On Monday, Paul Krugman had a column on obesity notable primarily for the absence of any raving about George Bush. It did, however, have a rant about evil big business, trying to make kids fat to fatten their own profits. The bit I noticed, however, was this at the end:

Remember, nobody is proposing that adult Americans be prevented from eating whatever they want. The question is whether big companies will have a free hand in their efforts to get children into the habit of eating food that's bad for them.

Today, only four days later, Krugman has his next column, and surprise, he has changed his tune.

The obvious model for those hoping to reverse the fattening of America is the campaign against smoking. Before the surgeon general officially condemned smoking in 1964, rising cigarette consumption seemed an unstoppable trend; since then, consumption per capita has fallen more than 50 percent.

But it may be hard to match that success when it comes to obesity. I'm not talking about the inherent difficulty of the task - getting people to consume fewer calories and/or exercise more may be harder than getting people to stop smoking, but we won't know until we try.
.      .      .

It is more important, however, to emphasize that there are situations in which "free to choose" is all wrong - and that this is one of them.

For one thing, the most rapid rise in obesity isn't taking place among adults, who, we hope, can understand the consequences of their decisions. It's taking place among children and adolescents.

And even if children weren't a big part of the problem, only a blind ideologue or an economist could argue with a straight face that Americans were rationally deciding to become obese.
.      .      .

Above all, we need to put aside our anti-government prejudices and realize that the history of government interventions on behalf of public health, from the construction of sewer systems to the campaign against smoking, is one of consistent, life-enhancing success. Obesity is America's fastest-growing health problem; let's do something about it.

Why not the government control the menu's of day to day americans? We can charge a calorie tax based on the daily consumption of say the average fashion model thats not on heroin..any extra calories over your allotment and you are taxed accordingly..you of course would need an i-d card of some type in order to purchase any food anywhere...and all the money collected can go to feed the hungry. The end result will be a nation of wonderfully thin people.

Remember...you can never be to thin!

Joe, Instapundit's title of his link to this item -- a double entendre about "choice" -- alludes to another contradiction. What if the word "premarital sex" or the word "abortion" were to replace the word "obesity" in Krugman's column? Would he have written it then?

When the gov't is done controlling everyone's weight, will it then do something about ugly people? That, though not a public health issue, certainly is a mental health issue. After all, who wants to look at ugly people? Some humans are so ugly, they tend to keep the more attractive amongst us awake at night.

Above all, we need to put aside our anti-government prejudices and realize that the history of government interventions on behalf of public health, from the construction of sewer systems to the campaign against smoking, is one of consistent, life-enhancing success.

I'm assuming Krugman has never heard of prohibition

Let's see -- I'm probably 50 or 60 pounds overweight, and every time I have that second (or third) pint, or that extra slice of pizza, guess what? I didn't decide to do that -- it's those corporate thetans being beamed into my head encouraging.. no, forcing... me to eat that.

At last, I am no longer responsible for my fate! These size 42 jeans? I thought I was at fault, but no. It's. Not. My. Fault.

Wooo-hoo.

Oh, and can we have federally regulated bedtimes? I, for one, am pooped.

Outlaw all nongovernmental nutrition intake. The government can provide us with a food item containing all our biological needs. It can be colored green.

I don't see the parallel...

"abortion" is a result of "premarital sex", just as "obesity" is a result of eating junk food and not exercising (in most cases). Opposition to abortion is based upon the belief that the is the deliberate killing of an innocent and defenseless human being soly for the convenience of the mother who made choices which resulted in pregnancy (in most cases).

You would be very hard pressed to make a case that being obese is an attempt to dodge responsibility for anything (except exercise, perhaps) or that it takes an innocent, defenseless human life for someone's convenience.

Great point, Ron! There's nothing Krug said about obesity that he couldn't have said about pre-marital sex: Teenage pregnancy and venereal disease are health disasters that are happening at epidemic levels; there is a powerful popular culture that encourages the indulgence of sex; that big business (the entertainment industry, big government (think of all those social workers and welfare checks), alcohol makers, (hey, even the medical and abortion industries, come to think of it!)) profits unscrupulously from it; that while adults can make their own choices, teenagers and children need to be protected, and hence, Krug is coming all out for abstinence education and a return to the kind of traditional social and religious values we had when teenagers suffered so much less from the plague of premarital sex! Er, right, Paul?

Since we are constantly being hectored by the state to eat less and excercise, Krugman must have more coersive governmental action in mind. But he won't describe it, at least not yet. That's how the socialist element of society gets its way - gradually, but relentlessly ratcheting up the government's contol over our lives. Once, government just reminded us that smoking had health risks - risks a free people should be able to assume, if they wish. A couple of decades later, here in New York, smoking is illegal in all public indoor spaces, and even in some outdoor spaces like ballparks and beaches. Two decades from now it will be banned outright. The socialists learned their lesson from Prohibition: steal freedom gradually, so that the people don't notice. Mao's long march.

Professor Krugman needd some assistance. Perhaps we should all order lunches to be delivered to his desk at the Timesor office in Princeton?

What if Krugman applied the same logic to the AIDS epidemic. It would be amusing to see him burned at the stake by the gay activists.

I liked Instapundit when he was all about the war, but his implicitly equating of an unborn child with an extra 40 forty pounds of junk food is revolting.

The abortionists brought that metaphorical pollution into our language when they chose 'pro-choice' to compete with 'pro-life' Now every time someone uses the word 'choice' they run the risk of someone linking to their blog to exploit a bad analogy.

Huh? How is he "bringing adults into the picture"?

What a straw man. Krugman isn't saying that there is a prohibition on food selection, just as he isn't saying that there was a prohibition on smoking.

He's saying that there is a denial of the problem by those who benefit from the choices that are being made by consumers, and that those "choices" aren't necessarily informed or rational.

The government intervention would be to come out and call a spade a spade, or a french fry a french fry.

You clowns are really something else. Have fun in the circle jerk, boys....

The next Krugmanifesto should be about the dangers of hallucinogens to society. Halting the immature from ingesting LSD, mescaline and purple ringed fungus, something along the lines of a "war on drugs," is very necessary. But if we stopped the childish from hallucinating, then all of Krugman's editors and readers would no longer be interested in his musings. Certainly a paradox.

"The next Krugmanifesto should be about the dangers of hallucinogens to society. Halting the immature from ingesting LSD, mescaline and purple ringed fungus, something along the lines of a "war on drugs," is very necessary. But if we stopped the childish from hallucinating, then all of Krugman's editors and readers would no longer be interested in his musings. Certainly a paradox."
>>>>

Lordy, not even the snide comments and attempted jokes make it on this site.

Napoleon:
You don't think the government does enough to "call a french fry a french fry" already, with its food pyramids, labelling requirements etc. How can you possibly assure us that Krugman has nothing more in mind, when Krugman doesn't say so himself? And I love the way you liberals cannot, cannot, ever refrain from ad hominem, obscene name calling.

Predictions come true: When the Professional Dogooders started their campaign against smoking a few years ago, I reluctantly agreed because I'm allergic to tobacco. However, it was with great reservations, because I predicted that if they win, Big Macs would be next. And here we are. If they win this battle, what's next? Voting Republican?

KW

When dealing with the issue of eating, I am less inclined to be as rationale and logical than the previous posters. Simply put I would urge the government to deal with fat-headed journalists long before they attack fat-bodied citizens or giant sized voters. Krugman is despicable.

When dealing with the issue of eating, I am less inclined to be as rationale and logical than the previous posters. Simply put I would urge the government to deal with fat-headed journalists long before they attack fat-bodied citizens or giant sized voters. Krugman is despicable.

Krugman is too full of semen to hold a Big Mac.

The liberal solution: get government to prevent kids from eating bad food.

Whatever happened to PARENTS???

Agree that parents play the central role, Keith. But you misrepresent the liberal solution. It is to prevent companies from having unchecked access to kids in terms of marketing an inherently non-nutritious product. Removing pop machines and pop ads from schools would be an example of this. No one's advocating stopping the purchasing of "bad" food. People can buy what they want to buy, but they don't have to see ads for junk everywhere they look either.

Chris:

How exactly do you propose to "deal" with journalists?

And as long as a) I don't have to subsidize your poor health in the form of higher insurance premiums (whoops, too late), b) you pay for two seats on an airplane etc. you can weigh whatever you want.

Some humans are so ugly, they tend to keep the more attractive amongst us awake at night.

Well geeze, brinster, stop inviting them into your bed.

Paul K. This is Smith, Menger, Mises, Say, Malthus and Ricardo. That comment about situations in which "free to choose" is all wrong. Yeah. We're going to need that Ph.D. in economics back. Thanks.

If confronted with his inconsistency, perhaps Prof K could model his excuse after Whitman: "I am fat, I contain multitudes."

Not to muddy things ... Well, OK, to muddy things a little bit.

Would it be acceptable to many here to say two things simulataneously? Namely:

1. Sure, lots of greedy companies marketing lousy products are doing their best to get us eat badly.

AND

2. Goverrnment interference in these matters should probably be kept to a minimum.

I have no trouble with 1. or 2. And I have no trouble with 1. AND 2. either. Is there any reason both 1. and 2. shouldn't be asserted?

And considering the Center for Disease Control got their figures wrong....

We need to go back and consume sugar instead of corn syrup.

Herr Doktorprofessor should practice what he preaches, he is a little pudgy.

I wonder if he read the study theorizing poor people are fat cos they're getting too much in food stamps?

Food is cheaper, but no one's ever refigured the basis to take in that fact.

"It is to prevent companies from having unchecked access to kids in terms of marketing an inherently non-nutritious product. Removing pop machines and pop ads from schools would be an example of this."

I dislike the trend in this society to remove all choice, freedom, and responsibility from kids. If they are not how taught to live in freedom when they are young, how are they going to manage to do it once they are out of school and away from home? I think schools are too restrictive and conformist already. Take soda and snack machines out of schools and you are taking away one of the last things kids have any power or control over, and sending them a message that they are not competent to make even very small personal decisions like whether or not to have that Coke with lunch. Not good.

"And I love the way you liberals cannot, cannot, ever refrain from ad hominem, obscene name calling. "
>>
Puh-leeze. There was nothing BUT that on this entire thread. Furthermore, it was not ad hominem in the least; I pointed out what I felt were some mistaken interpretations and fallacious reasoning on the part of the commenters, and offered an alternative read on Krugman. Sure, I had some fun with it, but there was no profanity involved. "Clowns" and "circle jerk" wouldn't even draw a PG-13 rating, bro. The comment was intended to point out the tendency towards a fallacious groupthink, nothing more. The thread itself contained MUCH, MUCH worse.

As to the meat of the discussion, I do think that there are some good efforts to educate kids (and adults) to eat right, but I believe that the efforts blur the lines of healthy eating and gluttony ought to be addressed. (the funniest example I can think of, although a bit of a caricature, was that KFC commercial with the guy in the pickup truck who was eating a bucket of fried chicken when his friend complimented him on losing weight, and he said "eating chicken" was his secret.) Personally, I sure as hell don't advocate banning foods or eliminating choices for gownups, but I'd like it if they took the a la carte junk food off the line in my kids' school cafeteria. You and I might be able to ascertain that two ice cream sandwiches and a bag of doritoes isn't exactly a healthy meal, but it is a no brainer when a kid gets to decide between the lunch plate with spinach and a 10-piece McNugget with fries. I don't consider such measures excessively regulatory. As a paramedic, I'd like to make them ride with me on the calls to guys in their 40s that are type II diabetics, in congestive heart failure, on oxygen, and have them tell the kids what a life of fast food, smoking, and sedentary leisure will do for you...

The way I read it, Krugman is lamenting this effort on the part of the food industry to dissemble and distort reality in order to distract consumers and health/policy professionals from recognizing a problematic, albeit unintended, consequence of some of our eating habits. For example, "Today's food industry would never make that kind of mistake. In public, the industry's companies proclaim themselves good guys, committed to healthier eating. Meanwhile, they outsource the campaigns against medical researchers and the dissemination of crude anti-anti-obesity propaganda to industry-financed advocacy groups like the Center for Consumer Freedom." Hardly a Stalinist agenda here.

And I'm not a liberal, at least not the way they grow 'em *these* days.

I shot up to 260# (6'3") when I quit smoking. Considering the proximate cause of the weight gain, any nanny who wants to get in my face about choices will be forcibly placed on a liquid diet for the near future. I just don't have the stomach (ahem) for do-gooders at the moment.

Jim O'Sullivan:
Your comparison of smoking and obesity is way off the mark. Second-hand smoke impairs health of OTHER people, as studies have shown. Overeating hurts the person himself. Thus the former is clearly warranted.

Now, if the government advises, scares, or otherwise harrasses people into eating well, fine. If the "measures" are to remove the rights of people in what people eat, I think a line would most definitely have been crossed.

The slight irony in all this is that Krug seems a little on the obese side himself. Holier than thou ....

It's tempting to flay the professor alive for even suggesting that government might have a role in addressing the rise of obesity, but I'm not so sure what's different about accepting the government's role in addressing other addictions that plague our society, like drugs, alcohol, fast cars, gambling, sex, and on and on. Either we agree that government should properly regulate certain activities or we agree that freedom of choice should be the law of the land. Picking and choosing according to one's political/moral/ethical leanings is rather disingenuous.

Central to our liberties is how is our society to respond, if at all, to people who make unhealthy choices?
Junk food? Virtually subsidized. The purveyors held up as business exemplars.
Tobacco and booze? Regulated and controlled, but not too much.
"Drugs"? We have the WOD. And thanks to it, the black market and all its violence and corrupting power.
Lets feed the lil' ones healthy food and keep them from cigs and intoxicants.
Let the adults make their own choices.

"Lets feed the lil' ones healthy food and keep them from cigs and intoxicants.
Let the adults make their own choices. "
>>>
Sounds like a plan!

I think Herr Krugman would agree. It is the deliberate dissembling and/or spread of misinformation that has his panties all bunched up (much like it does when any supply-siders speak)

Napoleon: "He's saying that there is a denial of the problem by those who benefit from the choices that are being made by consumers, and that those "choices" aren't necessarily informed or rational. "

Uh-huh. And someone should "help" make that decision: the government, which is made of a wiser, more thoughtful, more educated set of people than the average person.

Great. And you wonder why you get called elitists.

Napoleon:

Here's my reply to you, one which I'm sure that, although you may disagree with, you will find a perfectly valid contribution to the discourse of well-informed citizens attempting to intelligently formulate public policy: Go join another circle-jerk, clown!

I wonder if if ever occured to Mr. Krugman that the success of the anti-smoking campaign contributed to the obesity "epidemic"?

As rhodeymark experienced, when one quits smoking, one gains weight. Maybe obesity is the lesser of two evils.

And, come to think of it, maybe our weight tables are based on data from an era when a large % of the population smoked and were therefore artificially thin. So maybe were not obese! We're just normal non-smokers! Yeah, that's it. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

What?!?!? You mean the 5 boxes of Mallomars I had for lunch wasn't the height of nutrition?!?!? Good thing I'm having a Monster Thickburger for dinner!! No!!!! Its not really a good choice?!?!?! Whew! Good thing I have Paul and Napoleon (is that as in The Pig?) to help me overcome those evil, corporate mind-control space lasers.

"Uh-huh. And someone should "help" make that decision: the government, which is made of a wiser, more thoughtful, more educated set of people than the average person"
>>
Straw man. Informing citizens of true health risks, whether from public schools, government programs, or health professionals isn't "choosing" for them, which is your insinuation.

Requiring honesty of disclosure isn't some kind of Orwellian control. I'm not sure what exactly Krugman would approve of in terms of government intervention, and his article even suggests as much.

"Napoleon(is that as in The Pig?) "
>>
Aw, you made a funny!!! Congratulations, let me buy you a Monster Thickburger.

Jon Cohen: "I liked Instapundit when he was all about the war, but his implicitly equating of an unborn child with an extra 40 forty pounds of junk food is revolting.

The abortionists brought that metaphorical pollution into our language when they chose 'pro-choice' to compete with 'pro-life' Now every time someone uses the word 'choice' they run the risk of someone linking to their blog to exploit a bad analogy."

Or maybe Prof. Reynolds was just making a play on words. I hope you don't think that humor should be regulated along with junk food...

Napoleon,

Snarkiness aside, we already demand disclosure of the contents of our food. Ever read the ingredients labels? The nutritional disclosures?

Krugman isn't asking for that. He's suggesting the combat against smoking as a paradigm. That means active discouragement - for adults, as well as children. Krugman's entire suggestion is that he believes adults are making the wrong choices and should therefore be treated as children.

Maybe your views differ from Krugman's (to which I say "Good"). But, don't try to defend a more reasonable position than he's actually taking. Before he even mentions children he states "It is more important, however, to emphasize that there are situations in which "free to choose" is all wrong - and that this is one of them."

"Here's my reply to you, one which I'm sure that, although you may disagree with, you will find a perfectly valid contribution to the discourse of well-informed citizens attempting to intelligently formulate public policy: Go join another circle-jerk, clown! "
>>
roflmao! I knew someone would finally come through with a clever riposte. Looks like I owe you a Monster Thickburger, too.

As for the request to abandon the circle jerk: no worries, bro. I suppose I should have expected nothing less from a blog I was directed to from the great Mecca of sophistry itself, the Club for Growth.

one more for the road:

Bill, point taken.

I think his choice of words is very poor in the quote you reference. Earlier, he is referring to the notion that certain market forces are trying to diminish the negative outcome of obesity as a side effect of the free market. He says, "And the authors suggest, without quite asserting it, that because people freely choose obesity in a free market, it must be a good thing. " He goes on to describe decision making in children and the issues with self-control in adults. Thus, when you say "before he mentions children," it is important to note that he is actually leading into the discussion of obesity in children with that remark, and furthermore, that his previous article was about kids.

All the same, I dig the disagreement with PK on this. There are certainly reasonable positions on both sides of this issue. I don't really know what Krugman's solution is, and quite frankly, I don't much care. I really don't give a Monster Thickburger about this issue; I just love to poke PK haters in the ribs when they deserve it. All in good fun, bro.

You folks have a good weekend.

Hugs and Kisses,

Napoleon the Pig.

Has anyone noticed that this post makes no sense? How is Krugman playing a shell game? At what point in his latest article does he "try to bring adults into the picture"? Why did Instapundit link to this?

With great freedoms come great responsibilities.

Those are PERSONAL responsibilities, not the responsibility of any nanny state. In the case of minors it is the PARENT who is responsible, not any nanny state.

It seems to me that many "do-gooders" who rail at (for example) people who smoke it is not so much about "the dangers" or "their concerns about health" as much as it is the person doing the railing psychological need to feel somehow "superior" to someone else. In plainer terms it is, first and formost, a self esteem issue on the part of the "do-gooder". Of course they will site "studies" and other "documentation" until they are blue in the face. I guarantee you that I can find "studies" and "documentation" to support ANY position I care to take. You have to look at who produced these "studies" and ask what is their vested interest in the result.

Now...

In my 57 years of life I have noted some things that may disturb you.

Out of all my family, friends and acquaintences the ones who are the most unhealthy, sickly and are in and out of hospitals/doctors offices on a weekly basis are the heath nuts. The ones who would shriek if a smoker came within 100 yards of them. The ones who are the runners/bike riders. The ones who are vegans/foodists. They also account for the early deaths out of my friends that came from natural causes.

I also have observed that the friends of mine who do NOT have asthma/loads of allergies (all of which cost alot of money to treat) are the ones who grew up in houses with parents who smoked.

I look at my parents. My father has smoked pipes, cigars and chewed tobacco since he was 14. He died 2 years ago at the age of 90. Cause of death-old age. His only real medical problems in later life were back/nerve problems that stemed from a bad car wreck he was in in 1975 where he broke his back.

My mother died in March at the age of 88. She smoked 2 packs of Salems a day since 1944 until the day she went to the hospital for the last time. Cause of death-she slipped in the bath and suffered a massive brain hemmorage. She did have some chloresterol problems in later life that stemmed from her love of eggs. She would eat them morning, noon and night if she could and she hated those "fake eggs".

My father was not an educated man but he was very wise. He told me "Everything causes cancer, and nothing does. It has more to do with your genetic make up then any of this BS they talk about on the news. Doctors are like bad mechanics, they really don't have a clue but will keep throwing things (medicine, surgery, etc)at a problem in hopes that it might fix it." And in listening to news reports of "studies" saying that "X" is good for you then saying 6 months later that it isn't proves my father's words true.

" guarantee you that I can find "studies" and "documentation" to support ANY position I care to take"

Then please do so. Spare us the anecdotes.

"Doctors are like bad mechanics, they really don't have a clue but will keep throwing things (medicine, surgery, etc)at a problem in hopes that it might fix it."

So, presumably, you are not averse to removing caps on malpractice lawsuits. I mean, who wants bad mechanics throwing things into our bodies, eh?

Any attempt to educate children or adults will fail. It will just be another program to waste taxpayer money. The truth of the matter is this. The environment and conditions we live in have dramatically changed but human beings have not. We are still designed by nature to live in a more natural environment. We are designed by nature to eat whenever food is in abundance. That is how we survived in the past. We ate all we could when food was plentiful so that we had fat stores to hold us over when food became scarce. Eating food to excess when food is abundant is as natural to human beings as breathing. That is why all the diets have failed, that is why exericse fails, that is why Americans are fatter than ever before...food is in abundance and no exericse is required to obtain it.

The only real solution can and will come through medical technology that enables us to modify our physiology. Medications that curtail our appetitie are on the way. In the mean time please spare me the tax increases for another meaningless program and please don't take anymore of my rights away.

For the record, I am NOT ethan, nor do I have ANY sympathy or tolerance for that kind of drive-by flaming.

He gets no Monster Thickburgers.

Don't forget about Krugman's unmentioned "government interventions on behalf of public health" such as Eugenics and Racial hygiene being "one of consistent, life-enhancing success":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Haters. Always the worst possible interpretation. Why not government-supported research into alternative foods, vitro-farming of healthier meat and vegetables, tax-breaks for staying out of the hospital, technological support for cleaning up the massive errors and closer inspection of quack medicines and inept physicians.

I think ya'll need to switch to low cal wingnut kool aid.

"Don't forget about Krugman's unmentioned "government interventions on behalf of public health" such as Eugenics and Racial hygiene being "one of consistent, life-enhancing success":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
"
>>>
Now I've seen some straw men before, but this about takes the cake!

I'd like to address Marylin Able on her insightful solution to health care problems.Tax breaks for staying out of the hospital or maybe not spending the money you would have spent in the hospital are essentially the same.This is somewhat similar toa medical savings account,which is being savaged by Democrats.
Do you think any patient I(or any other physician)have is unaware that smoking is bad;that regular exercise is good,that too much fat clogs arteries,that limiting sweets lowers your risk for diabetes,etc.I can tell you it's very hard to get people to give up short term pleasure for long term gain.As Bertie Wooster would say,"Ask any prominent Harley Street Physician".What is amusing is people who are pro-choice trying to coerce others into certain lifestyle changes the author holds as beneficial.I am awaiting a column ffom Krugman demanding an end to BF-ing as a measure to halt the spread of HIV.

My doctor has continued to insist "lean horse for a long race"

Colin, your prognosis for the column on the end of BFing. Already written, and in cryostorage, awaiting publication in the future?

I am an expert (50% overweight) and my weighty opinion is that ANY help is welcome. The private slimming industry is ripping off the desperate public with useless diets. The private fast food industry could not give a damn about the long term health of their clients. I am expecting the salvation from a miracle pill (like viagra for the impotent) and till it comes, I will accept and thank State instituted discipline.

"The private fast food industry could not give a damn about the long term health of their clients"

Why should they? They're not coercing you into buying their product, you're obviously aware of the negative health effects and yet you still choose to purchase.

And, on another note, Obese people do impose negative social costs, much in the way that smokers do, so their ailment isn't harmless to others. One of the big arguments was that smoking increases health costs across the board, since smokers develop long-term health problems that cost everyone time, money and the resouces of the doctors to treat... I don't think it's a strong leap to claim the same for obesity. As for secondhand smoke, there is no way that it even approaches the negative health effects of general air pollution, unless you work in a closed environment and are subjected to smoke 24 hours a day.

Napoleon:

Speaking about Straw Man:

"Above all, we need to put aside our anti-government prejudices"

What prejudice?!? Krugman is a socialist who worships government. It is his extreme anti-individual prejudice that makes him constantly made predictions that come wrong. (US economy will collapse, Europe will surpass America, Enron will be remembered as more important than 9/11 etc)

At any case information does nothing. EVERYONE knows fat food make you gain weight. The reason anti-smoking worked was that we at the time didn’t know how dangerous cigarettes were.

It is quite rational for many people to be fat, because eating food is enjoyable and because the free market will soon have drugs out that reduce obesity with fewer side effects. I am sure Krugman will come out, demonize the companies that make a profit out of this and demand that government takes over.

Ps.

I love the fact that Krugmans readers are stupid enough to think we would not have "sewers" if we didn't have big-government.

Obese people do impose negative social costs, much in the way that smokers do, so their ailment isn't harmless to others. One of the big arguments was that smoking increases health costs across the board, since smokers develop long-term health problems that cost everyone time, money and the resouces of the doctors to treat...

Some people look at this and see an argument for discouraging smoking. I look at it and see the ideal argument for banning socialized/nationalized healthcare.

Why not the government control the menu's of day to day americans? We can charge a calorie tax based on the daily consumption of say the average fashion model thats not on heroin..any extra calories over your allotment and you are taxed accordingly..you of course would need an i-d card of some type in order to purchase any food anywhere...and all the money collected can go to feed the hungry. The end result will be a nation of wonderfully thin people.

Isn't this exactly what's happening, disastrously, with the Kyoto Protocol and "carbon credits"?

Oh yes, almost forgot Jaimito's jaw-dropping:

I will accept and thank State instituted discipline.

Discipline means consequences for disobedience. You wouldn't mind being thrown in jail for being overweight?

Here's an interesting ideological dilemma.
1. The best result EVER in controlling my weight has come from religious-sponsored semi-fasting.
2. Assuming it could be statistically proven that religious-sponsored fasting shows the best anti-obesity result, would Krugman support a government program promoting, even mandating it?

Heh.

Let's keep the government out of the kitchen and put it in the bedroom where it belongs: outlaw homosexuality and abortions.

"I love the fact that Krugmans readers are stupid enough to think we would not have "sewers" if we didn't have big-government.

Posted by Tino"

I am agog at the fact that you don't realise how true this really is. What are you, some nut-job Libertarian or something?

I promptly light up a cigarette every time I see that a****le's name.

"To health!"