(Vanity) Confessions of a Crunchy Conservative III, or, Why Don't I Mind *Your* Own Business?

In my previous vanities Part I I described my progression into the Condition of Crunchy Conservative.. In Part II, I laid out some musings on “where I think we’re going, and how we got into this handbasket.” In this piece, I elaborate a bit more on the themes of the second piece, and offer some suggestions for how to recover from the predicament.

To recap, I pointed out that the state of health of the “average” US citizen is nowhere near as good as it used to be. A number of factors are involved, including aging; relative lack of exercise; changes in diet; and the exploitation of “medical research” by industrial interests in the food processing industry, and subsequently by the pharmaceutical industry. In order to understand the solution, we must first correctly diagnose the problem. This will involve a bit of a change of subject, so bear with me!

Why are there large industries anyway? To understand that, you have to understand what any company is there for in the first place. The answer is simple: “To make money.” Well, there are lots of ways to make money, some more efficient than others. The most efficient way is to walk up to someone and demand their money. But the government has declared that to be theft. Besides, government thinks that just taking money from people is their job anyway, through the IRS. So businesses have to find other ways to get money.

A better way to get money, and one that usually keeps the government off of your back, is to offer to sell somebody something. This can take two forms: swindling, in which you offer someone the Brooklyn Bridge in exchange for their money, or selling someone something else. Swindling is out, because, once again, that’s the government’s job, in the form of State Lotteries. So if you want to make money, you have to sell something real.

But there are two forms of selling people something. First, you can sell them something that they really need, and can’t make for themselves. This type of sale guarantees you a market. This is pretty much the position that the agribusinesses found themselves in. It is true, that to some extent, you can grow a lot of your own food. Lots of people have a garden. But for most people, doing more than corn, tomatoes, maybe potatoes, is just too much trouble. So a lot of people want someone else to raise pigs, cattle, milk cows for them, as well as fruits and vegetables. And at this point, economies of scale kick in. Isn’t it easier to have a mega-farm, and adopt an “assembly line” approach to raising food, than to have “pig-killin’ time” and invite the neighbors?

Now, there are two drawbacks to this mass production approach. We have already seen the advantages. But one problem is, since you are guaranteed some buyers, you are bound to have a lot of competition—a lot of other people have figured out that you can make money selling this thing. So they will try and undercut you on price, or they will try to explain why their widget is better than yours. This led directly to the invention of marketing. (More on this in a bit.) Another problem is, if you are going to do things on the basis of economy of scale, than in order for things to work for you at all, you have to do them on a large scale.

So, what does all this have to do with health and food? Well, let’s return to markting. We have seen that you can make money selling something people need. But there is a second way to make money by selling to people. That way is to sell them something they *want*. The way to get rich doing this is to inflame their wants, so you can yank their chain. That way you get to charge a lot more for the exact same thing. A good example here is fashion. A Coach handbag may retail for $300, and to some women it is a sign to other women of “having arrived.” But in terms of function, in an engineering sense, it does no more than a $15.00 handbag from Target. An even more extreme example is automobiles. “Lexus—the relentless pursuit of perfection.” So you shell out upwards of $30,000 for what is for all practical purposes a Toyota Camry with slightly different sheet metal and trim. Sociologists used to call this “conspicuous consumption.” Today the MBA’s rule the roost and call it “smart business.” (See for example this link; or google the term “mass luxury.”)

Now here’s the way it all ties together. Successful businesses grow by supplying something people need. If they are good at it, they grow. Really successfully businesses can grow *huge*. But once a business reaches a certain size, they discover one of two things. Either they say, “Everyone else is competing with us, we need to compete on price—and we need to make it up on volume” or they say “Why are we wasting money on low volume, we need to move upscale so we can charge more.” Either way, the focus moves away from just “meeting people’s needs” and towards “making more and more money.” Adam Smith’s hidden hand of the market has led to “Hidden Valley Ranch”. (Check out their website. They started small, but they are now a household name.) If the process of moving upscale goes on long enough, then the customer’s actual needs and wants do more than just get left behind—they become an actual hindrance. Why take the time to understand the customer when it’s easier and more profitable to just railroad them?

And so it has happened with the food industry. The focus was originally on getting people more food, healthier food, a greater variety, than they could provide for themselves. After the essentials were taken care of, the question was how to reduce unit cost of production. Once that was done, the issue became “how do we drive sales, in order to create a mass market, so that we can SELL the large quantities of food we can now produce?” And for all the rest—hydrogenated oils, margarines, potato chips—they are not sold because they are a need, as the original mega-farm products were. They were created because they had properties the mass marketers wanted: cheap to produce, long shelf life, they encourage repeat business (“bet you can’t eat just one”): and because they generate a large profit. This is the entrepreneurial genius of America, run amok. It is not a victim of its own success—-but its customers are, as the state of America's waistlines can attest.

But paradoxically, the “hidden hand of the market” is at work in another way.

As the major conglomerates moved away from providing healthy food in favor of prefabricated junk, this lack created a *new* market. One for healthy, unprocessed, flavorful food. The kind liberals (and crunchy cons) like. And guess what is happening? The entrepreneurial genius of America, which has led to the problem, is now contributing to a solution. Allow the Free Market to work (not free trade, by the way, which is a misnomer)—and the hidden hand will supply a solution!

In reality, corporate profits have nothing to do with the benefits of fish oil and leafy vegs. Use fact and logic instead of fear of bogeymen.

*Snerk*.

I once worked a gig for an agribusiness with tens of BILLIONS a year in annual revenue.

They were all agog over "ROGI hurdle" meaning the MBA cost of money and operations--so anything which improved shelf life of food, anything which lowered production or shipping costs, anything which increased market share...

So they were interested in everything from using advanced algorithms for shipping, to GMO for greater yields and pesticide resistance, to transport and storage characteristics of their foodstuffs.

And partial hydrogenation of oils greatly improves their shelf life (slows down the oxidation rate as there are not as many double bonds for the oxygen to attack); but at the side effect of trans-fats which aren't good for the person eating them.

To give the company credit, they were pursuing neutraceuticals in a number of joint ventures, years ago: but only because they saw a *large* profit potential. Just as with pharmaceuticals, it's hard to get behemoth companies interested in an niche market.

And to my mind, many of the organic foods and supplements are just now making it into the mainstream.

Cheers!

If the government wants to encourage healthier food, (since it is in society’s best interest for people to live long *healthy* lives, and not to need a lot of expensive health care), then they should establish incentives for healthier habits.

There's where you lost me, as I imagined you would from your first thread. The answer to counterproductive subsidies is not to establish dueling subsidies. The answer to counterproductive incentives is to eliminate them.

In my opinion, there is no other conservative position on this issue. The government should have no interest in my health.

One might respond, "Yes, but the government is involved." Well, get them uninvolved. More government is always bad.

I hear and respect your position--but I believe that the above sentence is a slight misunderstanding.

I do not look on Medicaid, Medicare, etc. as a "subsidy" as such. I understand your point, you want the government to be completely "laissez-faire" with regard to personal issues.

The first step in that direction (in a practical sense) is to replace coercive, or destructive, involvement with less intrusive involvement.

I didn't *necessarily* mean it as subsidizing good behaviour would be an ideal position, or even the final state of things.

You'll notice I recommended a) letting market forces work on supply; and b) the government offering a bounty, which introduces a free-market incentive, with "opt in" by the public, rather than forcing anyone to do things.

In my opinion, there is no other conservative position on this issue. The government should have no interest in my health.

I disagree, for rather complex reasons. I think there is a compelling government interest in *public* health; that is why there are laws on treatment of sewage, laws on cleanliness in restaurants, etc. Might I suggest that another question is how *intrusive* the government's interest in health should be.

One might respond, "Yes, but the government is involved." Well, get them uninvolved. More government is always bad.

More government always poses the *risk* of going bad.

I don't think the country would be better with an infrastructure comprised mainly of privately held toll roads, for example.

I agree that we definitely want less government, and that the government shouldn't be a haven for "do-gooder" "busybodies"--that leads to too much interference in people's lives. But I'm not quite sure where the line between libertarian and conservative is; and my own views have changed over time. I'm not claiming to have all the answers; just that I've stumbled over some of the right questions. At least I hope so.

Thanks for replying, I'd love to hear more from you: and I'm glad that you are raising your tax-chikadees to be self-reliant ! :-)

Cheers!

Indeed, I was generalizing in some of my statements; I tend to broad-brush because I'm always in a hurry to find out what sort of disaster has occured while I didn't have my 2-year-old in sight :-).

I do not look on Medicaid, Medicare, etc. as a "subsidy" as such.

Okay, I'll drop the word rather than argue over it. However, Medicare and Medicaid are systems under which taxpayers are forced to pay for (overwhelmingly) non-taxpayers' medical care, regardless of whether the non-taxpayers live responsibly or idiotically. This leads both to economically irresponsible use of medical care by the recipients, and to hostility on the part of taxpayers.

These systems, along with others that provide money and free services to those who make counterproductive choices in life, are a huge part of our economy. Eliminating them, making people financially responsible for their decisions, would have an enormous positive effect.

I hope to continue this discussion later, if other duties permit. It is an interesting subject, and you are a very reasonable person with whom to exchange conflicting positions :-).

I thought you meant like paying people *not* to grow crops.

The farm program has some interesting parallels with what you're proposing for the health situation. In the farm program, first the government artificially drives up the price of food, through payments to farmers, import restrictions, direct purchases of commodities, and so on. Then, the government thinks food is too expensive, so it gives some of the people vouchers to pay for their food, and gives free food to others.

Another similar situation is the child-care industry. (This is particularly interesting from a health standpoint, because day-care centers and preschools are the #1 top infectious disease growth point in the country. If there were no daycare centers, there would probably be no significant infectious disease outbreaks.)

In this industry, the government directly pays some of the operating costs of some centers; it provides some customers with the funds to pay for day care; and it offers other users a tax credit for their costs. And then, having observed that families are struggling with high taxes, the government gives credits for children, whether they attend day care or not.

We have to remember that in all these situations, as in the health situation you're arguing, the money that's being distributed by the government is confiscated from the taxpayers under threat of armed force, based on criteria that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. "Would you kill your mother to pave I-95?" as P.J. O'Rourke famously asked. Or "Would you kill your mother so your brother could have free vitamins?"

My opinion on all this is that it would be better to remove the government's distortions from the market for all these various goods and services, and allow the citizens to make their own, uncoerced choices; pay for their choices themselves; and accept the good or bad consequences of their decisions.

How dare you quote P.J. O'Rourke? He's one of my favorite authors! :-)

Your point of view is the strict constructionist take on the constitution. I can't find the article, but Rush Limbaugh had a piece on it some time back, about (IIRC) an argument in Congress in (say) the early 1800's about whether to give a pension to a widow of some decorated veteran. He richly deserved it; she needed the money; etc. etc. -- but the right to fund such things was NOT constitutional.

I am a strict constructionist, and I would approve (and I long for) the days when the three branches of the US government return to a constructionist posture...as someone's tag line says, "The Constitution may not be much, but it beats what we have now."

BUT--given how much we have slid from Constitutional principles--excuse me.

Did I say "slid"??

It's a lie. We were pushed and cajoled by leftists, socialist, Marxists, moles, trolls, and others, for the express purpose of destroying the Constitution. That effort has taken decades if not longer.

So--given how much we have forsaken Constitutional principles--I think our society would get the civics equivalent of "the bends" suffered by deep-sea divers, if we attempted to go cold-turkey on the corruption.

I think that it would take (say) 10-30 years at minimum (if we advanced change at a breakneck pace) to get back to something like obeying the Constitution.

That is why I proposed gradual measures. And if you will note in my earlier piece, I said that I hoped a good number of people, once started on a healthy lifestyle, would embrace it to the point that they'd keep going, even if the subsidy was removed.

Think "triage" in a medical sense. I'm aiming at the people in the middle, and trying to ratchet down government interference (insofar as it is there) to less intrusive, more market-friendly measures...

I wish the goverment weren't already involved. But given that it is, I want its interference at a minimum, and its tentacles less toxic.

Cheers! Full Disclosure: Yes, I see what you mean about the farm program and day care. The modus operandi of government is :

1) Create--by policy of propaganda--some problem.

2) Appoint a commision dominated by those cherry picked to deliver the "solution" you want.

3) Announce the commision's "findings" which almost always call for more regulations or bureaucracy.

4) Implement the regulations and bureaucracy to *maximize* the law of 'unintended' consequences.

5) Use the unintended consequences to prove that your bureacuracy is underfunded.

6) Apply, later, rinse, repeat.

As (I think) Jefferson said, it is the natural tendency of government to gain ground, and for individual liberty to yield.

T-C:Indeed, I was generalizing in some of my statements; I tend to broad-brush because I'm always in a hurry to find out what sort of disaster has occured while I didn't have my 2-year-old in sight :-). G_W: I do not look on Medicaid, Medicare, etc. as a "subsidy" as such. T-C:Okay, I'll drop the word rather than argue over it. Don't do that. Yours is a perfectly acceptable alternative usage. And, come to think of it, you are right!

T-C:However, Medicare and Medicaid are systems under which taxpayers are forced to pay for (overwhelmingly) non-taxpayers' medical care, regardless of whether the non-taxpayers live responsibly or idiotically. This leads both to economically irresponsible use of medical care by the recipients, and to hostility on the part of taxpayers. G_W: Agree wholeheartedly. Someday if you have the chance to read it (between all the chickadees and Freeping, it might be a while?), try a copy of The Servile State by Hilaire Belloc. It was written in 1913 and predicted the modern welfare state (as you describe above) as the inevitable consequence of the collision of captialism and communism...

T-C: These systems, along with others that provide money and free services to those who make counterproductive choices in life, are a huge part of our economy. Eliminating them, making people financially responsible for their decisions, would have an enormous positive effect. G_W: As the mathematicians say, "If and only if" people also change their behaviour at the same time. Between the power-grubbing "bread and circuses" politicians, and those on the dole, and the bureaucrats and companies who *administer* the programs, there are many vested interests who would love to see the present system continue...or even expand.

But yes, you Absolutely have the right goal in mind!

T-C:I hope to continue this discussion later, if other duties permit. It is an interesting subject, and you are a very reasonable person with whom to exchange conflicting positions :-).

Thank you! We aim to please :-)

Cheers!

G_W: As the mathematicians say, "If and only if" people also change their behaviour at the same time.

I have to disagree with that. Whether the people changed their behavior or not, their choices would be their own financial responsibility, not the taxpayers'.

One obvious means to accomplish this would be to genuinely privatize health insurance. Give the tax deduction to the taxpayer, not the employer, and make the insured, not the employer, the contracting party. I predict that this change would quickly produce a variety of "insurance" options (most "health insurance plans" are prepayment plans already, anyway). For those with healthy habits, there would be affinity groups such as the Christian cost-sharing plans already in existence.

(On a side note, as a former life-and-health actuarial employee, I'd question whether riding a bicycle to work would lead to mortality/morbidity savings. Yes, the exercise is good, but the exposure to weather, accident, and auto pollution might cancel out any cost savings, in the context of an insurance group. At least I'd want to run the numbers, before giving a discount :-)

In general, I agree with your points. It's always easier to add on something to the mountain of already-existing government programs than it is to eliminate what is not working. Your suggestion of a new government subsidy for certain products and activities would certainly benefit the immediate recipients of the subsidy, but would there be any benefit beyond that, to the taxpayer? I doubt it. We have to remember that the main beneficiaries of any government program are the bureaucrats who run it, and the "providers" (manufacturers, etc.) who pay the politicians and bureaucrats to keep the money flowing their way. There's a very interesting discussion about the money behind the "Morning After Pill" in this week's "Human Events."

I've read a few studies as well, detailing the costs to our health that hydrogenated and partially-hydrogenated oils can have, and that these additives have a direct link to the increase in Multiple Sclerosis patients in "modern" countries where foods containing them are mass-produced.

If that is the case (and I'm not discounting it), then there must be something else that goes "wrong" along the way to allow MS to set in. Maybe it's a faulty gene? e.g. a person with this faulty gene consumes trans-fats, which eventually brings on MS? The problem is that there are just SO many variables, that oftentimes, it's difficult to sort it all out.

Just look at the research into coffee consumption. One study finds that it's harmful, the other helpful. We are constantly barraged with all of these "studies", yet it's hard to assimilate all of them to try to do the right thing. Don't get me wrong: we NEED research, but it gets to the point where you just say to yourself "I give up, I'm just going to do things in moderation, and hope for the best". My 2 pennies....

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.