This is more for entertainment than discussion. I heard it on Beck today, it's hilarious. It's a new government ad on the radio. Check it out here.
Pathetic!
Food stamps are one of the major causes of obesity. I see these people rolling through my local discount grocery store with three shopping carts heaping full of groceries; wife approximately 400 lbs, husband skinny as a rail but looks like he hasn't worked a job in the last 5 years, and a teenage daughter who could rival the Goodyear blimp for girth. Copy/paste the same thing a dozen times at every cash register. It's grotesque.
Clayton -
Food stamps are one of the major causes of obesity.
Do you have any actual evidence for this apart from an anecdote regarding your pre-judgment of people observed at a distance?
@Consumariat: Well, it's praxeologically the case - when the government subsidizes something (eating food), there will be more of it. The more food that is eaten by the same population, the more obesity there will be in that population. Feel free to point out the flaw in my reasoning. Or shall we "test" the Law of Sines with a compass and straight-edge to see if it "empirically holds"?
In other words you have no idea whether or not these people had a jobs, and you just decided to make a rash judgment based on how they looked. Not that you need to be unemployed to qualify for food stamps, but then you'd know that already right?
Anyway, since entitlement to food stamps is assessed on an individual basis wrt a person's financial predicament, it is not the case that people just have an endless means to purchase as much food as they like. Food stamps are not a blank cheque, and people on them have budget restraints just like anyone else.
@Clayton
That is assuming that
you 'know' for sure the main cause of obesity is food stamps
Don't lie.
@Neo: I think (3) is the controversial point but I think it's generally true. Most people on foodstamps would not otherwise be in destitution, they would be in troubel with their parents, grandparents, buddies or whoever it is they would be mooching off if it were not for foodstamps.
Don't lie about what exactly?
@Consumariat: I highlighted the error. Feel free to re-read my prior posts for comprehension and then fix your mistake.
More food stamps = more fat chicks? This government thing ain't so bad after all!
If your quibbling about the fact you said 'one of the major causes' rather than 'the major cause', then it seems you are incapable of noticing that my point still stands. You have no way of determining via first principles what importance at all food stamps have wrt to the obesity problem. So whether it is the major cause, or simply one of them, is irrelevant.
My reaction to this ad:
You have no way of determining via first principles what importance at all food stamps have wrt to the obesity problem.
I will grant that we can't determine how much food stamps contribute to obesity without doing empirical measurments. After all, "how much?" is an inherently empirical question. So, I guess I should drop the "one of the major" and just say food stamps cause obesity because that is praxeologically true. Are there other causes? Yes. Can we determine how much food stamps contribute to obesity from first principles? No. But it's still the case that food stamps cause obesity.
The ad itself is a data-point - why did the health & human services department feel the need to tell people that food stamps can help people eat healthy unless there is some kind of "misconception" they are attempting to "correct" ? This kind of PSA is aka propaganda.
Clayton: So, I guess I should drop the "one of the major" and just say food stamps cause obesity because that is praxeologically true.
So, I guess I should drop the "one of the major" and just say food stamps cause obesity because that is praxeologically true.
I'd be careful phrasing it that way, because it sounds like you are saying that food stamps must cause obesity, unless that is what you mean, but then I would disagree with that statement.
Consumariat: The claim that you 'know' for sure the main cause of obesity is food stamps ignores the fact that there are other factors that lead to a society getting fatter. Culture, the cost and accessibility of healthy food, lack of education regarding the calorie content of food, etc. Praxeology is only valid (if it is at all) in a theoretical world where all other factors are held constant.. Reality doesn't work like that, so yes, you do need empirical evidence.
The claim that you 'know' for sure the main cause of obesity is food stamps ignores the fact that there are other factors that lead to a society getting fatter. Culture, the cost and accessibility of healthy food, lack of education regarding the calorie content of food, etc. Praxeology is only valid (if it is at all) in a theoretical world where all other factors are held constant.. Reality doesn't work like that, so yes, you do need empirical evidence.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of theoretical constructions which praxeologists employ. The discovery of causality depends on isolating causal factors. When in an 'experiment', if there are multiple causal factors at play, no final statement on causality can be made. It would be illogical to conclude in a situation with multiple causal factors on one of them merely by observation.
This is the reason that praxeology was conceived: to create an actual scientific method of economics, to determine causality in the market process. Once the causal factor is discovered through praxeology, it is not lost when the total complexity of the market is reintroduced. It merely serves to interpret (make sense of) the market complexity.
Within the Emprical-inductive framework, one often wrongly concludes upon observation of the data that one change in the figures determines another. But this is the old correlation-causation mistake. One's conclusions may be correct upon drawing from data tables, but only incidentally or from drawing on the knowledge of causality in the market. For instance the amount of buffalo in the great plains is inversely correlated with the settlement of vacant land. According to an inductive principle we may conclude that to settle vacant land we must only sacrifice more buffalo to develop land. Even in the empirical models, economists tacitly accept the notion of a priori knowledge in squabbling to assert one causal factor over another as a definitive principle of the market.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Here's some praxeological validation.
triknighted: Here's some praxeological empirical validation.
Here's some praxeological empirical validation.
FTFY.
food stamps must cause obesity
Ceteris paribus, yes. The logic is painfully simple.
Praxeology is only valid (if it is at all) in a theoretical world where all other factors are held constant.. Reality doesn't work like that, so yes, you do need empirical evidence.
Actually, praxology is valid in every and all cases, as it simply cannot be invalid any more than 1 can not equal 1. Logic is funny that way.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
gotlucky: triknighted: Here's some praxeological empirical validation. FTFY.
It was a joke. She's not even buying food.
Clayton: Ceteris paribus, yes. The logic is painfully simple. Food subsidy --> more food consumption More food consumption --> more calories consumed More calories consumed --> more obesity
All your premises are true, however you leave open that more food consumption could be eating veggies and fruits. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Because that's what people on food stamps eat. lol
triknighted: It was a joke. She's not even buying food.
No need to get your panties in a twist.
They could also be exercising more and thus balancing out their increased intake with increased output.
food stamps must cause obesity Ceteris paribus, yes. The logic is painfully simple. Food subsidy --> more food consumption More food consumption --> more calories consumed More calories consumed --> more obesity Clayton -
Though I rarely disgree with you, this one is a bit over-generalized. It really depends on what foods are subsidized versus the overall available choices.
A subsidy on tofu and rice cakes will most likely not lead to an increase in obesity, ceteris paribus.
JackCuyler: food stamps must cause obesity Ceteris paribus, yes. The logic is painfully simple. Food subsidy --> more food consumption More food consumption --> more calories consumed More calories consumed --> more obesity Clayton - Though I rarely disgree with you, this one is a bit over-generalized. It really depends on what foods are subsidized versus the overall available choices. Healthy, low calorie food subsidies will, ceteris paribus, lead to an increase in healthy food consumption. An increase in healthy food consumption may lead to a decrease in unhealthy food consumption. This change in consumption may lead to a decrease in calories consumed. A decrease in calories consumed leads to less obesity. A subsidy on tofu and rice cakes will most likely not lead to an increase in obesity, ceteris paribus.
Clayton is right. I see people buying shit food on food stamps. Watermelon, fried chicken, grape soda, diapers, alcohol . . . .
Ceteris paribus means "all else equal":
Now, we can certainly qualify these ceteris paribus conditions - food subsidies do affect what people buy as well as how much. For example, these "take and bake pizza" shops are a creation of food stamps which permit people to purchase any food item that is not a restaurant food, in other words, served hot and ready-to-eat. So, they make the pizza but don't bake it so that you can purchase it with food stamps and eat it at home.
WIC (Women-Infants-Children... not sure if this is national or just in Oregon) has as its sole purpose to change the quality of what people buy - it does not specify a dollar amount but, rather, specifies the exact type of goods for which it can be redeemed - 1 gallon of milk, 3 cans of grape concentrate, 1 lb. cheddar cheese, etc. Because any brand is redeemable, people always choose the top-shelf brands. As you would imagine, the brand-names are big-time proponents of the WIC program.
Food stamps must indirectly affect how much exercise people perform because the more overweight you are, the less you exercise.
I see no reason to believe that people will eat more nutritious foods on food stamps. I can think of reasons why people on food-stamps might purchase even more unhealthy (low nutrient, high calorie) foods - the less you spend on food (dollars per calorie) in a month, the more you have left over which you can use to barter for other goods you want more than the remaining food you could buy.
Watermelon, fried chicken, grape soda, diapers, alcohol . . . .
Um, are you trolling? Watermelon is not shit food, diapers are not food and alcohol cannot be purchased with food stamps.
Clayton: Um, are you trolling? Watermelon is not shit food, diapers are not food and alcohol cannot be purchased with food stamps.
Most likely triknighted just forgot to throw in cornbread as well. I imagine you can see what I'm insinuating.
triknighted:Clayton is right. I see people buying shit food on food stamps. Watermelon, fried chicken, grape soda, diapers, alcohol . . .
OH NO THAT MUDDAF**KA DIDN'T
Clayton:Um, are you trolling? Watermelon is not shit food, diapers are not food and alcohol cannot be purchased with food stamps.
No kidding..I ate so many food stamps I gained like 35 lbs
Tip your bartenders folks
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Food subsidy --> more food consumption
This is incorrect. If someone spends $100 a week on groceries without food stamps, and then you give them an additional $100 per week in food stamps, all this does is free up the initial $100 for use any way they wish. Sure, they might buy $200 in groceries a week, but its just as plausible that they spend that initial $100 on DVD's or lottery tickets or school supplies.
In fact, I would argue that so long as the amount of food stamps someone receives is enough to cover their usual grocery bill, its more likely that they would shift that initial $100 towards other goods because it is more likely that they value things besides more food.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
gotlucky: Clayton: Um, are you trolling? Watermelon is not shit food, diapers are not food and alcohol cannot be purchased with food stamps. Most likely triknighted just forgot to throw in cornbread as well. I imagine you can see what I'm insinuating.
I was simply referring to types of food bought with food stamps. What were you insinuating?
triknighted: I was simply referring to types of food bought with food stamps. What were you insinuating?
I was insinuating that instead of trolling, you are prejudiced at the very least and most likely a bigot. I thought it was pretty clear that was what I was getting at.
Just another agent provocateur. I'm astonished at how many there are.
Sonofabitch, damn images don't show. LINK
@mikachussetts: See my prior post - the conclusion holds ceteris paribus and, yes, the conditions are qualified in the actual fact but in a way that makes my case stronger, not weaker. The effects of food stamps on the overall budget is dependent on the recipient's schedule of wants, of course, but because they are redeemable only for food, this must boost demand for food, even if it boosts demand for other things as a side-effect. Demand cannot increase without an increase in production (Say's law) and a concomitant increase in consumption.
"Don't lie about what exactly?"
Clayton is a very exact person.
and to the watermelon issue...watermelon is healthy. unless is has some gross bacteria on the outside of it...and you don't wash the entire melon and you decide to cut through the watermelon with a knife, thereby letting the knife touch the bacteria and then touch the inside meat of the fruit, thereby infecting it and eating something nasty. thereby, leading to you bent over in agony squirting in the toilet several hours later.
gotlucky: triknighted: I was simply referring to types of food bought with food stamps. What were you insinuating? I was insinuating that instead of trolling, you are prejudiced at the very least and most likely a bigot. I thought it was pretty clear that was what I was getting at.
gotlucky, to which race do you presume I belong? You might want to check your "bigot" accusation because frankly you know nothing about me.
As for statistics, Wikipedia links to a bigger article on this. These are the summarized facts as of 2010:
"According to the United States Department of Agriculture (based on a study of data gathered in Fiscal Year 2010), statistics for the food stamp program are as follows: 36% of participants are White; 22% are African-American, not Hispanic; 10% are Hispanic; 2% are Asian, 4% are Native American, and 19% are of unknown race or ethnicity."
So again, I must ask (unless you will continue to dodge the question by throwing red herrings at me):
Above, you stated . . .
gotlucky: Most likely triknighted just forgot to throw in cornbread as well. I imagine you can see what I'm insinuating.
Let me specify: what were you insinuating by your "cornbread" reference? Why would you assume that I "just forgot to throw in cornbread as well"? It's a simple question, and I am waiting. . . .