Economics and China

[kandrathe]

Tyranny? .... such as the tobacco tax and alcohol tax.

Primarily I reject rampant excesses of Progressivism. The goal of which, is to use government to mold a better society.

How are these tobacco tax and alcohol taxes (regressive, and moralistic) affecting peoples behavior? "The U.S. per capita consumption of alcohol edged up to 35.2 liters in 2011 from 29.7 liters in 1997, according to Fortune." Smoking in the US is down, but more than compensated by increasing exports. It is OK, for Africans to get lung cancer, but by god we need to stomp our usage in the US. You know I am a HUGE advocate for personal freedoms to choose, so long as you only harm yourself. Ya, ya, I know. You will ask "But, what about the societal cost of the poor person denied health insurance due to a life time of not exercising, excessive smoking, over eating, or excessive drinking?" Certainly, we might consider a TAX or charge on that person, the one who is actually imposing the risk. This is supposed to be how insurance works. If your insurance rates are too high, you might be either having too many claims, or at risk for too many claims. A well regulated private insurance market would ensure rates are fair. Government enforcement of the rules doesn't make it better insurance, it should only make it apply fairly and equally. Similarly, making something a government program, and mandatory tends to disperse the burden of the cost onto the entire populace, rather than the one abusing their health. Then, we need to regulate the individuals choices to bring down the governments costs. Tyranny.

I guess what I'm saying is instead of forcing corporations hands, it might work better to offer incentives for change? But fyi, regardless it is the consumer who will get the short end of the stick with the tax. Change will come at a price...

Ok, so on the one hand I understand why we might want to treat corporations like individuals... (e.g. making contracts, determining ownership, but I don't subscribe to the notion of total corporate person-hood. Mostly, corporations (a collection of owners) exist to provide goods and services to the public, in exchange for a profit on their investment. Corporations (their ownership, boards of directors, and designated leadership) are liable for hoodwinking, fraud, breaches of contract, and sometimes very serious crimes, and as such, clearly our justice system needs to hold actual people accountable for the actions of a corporation. Lots of things are dangerous in this world, such as being scalded by hot coffee. Or, having a nail gun shoot a nail into your skull. Smoking a cigarette is only dangerous as a habitual daily habit, as is drinking a daily pint of vodka, or eating a pound or five of Twinkies. We could have a lengthy discussion of the implied risks in consuming addicting products (e.g. Twinkies). The corporations liability in my mind ends in disclosure of the risks of abuse. I don't think any sane person in the past 50 years thought while chain smoking 3 packs of unfiltered Camels, "I'm doing my body some good today".

Again, I agree with the sentiment and sound logic, but you're shouting into the wind. Little guys like us can't make a difference unless it's with mass consensus, but telling people to give up their amenities to save the world... hahahaha.... most people would rather watch this world burn, and that's the sad, sad truth. Change has to start with the corporations, and they won't change unless government either, 1) makes them via my first suggestion through penalties, or 2) gives them incentives that makes them want to change; at least, I don't see any other realistic options other that the two I listed regarding this particular matter. I honestly don't believe the average citizen will chose to change, and the media only serves to entice for the new this, and the new that.

Therein, lies the rub. If you attack the supply side, you only divert it into the shadows. Just like the war on drugs, it can only be beat by addressing the demand. If you cannot stem the demand, then just as with the 1918 prohibition of alcohol, all you are doing is forcing the otherwise honest person to break the law in satisfying an urge which is almost always only harming themselves. It is a fundamental difference of thought from our founding in the US in believing our government is an instrument to exact obedience to rules, rather than one serving to form a cohesive society that also preserves the maximal amount of individual liberty. My proposition is that our purpose in government should be to preserve "liberty and justice for all" equally, and I would say it is entirely impractical for a government to attempt to protect people from their own bad decisions.

As Edgar Friendly said, "That’s right. You see, according to Cocteau’s plan, I’m the enemy. Because I like to think, I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech, freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy who would sit in the greasy spoon and think “Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the big rack of Barbecued spare ribs with the side order of gravy fries?” I WANT high cholesterol. I want to eat bacon, butter and buckets of cheese alright? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinatti in a non-smoking section. I wanna run around naked with green jell-o all over my body reading a Playboy magazine. Why? Because maybe I feel the need to okay pal? I’ve SEEN the future, you know what it is. It’s made by a 47 year-old virgin in gray pajamas soaking in a bubble bath, drinking a broccoli milkshake and thinking “I’m an Oscar-Meyer Wiener”. You wanna live on top, you gotta live Cocteau’s way. What he wants, when he wants, how he wants. Your other option: come down here, maybe starve to death."