little bit to put into subsidizing fresh produce at the local grocers.

I will say I like all your points from the previous page about subsidies, etc. Though, I guess it's a little bit outside of this discussion.

7/24/2008 11:50:41 AM

Quote :

"You forgot "from ourselves (because we're too stupid to make our own choices)" from that list, which is where you've been going this whole time. That's okay though - easy to overlook."

no need to be snarky, that exactly what I meant

corporations feed on the stupidity of the masses

that's business 101

but, in the end it's hurting society, you know the one you're a part of

i want solutions to the problem, not bitching and whining and cynism

7/24/2008 11:52:53 AM

Quote :

"I've got to tell you, the vast majority of parents do not substitute [those items into kids' meals]. I think you want to have it there so people who say, "I'd rather my son or daughter have carrots or Apple Fries," it's there.""

sounds like the restaurant is leaving it up to the choice of the parents...good for them, for letting the consumer choose, which is how it should be

7/24/2008 11:53:58 AM

Quote :

""healthy items" are a marketing gimmick, nothing more"

You're kind of proving yourself wrong, there.

Fat, poor people clearly want awful food. If they wanted good food the fast food places would provide it for them.

7/24/2008 11:53:58 AM

poor people don't want awful food, they want cheap food, which is usually awful

good food is not cheap... did you know that apples are like a dollar a piece, more than a candy bar

and the ""healthy items" are a marketing gimmick, nothing more" is to catch the middle class soccer moms

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 11:57 AM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 11:56:51 AM

Quote :

"cheap food, which is usually awful"

wrong

if you had said fast food, which is usually awful, i'd agree

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 11:57 AM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 11:57:33 AM

Quote :

"Sorry, I'm not so well versed in econ to know what you're asking though I think we get the gist. My gut feeling is there will always be enough competition there to keep the prices in check, and if it means the franchise owners have an easier time making money while the population gets healthier, then I'd be all for that. If it really looks like they are profiting more from this zoning restriction, put a small tax on this government given 'monopoly' to skim a little bit to put into subsidizing fresh produce at the local grocers."

That's my point, really. Let's start with your assumption that all fast food is essentially identical - a commodity good. Next, we'll even take your assumption that the market is completely saturated - i.e., there's enough places to go around, and any new person entering the market isn't going to make much, since demand doesn't support it. Fine.

What we have as a result is a ratcheting effect - we assume some FF places will fold for whatever reason now and then. Nobody else steps to fill the void, so now we have less people supplying the same demand. Which means that, still assuming everything's basically a commodity, all that demand going to the place that closed will shift over to the places still open. Which was, in essence, LoneSnark's original point - limiting competition, even if we assume the market to be saturated, is a boon for everyone currently in the market.

Basically, if we assume peoples' eating patterns stay the same as the result of this zoning policy (and they almost certainly will), profits have only one way to go for the existing establishments: up.

7/24/2008 11:57:34 AM

Quote :

"good food is not cheap"

Beans and rice.

Rice and beans.

And some frozen spinach.

Cheaper than fast food, better than most everything.

7/24/2008 11:58:40 AM

nastoute

Quote :

"despite what people think, one of the functions of government is to protect us whether it be from foreign enemies who want to kill us or greedy corporation who want to fuck us "

Bit of a stretch isnt it. How is this evil corporation fucking you when you drive to thier business and buy what they are selling? LOL


Boone, when did you start making sense? Or was that parody?

Im torn on this issue. Its not the govts job to make sure as an individual you make good decisions.(kinda violates a free society). However, when the people have demanded that the govt pay for those bad decisions(also goes against a free society) instead of the people who make such decisions... I can see the conflict.

Im all for having people on food stamps go to govt run grocery stores that work like an aldi. That way you can control what they buy. Im not sure how you can manage what people do with thier own money. However, when you have politicians promising that you wont have to deal with any of the consequences of your actions, like increased healthcare bc of your eating habits, they force that burden onto the masses while the poor decision making continues. So maybe they should limit the choices of that group of people. I dunno.

7/24/2008 11:58:46 AM

^^ no meat in there is it? thanks for taking us to 3rd world status

........................................

Quote :

"Bit of a stretch isnt it. How is this evil corporation fucking you when you drive to thier business and buy what they are selling? LOL "

and not me

us

there's a difference

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 12:00 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 12:00:12 PM

Quote :

"no need to be snarky, that exactly what I meant corporations feed on the stupidity of the masses that's business 101"

For someone who claims to be a champion of the proles, it's an awfully elitist attitude to take. Would you actually walk up to these people on the street and tell them that? "We need to do this, because you're too stupid to make your own choices." Somehow, I doubt it.

Quote :

"i want solutions to the problem, not bitching and whining and cynism"

And you know what? There are some screwed-up incentives tilting the market - ones where the government creates bad incentives to protect one player at the expense of another. But calling everyone stupid and demanding absolute control over their lives is hardly a solution either. (Especially when I doubt you'd ever have the nerve to tell these same people your opinion of them to their face.)

7/24/2008 12:00:54 PM

Quote :

"no meat in there is it? thanks for taking us to 3rd world status"

another gem...you're on a roll today

7/24/2008 12:01:09 PM

Quote :

"Basically, if we assume peoples' eating patterns stay the same as the result of this zoning policy (and they almost certainly will), profits have only one way to go for the existing establishments: up."

This assumes that their only options are the existing fast food restaurants. That's exactly what the zoning is intending to address. If instead of a new fast food joint, a new grocery store or healthier restaurant moves in, then we'd assume that a certain amount of the folks would frequent this establishment.

We still don't really know if we have a correlation or a causation. Are the restaurants causing the fatties or are the restaurants there for the fatties. I think at the least we should try it for some years and see what happens. What's the worst case scenario, a few franchise owners get richer?

7/24/2008 12:03:39 PM

Quote :

"Im all for having people on food stamps go to govt run grocery stores that work like an aldi."

Government programs are pretty specific about what you can buy. I remember as a cashier at Lowes, WICs and food stamps were such a pain in the ass because people could only get very, very specific items.

As in, "sorry ma'am, you needed to get American Kraft Singles, not Chedder Kraft Singles," or what have you.


The problem is when they sell their $100 food stamp debit cards for $25 in cash to score some rock.

Quote :

"no meat in there is it? thanks for taking us to 3rd world status"

Alright, then their majesties can hit up the Teet when frozen chicken is BOGO. That diet's not too good for my wife and I, and we do pretty well. Why should someone who doesn't particularly want to work feel entitled to more?

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 12:05 PM. Reason : ,]

7/24/2008 12:03:48 PM

Quote :

"For someone who claims to be a champion of the proles"

what?

I just want a better society and solve the fucking problem.

7/24/2008 12:04:52 PM

a better society, by way of the government deciding what you can and can't eat

7/24/2008 12:06:13 PM

THey have fixed that loop hole boone. They now get credit cards instead of stamps. I believe they can buy most anything with the food stamp cards, but tobacco or beer. Everything else is covered. Now WIC is a different program and they have certain WIC approved things. Oh, and I had a social worker in today and she said that they are changing the name of food stamps, bc the people felt it was insulting.. to SNAP. As in SNAP the magical govt genie just gave me more shit.

7/24/2008 12:07:21 PM

And if they really wanted to eat like kings, throw in some $1.50/lb quinoa, and they're set.

Unfortunately quinoa doesn't taste all that great when deep fried, so fast food goers probably won't go for it.


^That should work for two months, until SNAP because synonymous with food stamps.



[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 12:11 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 12:09:10 PM

Quote :

"and not me us there's a difference"

WTF man. Ok, explain to me how the coorporation is evil when WE, YOU, I, HIM, HER, THEY (did i miss anyone?) makes a personal decision to drive to thier business and buy thier products?

7/24/2008 12:10:05 PM

I'm kind of done "explaining" stuff.

7/24/2008 12:10:40 PM

Quote :

"This assumes that their only options are the existing fast food restaurants. That's exactly what the zoning is intending to address. If instead of a new fast food joint, a new grocery store or healthier restaurant moves in, then we'd assume that a certain amount of the folks would frequent this establishment."

Let's just say I'm very, very skeptical this would happen. Why? Because why isn't it happening in the absence of the moratorium. i.e., why are vacancies filled up by more FF restaurants as it is, rather than these places, unless because that's where demand is going?

Quote :

"We still don't really know if we have a correlation or a causation. Are the restaurants causing the fatties or are the restaurants there for the fatties. I think at the least we should try it for some years and see what happens. What's the worst case scenario, a few franchise owners get richer?"

If we had evidence of a severe scarcity of real estate, I might buy the idea that options for healthier places are being crowded out of the market. But at the moment, I don't see the evidence of that.

Basically, unless we can establish a "crowding out" effect, the existence of these places - particularly their density - seems to be inconsequential to the issue of supermarkets, etc. In other words, whether there's 40 or 400 McDonald's doesn't really seem to at first glance have an impact on whether or not someone shops in the new produce section.

It seems like the basis of this moratorium is that if we make fast food inconvenient enough, somehow people are going to make radical changes in lifestyle choices - like shopping for healthy food. I don't see that happening - not only because of a lack of options (which I believe is independent of FF places), but because there is a pretty obvious pattern to the choices. You don't get 400 fast food places in that area overnight.

7/24/2008 12:10:57 PM

Quote :

"what? I just want a better society and solve the fucking problem."

Please pardon my use of style, then. You claim all these fatties are the victims of a Vast Corporate Conspiracy. Of which they are victims, apparently, because they're all dolts.

The whole "they're all dolts and thus I have to run their lives for them" part is where people are having the most problems.

7/24/2008 12:12:26 PM

do you have respect for the masses?

yes, they are victims of a "Vast Corporate Conspiracy"

it's called companies trying to get as much money as they possibly can from the public irrespective of anything else

it's their job, their fiduciary responsibility

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 12:18 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 12:12:54 PM

do you have respect for freedom?

7/24/2008 12:13:27 PM

god, you're like a annoying gnat

7/24/2008 12:13:44 PM

Quote :

"do you have respect for the masses?"

I have enough respect for them to allow them to make their own choices in life, while recognizing that the incentives are skewed, yes.

So yes. I don't claim authority to run their lives because they're all apparently too stupid to run them themselves.

7/24/2008 12:14:49 PM

the government already has authority to "run their lives" in any number of ways

the solutions I put forth are not drastic, imposing on the everyday man, or cutting any person's freedom

they are totally reasonable

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 12:18 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 12:17:51 PM

Prohibiting people from murdering one another in the streets is hardly the same as trying to dictate a healthy lifestyle and you know it.

And making the centerpiece of your pitch "But they're too stupid to do it own their own!" is hardly a selling point for most people.

7/24/2008 12:21:16 PM

Quote :

"yes, they are victims of a "Vast Corporate Conspiracy" it's called companies trying to get as much money as they possibly can from the public irrespective of anything else it's their job, their fiduciary responsibility "

Wow. Whenever you start looking for a job after you get out of school. Id be curious if you tell the company to just pay you min wage and use the other money to lower the costs of thier product to help WE or US or THEY. haha

No instead you will consider how much money YOU can make at different opportunities. Imagine that you are part of some evil conspiracy. You a graphic arts major?

7/24/2008 12:21:57 PM

I think everyone would agree that forcing fast food joints to openly display nutritional information would be fair. How's that for a compromise?

Although I seriously doubt it would change eating habits one bit.


^That's taking his argument to a ridiculous extreme.

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 12:23 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 12:22:04 PM

^^^

what is the function of the FDA?

and yeah, SORRY I'M NOT PITCHING LIKE I'M IN FRONT OF A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE, welcome to the interweb

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 12:22 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 12:22:31 PM

^^

a) i think having restaurants of all types openly display nutritional information is great idea

b) I believe it will change people's eating habits and more importantly change the way restaurants prepare and serve their food

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 12:25 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 12:24:29 PM

^^^definitely...posting nutritional information should be done at fast food restaurants all over, instead of currently only in select cities...that way people can still have a choice, even though nastoute might not want that

7/24/2008 12:25:07 PM

nice blind edit there, bucko

7/24/2008 12:28:17 PM

Quote :

"what is the function of the FDA?"

To make sure our food doesn't freaking kill us

Again. There's a huuuge leap between basic safety regulation and behavior modification.

Look at how hard it is to get people to give up their SUVs-- and that's an issue that effects national security and everyone's health.

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 12:30 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 12:28:24 PM

ahh

but our food is killing us

so, perhaps the FDA should be in charge of regulating restaurants portion sizes

7/24/2008 12:29:26 PM