Comments on: The Big Sugar Taxpayer Ripoff Blues http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/sugar-and-sweeteners/the-big-sugar-taxpayer-ripoff-blues/ A critical look at nutritional science and anything else that strikes my fancy. Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:01:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: LCforevah http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/sugar-and-sweeteners/the-big-sugar-taxpayer-ripoff-blues/#comment-7615 LCforevah Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:58:57 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=481#comment-7615 Mainstream? If "mainstream" had any meaning, I wouldn't be doing low carb. Reich and Thurow have four Nobel laureates on their side, I think I'll roll with that for the time being. I'm still having trouble googling to get info that refutes what I've found at EPI. I can't find a link to it from the WSJ, and if anyone could provide the links, I'd appreciate it. I really want to compare the findings, and draw my own conclusions. <em>Hi LC--</em> <em>Maybe 'mainstream' was a poor choice of words given the connotation it has in the area of nutritional science. What I meant by 'mainstream' was economists who have no overt political agenda. Reich (I don't even know if he's truly an economist), Thurow and Paul Krugman do not fall into that category.</em> <em>I searched the WSJ archives using the term 'minimum wage' and came up with a hundred articles over the past month or so. I went through the ones I thought might have contained the figure I remember, but couldn't find the actual article. I still have more to go through, but I'm now wondering if I saw the figure somewhere else. I'll keep looking. I did come across another piece (by a Nobel laureate, no less) that addresses the issue nicely. It costs unless you have a WSJ online subscription, which I do. I'll risk the wrath of the WSJ by reprinting it in full below.</em> <blockquote><strong>How to Make the Poor Poorer</strong> by Gary S. Becker and Richard A. Posner The strong bipartisan support for increasing the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour from the current $5.15 -- a 40% increase -- is a sad example of how interest-group politics and the public's ignorance of economics can combine to give us laws that manage to be both inefficient and inegalitarian. An increase in the minimum wage raises the costs of fast foods and other goods produced with large inputs of unskilled labor. Producers adjust both by substituting capital inputs and/or high-skilled labor for minimum-wage workers and, because the substitutes are more costly (otherwise the substitutions would have been made already), by raising prices. The higher prices reduce the producers' output and thus their demand for labor. The adjustments to the hike in the minimum wage are inefficient because they are motivated not by a higher real cost of low-skilled labor but by a government-mandated increase in the price of that labor. That increase has the same misallocative effect as monopoly pricing. Although some workers benefit -- those who were paid the old minimum wage but are worth the new, higher one to the employers -- others are pushed into unemployment, the underground economy or crime. The losers are therefore likely to lose more than the gainers gain; they are also likely to be poorer people. And poor families are disproportionately hurt by the rise in the price of fast foods and other goods produced with low-skilled labor because these families spend a relatively large fraction of their incomes on such goods. And many, maybe most, of the gainers from a higher minimum wage are not poor. Most minimum-wage workers are part time, and for the majority their minimum-wage income supplements an income derived from other sources. Examples are retirees living on Social Security or private pensions who want to get out of the house part of the day and earn pin money, stay-at-home spouses who want to supplement their spouse's earnings, and teenagers working after school. An increase in the minimum wage will thus provide a windfall to many workers who are not poor. <p class="times">Some economists deny that a minimum wage reduces employment, though most disagree. And because most increases in the minimum wage have been slight, their effects are difficult to disentangle from other factors that affect employment. But a 40% increase would be too large to have no employment effect; about a tenth of the work force makes less than $7.25 an hour. Even defenders of minimum-wage laws must believe that beyond some point a higher minimum would cause unemployment. Otherwise why don't they propose $10, or $15, or an even higher figure?</p> A number of countries, including France, have conducted such experiments; the ratio of the minimum wage to the average wage is much higher in these countries than in the U.S. Economists Guy Laroque and Bernard Salanie find that the high minimum wage in France explains a significant part of the low employment rate of married women. Mr. Salanie has argued that the minimum wage also contributes to the dismal employment prospects of young persons in France, including Muslim youths, an estimated 40% of whom are unemployed. <p class="times">As a means of raising people from poverty or near poverty, the minimum wage is inferior to the Earned Income Tax Credit, which compensates for low wages without interfering with the labor market or conferring windfalls on the nonpoor. EITC is not completely devoid of effects on efficient resource allocation, because like any other government spending it is defrayed out of taxes, and it has been abused by underreporting of income and overreporting of dependents. But it is a more efficient tax than the minimum wage as well as being more effective in redistributing income to the poor.</p> So why push to increase the minimum wage rather than the EITC? For one thing, unions strongly favor the minimum wage because it reduces competition from low-wage workers (who, partly because most of them work part time, tend not to be unionized) and thus enhances unions' bargaining power and so their appeal to workers. For another, increasing the EITC would mean an increase in government spending, which might require higher taxes; there is no public support for explicit tax increases and most people don't understand that regulatory laws can have the same effect as taxes. Moreover, poor people tend not to vote; and the number of nonpoor who'd be directly benefited by an increase in the minimum wage, when combined with the number of nonpoor workers whose incomes would rise because of reduced competition from minimum-wage workers, probably exceeds the number of nonpoor who would lose jobs. Teenagers would be among the hardest hit -- and few of them are voters (if under 18, they're ineligible). While workers who receive a wage increase when the minimum wage is hiked realize they've benefited from the hike, many hurt by the hike don't realize it; teenagers and retirees who have trouble finding a job are unlikely to realize that it's because there are fewer jobs in the economy for minimum-wage workers. Let's hope that if Congress passes a stiff increase in the federal minimum wage, George Bush will emulate Mayor Richard Daley and veto it. Several months ago the Chicago City Council, by a lopsided but not veto-proof vote, passed an ordinance requiring companies that have more than $1 billion in annual sales, and own stores in Chicago having at least 90,000 square feet of floor space, to pay Chicago employees a minimum wage of $9.25 an hour plus $1.50 an hour in fringe benefits, respectively rising to $10 and $3 by 2010. About 40 stores would have been affected. The ordinance was surpassingly foolish. The retailers that would have been most affected, such as Wal-Mart, Target and Home Depot, are at best only marginally interested in placing stores in large cities because space for large stores and for the parking they require is much more expensive than in suburbs and smaller towns. Moreover, these companies could offset much of the effect of the ordinance by opening more stores in suburbs within easy reach of Chicago, or by holding their floor space to just below 90,000 square feet. Fewer jobs would be available to low-skilled workers in the city, and families with modest incomes who seek low prices rather than elaborate service would be hurt more than the affluent by the increase in prices and reduced availability of big box outlets. <p class="times">Who would favor such a bad ordinance? Conventional supermarket chains and clothing stores, of course, and unions -- the latter not only for the usual reasons but also because big box companies oppose unions; the ordinance sent a signal that unions have enough political clout to make life difficult for large nonunion retailers. The absence of opposition to the ordinance from low-income consumers is not surprising because they are not organized to exert political pressure. The aggressive support of the ordinance by most of the council's black members is more difficult to understand, but the explanation may be that they are allied with unions. They may have realized that their constituents would be harmed by the ordinance, but believed that in return for taking this hit they would get the support of unions for measures that would help low-income families.</p> The failure of the Chicago ordinance and related local measures helps to explain the push to raise the federal minimum wage. The ordinance would have been particularly destructive -- hence Mayor Daley's veto of it -- because the smaller the scope of a minimum-wage increase, the more easily it is evaded, though possibly at great social cost. A federal increase would have a smaller social cost per worker covered, but presumably a larger overall social cost. Chicago's "big box" ordinance is evidence, if any is needed, that politics can override economic sanity. One can only hope that this lesson will not be repeated on the national stage. <em><strong>Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel economics laureate, is professor of economics at the University of Chicago and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Mr. Posner is a federal circuit judge and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.</strong></em></blockquote> <em>So, we have dueling economists. It's up to you to decide who makes the better argument, which, I'm sure, will be influenced by your own political leanings.</em> <em>Cheers--</em> <em>MRE</em> Mainstream? If “mainstream” had any meaning, I wouldn’t be doing low carb. Reich and Thurow have four Nobel laureates on their side, I think I’ll roll with that for the time being.

I’m still having trouble googling to get info that refutes what I’ve found at EPI. I can’t find a link to it from the WSJ, and if anyone could provide the links, I’d appreciate it. I really want to compare the findings, and draw my own conclusions.

Hi LC–

Maybe ‘mainstream’ was a poor choice of words given the connotation it has in the area of nutritional science. What I meant by ‘mainstream’ was economists who have no overt political agenda. Reich (I don’t even know if he’s truly an economist), Thurow and Paul Krugman do not fall into that category.

I searched the WSJ archives using the term ‘minimum wage’ and came up with a hundred articles over the past month or so. I went through the ones I thought might have contained the figure I remember, but couldn’t find the actual article. I still have more to go through, but I’m now wondering if I saw the figure somewhere else. I’ll keep looking. I did come across another piece (by a Nobel laureate, no less) that addresses the issue nicely. It costs unless you have a WSJ online subscription, which I do. I’ll risk the wrath of the WSJ by reprinting it in full below.

How to Make the Poor Poorer

by Gary S. Becker and Richard A. Posner

The strong bipartisan support for increasing the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour from the current $5.15 — a 40% increase — is a sad example of how interest-group politics and the public’s ignorance of economics can combine to give us laws that manage to be both inefficient and inegalitarian.

An increase in the minimum wage raises the costs of fast foods and other goods produced with large inputs of unskilled labor. Producers adjust both by substituting capital inputs and/or high-skilled labor for minimum-wage workers and, because the substitutes are more costly (otherwise the substitutions would have been made already), by raising prices. The higher prices reduce the producers’ output and thus their demand for labor. The adjustments to the hike in the minimum wage are inefficient because they are motivated not by a higher real cost of low-skilled labor but by a government-mandated increase in the price of that labor. That increase has the same misallocative effect as monopoly pricing.

Although some workers benefit — those who were paid the old minimum wage but are worth the new, higher one to the employers — others are pushed into unemployment, the underground economy or crime. The losers are therefore likely to lose more than the gainers gain; they are also likely to be poorer people. And poor families are disproportionately hurt by the rise in the price of fast foods and other goods produced with low-skilled labor because these families spend a relatively large fraction of their incomes on such goods. And many, maybe most, of the gainers from a higher minimum wage are not poor. Most minimum-wage workers are part time, and for the majority their minimum-wage income supplements an income derived from other sources. Examples are retirees living on Social Security or private pensions who want to get out of the house part of the day and earn pin money, stay-at-home spouses who want to supplement their spouse’s earnings, and teenagers working after school. An increase in the minimum wage will thus provide a windfall to many workers who are not poor.

Some economists deny that a minimum wage reduces employment, though most disagree. And because most increases in the minimum wage have been slight, their effects are difficult to disentangle from other factors that affect employment. But a 40% increase would be too large to have no employment effect; about a tenth of the work force makes less than $7.25 an hour. Even defenders of minimum-wage laws must believe that beyond some point a higher minimum would cause unemployment. Otherwise why don’t they propose $10, or $15, or an even higher figure?

A number of countries, including France, have conducted such experiments; the ratio of the minimum wage to the average wage is much higher in these countries than in the U.S. Economists Guy Laroque and Bernard Salanie find that the high minimum wage in France explains a significant part of the low employment rate of married women. Mr. Salanie has argued that the minimum wage also contributes to the dismal employment prospects of young persons in France, including Muslim youths, an estimated 40% of whom are unemployed.

As a means of raising people from poverty or near poverty, the minimum wage is inferior to the Earned Income Tax Credit, which compensates for low wages without interfering with the labor market or conferring windfalls on the nonpoor. EITC is not completely devoid of effects on efficient resource allocation, because like any other government spending it is defrayed out of taxes, and it has been abused by underreporting of income and overreporting of dependents. But it is a more efficient tax than the minimum wage as well as being more effective in redistributing income to the poor.

So why push to increase the minimum wage rather than the EITC? For one thing, unions strongly favor the minimum wage because it reduces competition from low-wage workers (who, partly because most of them work part time, tend not to be unionized) and thus enhances unions’ bargaining power and so their appeal to workers. For another, increasing the EITC would mean an increase in government spending, which might require higher taxes; there is no public support for explicit tax increases and most people don’t understand that regulatory laws can have the same effect as taxes.

Moreover, poor people tend not to vote; and the number of nonpoor who’d be directly benefited by an increase in the minimum wage, when combined with the number of nonpoor workers whose incomes would rise because of reduced competition from minimum-wage workers, probably exceeds the number of nonpoor who would lose jobs. Teenagers would be among the hardest hit — and few of them are voters (if under 18, they’re ineligible). While workers who receive a wage increase when the minimum wage is hiked realize they’ve benefited from the hike, many hurt by the hike don’t realize it; teenagers and retirees who have trouble finding a job are unlikely to realize that it’s because there are fewer jobs in the economy for minimum-wage workers.

Let’s hope that if Congress passes a stiff increase in the federal minimum wage, George Bush will emulate Mayor Richard Daley and veto it. Several months ago the Chicago City Council, by a lopsided but not veto-proof vote, passed an ordinance requiring companies that have more than $1 billion in annual sales, and own stores in Chicago having at least 90,000 square feet of floor space, to pay Chicago employees a minimum wage of $9.25 an hour plus $1.50 an hour in fringe benefits, respectively rising to $10 and $3 by 2010. About 40 stores would have been affected.

The ordinance was surpassingly foolish. The retailers that would have been most affected, such as Wal-Mart, Target and Home Depot, are at best only marginally interested in placing stores in large cities because space for large stores and for the parking they require is much more expensive than in suburbs and smaller towns. Moreover, these companies could offset much of the effect of the ordinance by opening more stores in suburbs within easy reach of Chicago, or by holding their floor space to just below 90,000 square feet. Fewer jobs would be available to low-skilled workers in the city, and families with modest incomes who seek low prices rather than elaborate service would be hurt more than the affluent by the increase in prices and reduced availability of big box outlets.

Who would favor such a bad ordinance? Conventional supermarket chains and clothing stores, of course, and unions — the latter not only for the usual reasons but also because big box companies oppose unions; the ordinance sent a signal that unions have enough political clout to make life difficult for large nonunion retailers. The absence of opposition to the ordinance from low-income consumers is not surprising because they are not organized to exert political pressure. The aggressive support of the ordinance by most of the council’s black members is more difficult to understand, but the explanation may be that they are allied with unions. They may have realized that their constituents would be harmed by the ordinance, but believed that in return for taking this hit they would get the support of unions for measures that would help low-income families.

The failure of the Chicago ordinance and related local measures helps to explain the push to raise the federal minimum wage. The ordinance would have been particularly destructive — hence Mayor Daley’s veto of it — because the smaller the scope of a minimum-wage increase, the more easily it is evaded, though possibly at great social cost. A federal increase would have a smaller social cost per worker covered, but presumably a larger overall social cost. Chicago’s “big box” ordinance is evidence, if any is needed, that politics can override economic sanity. One can only hope that this lesson will not be repeated on the national stage.

Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel economics laureate, is professor of economics at the University of Chicago and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Mr. Posner is a federal circuit judge and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.

So, we have dueling economists. It’s up to you to decide who makes the better argument, which, I’m sure, will be influenced by your own political leanings.

Cheers–

MRE

]]> By: LCforevah http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/sugar-and-sweeteners/the-big-sugar-taxpayer-ripoff-blues/#comment-7385 LCforevah Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:52:51 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=481#comment-7385 Dr Mike, during the Irish potato famine, as the price of scarce potatoes went up, families sacrificed other necessities to keep up with the prices. This function of economics has a name, although it's been so long since I took Econ 101 that I can't remember. Considering that economists in the past have referred to their own discipline as voodoo, I wouldn't consider the laws of economics to be written in stone, anymore than in any other social science. Please see below for a critique of a WSJ op-ed on the minimum wage in Sept 05. http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_slayers Job Slayers or Fact Slayers? The Wall Street Journal's flawed argument against raising the minimum wage a little excerpt: "Nor do economists view the issue with the monolithic disapproval that the Journal presents. Last fall, 562 economists signed a letter agreeing that "the minimum wage has been an important part of our nation's economy for 65 years." Further, they agreed that "as with a federal increase, modest increases in state minimum wages in the range of $1.00 to $2.00 can significantly improve the lives of low-income workers and their families, without the adverse effects that critics have claimed." The signers included four Nobel Laureates, three of whom have served as presidents of the American Economic Association, the mainstream, economists' professional association." As I see it, that 562 economists who are going against the interests of corporations to state their findings regarding the impact of the minimum wage. Too bad the FDA and the ADA can't find it within themselves to do the same thing regarding the American diet. <em>Hi LC--</em> <em>I don't think it was economists who referred to their discipline as voodoo, it was George H.W. Bush who made that reference about Ronald Reagan's proposed economic plan during the 1980 primary.</em> <em>I don't put a lot of faith in the Economics Policy Institute (EPI) that wrote the op-ed piece you referenced.  The EPI was started by (among others) Robert Reich and Lester Thurow (not exactly your mainstream economists) and is funded by organized labor, so it would make sense that they advocate an increase in the minimum wage.  As the French say, Cherchez l'argent.</em> <em>Cheers--</em> <em>MRE </em> Dr Mike, during the Irish potato famine, as the price of scarce potatoes went up, families sacrificed other necessities to keep up with the prices. This function of economics has a name, although it’s been so long since I took Econ 101 that I can’t remember. Considering that economists in the past have referred to their own discipline as voodoo, I wouldn’t consider the laws of economics to be written in stone, anymore than in any other social science.

Please see below for a critique of a WSJ op-ed on the minimum wage in Sept 05.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_slayers
Job Slayers or Fact Slayers? The Wall Street Journal’s flawed argument against raising the minimum wage

a little excerpt:

“Nor do economists view the issue with the monolithic disapproval that the Journal presents. Last fall, 562 economists signed a letter agreeing that “the minimum wage has been an important part of our nation’s economy for 65 years.” Further, they agreed that “as with a federal increase, modest increases in state minimum wages in the range of $1.00 to $2.00 can significantly improve the lives of low-income workers and their families, without the adverse effects that critics have claimed.” The signers included four Nobel Laureates, three of whom have served as presidents of the American Economic Association, the mainstream, economists’ professional association.”

As I see it, that 562 economists who are going against the interests of corporations to state their findings regarding the impact of the minimum wage. Too bad the FDA and the ADA can’t find it within themselves to do the same thing regarding the American diet.

Hi LC–

I don’t think it was economists who referred to their discipline as voodoo, it was George H.W. Bush who made that reference about Ronald Reagan’s proposed economic plan during the 1980 primary.

I don’t put a lot of faith in the Economics Policy Institute (EPI) that wrote the op-ed piece you referenced.  The EPI was started by (among others) Robert Reich and Lester Thurow (not exactly your mainstream economists) and is funded by organized labor, so it would make sense that they advocate an increase in the minimum wage.  As the French say, Cherchez l’argent.

Cheers–

MRE 

]]> By: LCforevah http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/sugar-and-sweeteners/the-big-sugar-taxpayer-ripoff-blues/#comment-7166 LCforevah Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:48:58 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=481#comment-7166 Thanks, Kathy for posting that page as I have been trying to google for info and not coming up with the right phrase to get this research. Dr Mike, I think you need to go to the epinet.org website and download the full pdf and look at table 1 on page 20. Their research doesn't jibe at all with the statistics you quoted. Also near the bottom of the facts at a glance page, they state there is no evidence for the claim that raising the minimum wage hurts business or jobs. If you would post the website where you found your statistics it would be interesting to compare. <em>Hi LC--</em> <em>I found my stat in the Wall Street Journal a week or so back.  I'm sure I remember it accurately because it was astounding to me. </em> <em>I don't care what the website says about an increase in the minimum wage not costing jobs because it is a function of the laws of economics.  If price goes up, demand goes down.  Even if the government drives the price up, the demand still falls.  If the price of labor rises, then the demand for that labor will fall.  If I read a website that told me that showed me statistics 'proving' that objects on the earth don't fall toward the ground, I wouldn't believe it.  Same holds for one that shows statistics 'proving' that the laws of economics  can be violated.</em> <em>Cheers--</em> <em>MRE </em> Thanks, Kathy for posting that page as I have been trying to google for info and not coming up with the right phrase to get this research.

Dr Mike, I think you need to go to the epinet.org website and download the full pdf and look at table 1 on page 20. Their research doesn’t jibe at all with the statistics you quoted.

Also near the bottom of the facts at a glance page, they state there is no evidence for the claim that raising the minimum wage hurts business or jobs. If you would post the website where you found your statistics it would be interesting to compare.

Hi LC–

I found my stat in the Wall Street Journal a week or so back.  I’m sure I remember it accurately because it was astounding to me. 

I don’t care what the website says about an increase in the minimum wage not costing jobs because it is a function of the laws of economics.  If price goes up, demand goes down.  Even if the government drives the price up, the demand still falls.  If the price of labor rises, then the demand for that labor will fall.  If I read a website that told me that showed me statistics ‘proving’ that objects on the earth don’t fall toward the ground, I wouldn’t believe it.  Same holds for one that shows statistics ‘proving’ that the laws of economics  can be violated.

Cheers–

MRE 

]]> By: Amanda http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/sugar-and-sweeteners/the-big-sugar-taxpayer-ripoff-blues/#comment-6154 Amanda Fri, 26 Jan 2007 02:27:33 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=481#comment-6154 Re Nancy Pelosi and the minimum wage bill exemption: American Samoa (where there's a Starkist Tuna plant owned by the San Francisco-based DelMonte Corp) was exempt from the recently passed minimum wage bill because wages there are already regulated under US law, and have been since 1938. Not because Nancy Pelosi did a favor for a company in her home district. See http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/12/192142/663 for a good analysis, with a number of links to solid, reliable source material. When repeated enough in the media, political spin can morph into what many assume is fact -- not unlike the "cholesterol hypothesis". Love your blog and find it fabulously spin-free! <em>Hi Amanda--</em> <em>Thanks for the kind words about the blog.</em> <em>I suspect the truth of the Nancy Pelosi/minimum wage debacle lies somewhere between the reports of the far right Washington Times and the far left Daily Kos.</em> <em>Cheers--</em> <em>MRE</em> Re Nancy Pelosi and the minimum wage bill exemption: American Samoa (where there’s a Starkist Tuna plant owned by the San Francisco-based DelMonte Corp) was exempt from the recently passed minimum wage bill because wages there are already regulated under US law, and have been since 1938. Not because Nancy Pelosi did a favor for a company in her home district. See http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/12/192142/663 for a good analysis, with a number of links to solid, reliable source material.

When repeated enough in the media, political spin can morph into what many assume is fact — not unlike the “cholesterol hypothesis”.

Love your blog and find it fabulously spin-free!

Hi Amanda–

Thanks for the kind words about the blog.

I suspect the truth of the Nancy Pelosi/minimum wage debacle lies somewhere between the reports of the far right Washington Times and the far left Daily Kos.

Cheers–

MRE

]]> By: Max http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/sugar-and-sweeteners/the-big-sugar-taxpayer-ripoff-blues/#comment-6088 Max Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:15:53 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=481#comment-6088 You closed with: <blockquote>Now we’ve reached the point at which our goverment is forking money over to the sugar industry and the HFCS industry, both of which are undermining the health of America. At the same time, this same government is funding the U.S. Nutritional Guidelines (our old friend the Food Pyramid), which encourage us to eat plenty of complex carbohydrates. And the same government is worried about the burgeoning obesity and diabetes epidemics and funding all sorts of groups to tell us we need to reduce the amount of fat in our diets.</blockquote> The link that you missed is the intense lobbying by food companies, and likely ADM, Monsanto and other "ingredient" companies to mold the new Food Pyramid (which looks a lot like the old one, when you really look at it). In essences, you have the government subsidizing companies and those companies then turning those subsidies into political influence, new favorable laws, absurd science standards and practices, and an Official recommendation to eat more sugar and corn, oddly enough, some of the big subsidy recipients. The web is very tangled indeed and is fully in support of my term for our system of government, "Dollar-ocracy". It is a government of the money, by the money and clearly for the money. Ultimately, I would set agricultural subsidy policy back to what it was during FDR's first two terms. It worked better for farmers, well for the government, and well (but less well than current system) for giant conglomerates. <em>Hi Max--</em> <em>I agree.  The web of influence is indeed complex.</em> <em>Cheers--</em> <em>MRE </em> You closed with:

Now we’ve reached the point at which our goverment is forking money over to the sugar industry and the HFCS industry, both of which are undermining the health of America. At the same time, this same government is funding the U.S. Nutritional Guidelines (our old friend the Food Pyramid), which encourage us to eat plenty of complex carbohydrates. And the same government is worried about the burgeoning obesity and diabetes epidemics and funding all sorts of groups to tell us we need to reduce the amount of fat in our diets.

The link that you missed is the intense lobbying by food companies, and likely ADM, Monsanto and other “ingredient” companies to mold the new Food Pyramid (which looks a lot like the old one, when you really look at it). In essences, you have the government subsidizing companies and those companies then turning those subsidies into political influence, new favorable laws, absurd science standards and practices, and an Official recommendation to eat more sugar and corn, oddly enough, some of the big subsidy recipients.

The web is very tangled indeed and is fully in support of my term for our system of government, “Dollar-ocracy”. It is a government of the money, by the money and clearly for the money. Ultimately, I would set agricultural subsidy policy back to what it was during FDR’s first two terms. It worked better for farmers, well for the government, and well (but less well than current system) for giant conglomerates.

Hi Max–

I agree.  The web of influence is indeed complex.

Cheers–

MRE 

]]> By: Kathy http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/sugar-and-sweeteners/the-big-sugar-taxpayer-ripoff-blues/#comment-5955 Kathy Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:50:21 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=481#comment-5955 "94.6% of people working make more than the minimum wage, and so aren’t affected, but it makes great press for the Democrats because people ignorant of economics buy into it.)" Where do you get that statistic? Most people in this country are working poor. Maybe they make a few cents more than minimum wage, but their buying power has been impacted by inflation. The middle class is quickly vanishing due to the policies that funnel money to the corporate plutocrats, like you said above. There seems to be a misconception that raising the minimum wage to a decent level is bad. $5.15 today is the equivalent of only $3.95 in 1995 — lower than the $4.25 minimum wage level before the 1996-97 increase. http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts I think that some of us are unaware of the daily struggles that most people face just to put food on the table. I volunteered in a food pantry for many years (stocked to the gills with HIGH CARB foods, but that's another rant for another time!) and you'd be surprised how many people would go hungry without some kind of assistance. The majority of these people were working poor, and two income working poor in this particular neighborhood. <em>Hi Kathy--</em> <em>The fallacy of the minimum wage is that raising it hurts the very people it aims to help. It's an economic truth that people are usually paid what their efforts are worth to the person doing the paying. If I pay someone $30 per week to mow my grass, I end up paying about $120 per month during the summer to keep my lawn looking nice. If the government comes in and says that I have to pay $40 for someone to mow my grass, then to stick with my same $120 per month grass-mowing budget I simply have my yard mowed every week and a half instead. It's the same with the minimum wage. If I have a business in which I have hired a couple of teenagers (the typical people making minimum wage) at $5.15 per hour and I need to hire another because work has expended, but our friends in Washington raise the minimum wage to $7.25 I would probably not hire another teenager, but would instead make the two already on the payroll work a little harder.  The people demanding an increase in the minimum wage feel wonderful because the two kids now working are making more, but they don't see that it has cost another kid a job. </em> <em>The laws of economics are as inviolable as the laws of physics, and trying t refute them makes just about as much sense as trying to refute gravity.  People can try, but the law of unintended consequences always rears its ugly head. </em> <em>Cheers--</em> <em>MRE </em> “94.6% of people working make more than the minimum wage, and so aren’t affected, but it makes great press for the Democrats because people ignorant of economics buy into it.)”

Where do you get that statistic? Most people in this country are working poor. Maybe they make a few cents more than minimum wage, but their buying power has been impacted by inflation. The middle class is quickly vanishing due to the policies that funnel money to the corporate plutocrats, like you said above.

There seems to be a misconception that raising the minimum wage to a decent level is bad. $5.15 today is the equivalent of only $3.95 in 1995 — lower than the $4.25 minimum wage level before the 1996-97 increase.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts

I think that some of us are unaware of the daily struggles that most people face just to put food on the table. I volunteered in a food pantry for many years (stocked to the gills with HIGH CARB foods, but that’s another rant for another time!) and you’d be surprised how many people would go hungry without some kind of assistance. The majority of these people were working poor, and two income working poor in this particular neighborhood.

Hi Kathy–

The fallacy of the minimum wage is that raising it hurts the very people it aims to help. It’s an economic truth that people are usually paid what their efforts are worth to the person doing the paying. If I pay someone $30 per week to mow my grass, I end up paying about $120 per month during the summer to keep my lawn looking nice. If the government comes in and says that I have to pay $40 for someone to mow my grass, then to stick with my same $120 per month grass-mowing budget I simply have my yard mowed every week and a half instead. It’s the same with the minimum wage. If I have a business in which I have hired a couple of teenagers (the typical people making minimum wage) at $5.15 per hour and I need to hire another because work has expended, but our friends in Washington raise the minimum wage to $7.25 I would probably not hire another teenager, but would instead make the two already on the payroll work a little harder.  The people demanding an increase in the minimum wage feel wonderful because the two kids now working are making more, but they don’t see that it has cost another kid a job.

The laws of economics are as inviolable as the laws of physics, and trying t refute them makes just about as much sense as trying to refute gravity.  People can try, but the law of unintended consequences always rears its ugly head.

Cheers–

MRE 

]]> By: Mark Levin http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/sugar-and-sweeteners/the-big-sugar-taxpayer-ripoff-blues/#comment-5949 Mark Levin Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:17:25 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=481#comment-5949 Here's the thing, the laws of economics say that if corn syrup and sugar were priced at their 'real' price by the laws of supply and demand, wouldn't there be an actual increase in sweetener consumption if not by people buying more of the slow poison(s), then food manufacturers adding more of it to processed foods as fillers? This is not to say that all those tax dollars shouldn't be returned to us or the government (depending on your political persuasion). This will only happen when the politicians decide that they won't be be elected by taking these contributions, because people won't vote for them. I don't know if this will happen, but it may be the only chance for our democracy. <em>Hi Mark--</em> <em>I suppose that another way to look at it is that if the prices of products containing sweeteners decreased, people might use the savings to buy meat, vegetables and other more nutritionally dense products.</em> <em>Cheers--</em> <em>MRE </em> Here’s the thing, the laws of economics say that if corn syrup and sugar were priced at their ‘real’ price by the laws of supply and demand, wouldn’t there be an actual increase in sweetener consumption if not by people buying more of the slow poison(s), then
food manufacturers adding more of it to processed foods as fillers?

This is not to say that all those tax dollars shouldn’t be returned to us or the government (depending on your political persuasion). This will only happen when the politicians decide that they won’t be be elected by taking these contributions, because people won’t vote for them. I don’t know if this will happen, but it may be the only chance for our democracy.

Hi Mark–

I suppose that another way to look at it is that if the prices of products containing sweeteners decreased, people might use the savings to buy meat, vegetables and other more nutritionally dense products.

Cheers–

MRE 

]]> By: LCforevah http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/sugar-and-sweeteners/the-big-sugar-taxpayer-ripoff-blues/#comment-5875 LCforevah Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:51:13 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=481#comment-5875 Dr Mike,I'm mystified as to why you would refer to increasing the minimum wage as an embarrassment. Since we all know that that has been the standing Democratic position for quite a long time, why would Pelosi or any other Dem be embarrassed about it? Just so that you know, the de facto minimum here in Orange County is about $10.00. A small business like mine can't get anyone to answer our ads for less. Whether Dem or Repub, for or against, the minimum wage is a non issue, as so many industries outside of food service can't offer it and expect to employ anybody. It just shows how politicos are always behind the times -- Repubs scream that it should stay where it is even though people are already paid more, and Dems scream about a guarantee that already been surpassed. So once again, I would suggest getting feelings out of the way, getting in touch with Pelosi and declaring how angry you are that the minimum wage issue has been attached to the ethics issue and that she make sure that the ethics of the Legislative Branch of the United States Government get taken care of. Get in touch with Boxer and Feinstein and strongly suggest the same thing. <em>Hi LC-- I didn't say that increasing the minimum wage was an embarrassment, I said that Pelosi was embarrassed because she was at the forefront of the movement to increase the minimum wage when it was discovered that the only exemption was to a company headquartered in her district. Best-- MRE</em> Dr Mike,I’m mystified as to why you would refer to increasing the minimum wage as an embarrassment. Since we all know that that has been the standing Democratic position for quite a long time, why would Pelosi or any other Dem be embarrassed about it?

Just so that you know, the de facto minimum here in Orange County is about $10.00. A small business like mine can’t get anyone to answer our ads for less. Whether Dem or Repub, for or against, the minimum wage is a non issue, as so many industries outside of food service can’t offer it and expect to employ anybody.

It just shows how politicos are always behind the times — Repubs scream that it should stay where it is even though people are already paid more, and Dems scream about a guarantee that already been surpassed.

So once again, I would suggest getting feelings out of the way, getting in touch with Pelosi and declaring how angry you are that the minimum wage issue has been attached to the ethics issue and that she make sure that the ethics of the Legislative Branch of the United States Government get taken care of. Get in touch with Boxer and Feinstein and strongly suggest the same thing.

Hi LC–

I didn’t say that increasing the minimum wage was an embarrassment, I said that Pelosi was embarrassed because she was at the forefront of the movement to increase the minimum wage when it was discovered that the only exemption was to a company headquartered in her district.

Best–

MRE

]]> By: Scott http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/sugar-and-sweeteners/the-big-sugar-taxpayer-ripoff-blues/#comment-5797 Scott Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:15:40 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=481#comment-5797 This whole thing stinks. As far as putting eBay on a pedestal is ridiculous. They provide horrible customer service and enjoy their autonomy over their sellers' accounts and find it amusing to freeze funds or block users whenever it strikes their fancy. The Democrats and their obsession with raising the minimum wage can take a long walk off a short pier. I lost my job due to the state of New Mexico raising their minimum wage. They sure 'helped' the little guy, there. If the government deems necessary to 'protect' American workers and industries by constant hand-outs, I should start a lobby to receive subsidies for towing ice bergs and keeping the "ice box" traditions alive. Yes, my trade may be out-dated and obsolete but it's an American way of life and, by God, it should be supported by the government. <em>Hi Scott--</em> <em>Thanks for the comment.  I tend to agree.</em> <em>Cheers--</em> <em>MRE </em> This whole thing stinks.

As far as putting eBay on a pedestal is ridiculous. They provide horrible customer service and enjoy their autonomy over their sellers’ accounts and find it amusing to freeze funds or block users whenever it strikes their fancy.

The Democrats and their obsession with raising the minimum wage can take a long walk off a short pier. I lost my job due to the state of New Mexico raising their minimum wage. They sure ‘helped’ the little guy, there.

If the government deems necessary to ‘protect’ American workers and industries by constant hand-outs, I should start a lobby to receive subsidies for towing ice bergs and keeping the “ice box” traditions alive. Yes, my trade may be out-dated and obsolete but it’s an American way of life and, by God, it should be supported by the government.

Hi Scott–

Thanks for the comment.  I tend to agree.

Cheers–

MRE 

]]> By: Paul B. http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/sugar-and-sweeteners/the-big-sugar-taxpayer-ripoff-blues/#comment-5783 Paul B. Tue, 23 Jan 2007 20:00:42 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=481#comment-5783 Mike--great post. I'm too cynical to be surprised by this. Disappointed, yes, but not surprised. What else do you expect from a government that has declared war on cigarette smoking, but gives subsidies to tobacco growers? <em>Hi Paul--</em> <em>Thanks.  I'm not surprised.  I'm sure there are thousands of examples of the same thing.  It sucks.</em> <em>Cheers--</em> <em>MRE </em> Mike–great post. I’m too cynical to be surprised by this. Disappointed, yes, but not surprised. What else do you expect from a government that has declared war on cigarette smoking, but gives subsidies to tobacco growers?

Hi Paul–

Thanks.  I’m not surprised.  I’m sure there are thousands of examples of the same thing.  It sucks.

Cheers–

MRE 

]]>