No, it's about calories in vs. calories out.
Sweeteners are cheap, especially HFCS, and starch without fiber is cheap.
Not all sweeteners are cheap. Eating starch that's high in fiber vs. starch that's low in fiber is still eating starch. It won't do a thing to alleviate the obesity problem we're facing like you're suggesting.
If sweeteners were more expensive and fiber filled foods less expensive, then people would consume more, feel fuller longer, and keep the body from peaking from sugar/carbohydrate highs and demanding another hit when the low comes around.
If sweeteners were more expensive people would simply pay more for sweetened foods. What makes you think they're going to eschew sweets for higher fiber foods? That doesn't make any sense. Do you think increasing the price of soda is going to motivate people to eat more 100% wheat bread?
Americans are consuming too many calories, mostly from carbs, and are not exercising enough, which is why we see so many more fat people these days. You blaming refined flour and HFCS is nothing more than a calorie distraction.
Ha, that's funny. Read a book.
What makes you think they're going to eschew sweets for higher fiber foods? That doesn't make any sense.
You must be one of those people who have a high metabolism and think all fat people are lazy gluttons, right? Economics still hold. Little Debbie cakes are 1/4th the price of an equivalent number of apples. Someone who wants something sweet will on average gravitate to the least expensive option. Money trumps health.