Jun

20

On Tuesday, Mayor Bloomberg's proposal to limit sugary drinks served in New York City restaurants to 16 ounces was submitted to the city's board of health. Setting aside for now the question of whether the proposal is justified, I wish to show that one thing in particular which Bloomberg has said – that the proposal does not take away your freedoms –can't be true.

This may seem obvious to some, but, as Bloomberg has pointed out, "we're not banning you from getting the stuff." Though individual drinks couldn't exceed 16 ounces, you'd still be allowed to buy as many as you wanted of them, and this fact is the basis for Bloomberg's defense: the proposal won't take away your freedoms because it allows you to buy any amount of soda that you were allowed buy before.

This defense invokes a natural idea about freedom, which is that your freedoms haven't been taken away if you are still allowed to do what you were previously allowed to do. As a defense, though, it is self-defeating. There is at least one thing which the proposal would not allow you to do which you could do before, namely buy a soda larger than 16 ounces at an NYC restaurant. The proposal fails to meet Bloomberg's own standard of freedom preservation.


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

6 Comments so far

  1. steve leslie on June 20, 2012 9:43 pm

    I fail to understand the absurd thinking behind this concept. What does this possibly accomplish./ What doyou do next outlaw cigarettes that are 100’s. You can only buy hamburgers of a certain size only so many french fries.

    I think this is an egocentric maniac out of control. He wants to micromanage lives.

    I cannot imagine anyone voting for this prima donna but after all it is NYC.

  2. marion ds dreyfus on June 21, 2012 10:16 am

    Another aspect or two includes forcing you to pay much more for the same amount you bought prior to this, if you want the same quantity of liquid soda. One 32 oz gulp could be $3 or $3.50, whereas two 16 oz slurps would not cost $6 or $7; they would cost appreciably more, to account for the additional plastic container and lid and straw and personal service needed.

    Another element is frankly the unfairness to the soda industry. They have been elevated to villainy when there are thousands of bad guys around, including the popcorn industry, the candy industry, fake meat products and fat-clogged snack industry. why pick on the soda people? In general, they have been good and generous citizens, and pillorying them seems quixotic.

  3. Curmudgeon 8903 on June 21, 2012 10:39 am

    This is based on an idea that is hot among some economists now, though controversial. It is sometimes called `libertarian paternalism' where the govt sets the "default" drink size but does not prevent you from drinking as much as you want (by ordering several drinks). There is a popular book about it called Nudge by Richard Thaler, which may even have been reviewed on this web site. The claim is that society could be better off without taking much if any freedom away; that is because many people make decisions based on rules of thumbs and acceptance of the defaults that the merchant has set up, rather than a precise calculation of how many ounces you want to drink and then ordering for that optimal amount. And the work of Herbert Simon and other economists fits in with this idea also; people make decisions based on quick heuristics, like grabbing the smallest bottle available that is bigger or equal to what they need. You can see how that heuristic could be taken advantage of by the seller offering a tiny and a very large bottle size only.

    I am not sure how I feel about all this, and I did not read the Nudge book, only the reviews. But there is something here to think about, it is not just a crazy NY mayor doing a crazy NY thing.

    There is a lot to think about: in general how is the package size (e.g. bottle size) set in the marketplace? Why does it appear to be growing over time? (consumer demand or something else?). Is the increased size good,bad or neutral? In general does Richard Thaler's economic argument make sense or not?

  4. steve leslie on June 21, 2012 11:48 am

    I read the last post about the economic impact. If he is that crafty and if he thinks that this is a step to fixing a major fiscal crisis then this amazes me. Think about this. What is next you can only buy a 15″ monitor but you can buy two of them. You can only buy 10 gallons of gas at one time and in theory when you buy more gas you will also purchase more products from inside.
    So in this insane world everything becomes centrally planned by the government. No more all you can eat buffet’s No buy one get one free. This now becomes a slippery slope. I want govt out of my life not deeper into it.

  5. vic on June 21, 2012 11:57 am

    Herbert Simon’s biography was highyl recommended by Jim Lorie and I read it with great pleasure and thrills about this prolific and diverse genius . Amazing fecundity in many fields from economietrics to artificial intelligence, with many true life examples of irrationality not the artifical kind of the promiscous Chicago school. The book is quite honoest about his personal life, and apparently was not vetted by his good wife. vic

  6. Steve on June 22, 2012 12:05 pm

    Don’t you know? Billionaires just know best! Buffet, Bloomberg, Gates and Soros are typical in that they all believe they simply know whats best for people. Much better than the people themselves.

    All of them believe we have too many people on the planet, too many markets, too many choices in our daily lives that a billionaire, who is obviously so wise because he is a billionaire after all, knows what is best for all of us.

Archives

Resources & Links

Search