Relatively ancient and inactive
Easiest is not always the best, and I can only conclude that your plan can only result in irreparable international damage, not only is it inefficient, but also in a literal sense, nationally 'emo'.
I wrote NO U last time. I got fined two severity. This time, I'll just tell you to explain what
the fuck you're talking about. What international damage, what inefficiency, what emo, etc.
You do realize that your 'plan' is a cost in itself. By driving out those conglomerates, you also drive out America's stock markets (excluding GDP). Free market isn't just made up of buyers and sellers, it is also made of international investors. They pull those out, then America is bankrupt beyond reparable amounts.
Yeah. Taxing bad food will start a new Great Depression. Just let Vrael argue this point for you, he does it more realistically and with better English.
The classical model of economics is what's generalized as a "long-run" model. "In the long run," meaning after a sufficient amount of time has passed for equilibrium to be realized, free market mechanisms will allow other brands to start up and take there place, this is very likely. However, the "short run" consequences may be more dire then you expect. If the tax is passed on thursday, "Eco-Green-Healthy-Foods Inc." will not be operational by monday of next week. I understand that what I have to say is criticism and not helpful as an alternative to solving the problem of obesity, but if we were in a position to be implementing some solution it would be helpful in preventing unnecessary loss. Essentially, the detriment of implementing such a tax could outweigh the benefits. Short-term economics is still an unstable area of research (I know because I almost had a research position with an economics professor doing a study on short term effects of changes across a multiple-country model, and while I didn't recieve the position I learned enough to say what I've just said), and its unlikely that our predictions will be entirely accurate. I refer back to my previous post about the effects of the removal of a company like Pepsico on the U.S. GDP. If the tax is sufficient to deter people from buying products from a company like Pepsico, it is also likely that it will drive companies like Pepsico away, which in turn reduces the taxes that they pay, which in turn reduces the government income. So if our total tax income is less than it was before the fat tax, I fail to realize where you're going to get the tax money to subsidize healthy foods. Without these early subsidies, it will take much longer for these new brands to start up and revitalize our GDP and tax income. In the long run, I'm sure they will, but immediately following the implementation of such a tax there will be a plethora of difficulties that I don't think you have forseen.
If I am right about these effects, the new question would become "will the long-term benefits outweigh our short-term problems?" Unfortunately humans live in a short-term lifespan, with about a 100-year maximum. For the fat tax, the "long run" might be 25 years, or it could be 10, or 50, or 5, who knows for certain? The point being, there might be other programs we could institute with less detriment to ourselves. However, if there isn't, or this is the program with the least loss to ourselves, it should be implemented anyway, so that we can get the problem solved and start to reap the benefits of the long-run as soon as possible.
Economics is a zero-sum game. If Pepsico loses, other competitors win. Pepsico tax decreases, other companies' taxes increase. In the short term. You can't talk about the loss of Pepsico without talking about others direct gain. Maybe it won't make up for 100% of the loss of the program, but it should make up a significant part.
So we lose some income from Pepsico and MacDonalds, and maybe only 80% of it is brought in by competitors (mind, even money spent instead in other sectors, not just food, will eventually be taxed and reach the treasury). We lose a few billion dollars off our budget (much less, probably). Thank god. Get the government to balance the damn budget. Feel free to tell me what unforeseen catastrophes will happen. Do you really think that Obama would cut education funds instead of military if that happens? Would we start losing in Afghanistan? Again, if there will be unforeseen difficulties, tell me of them. Your Pepsico one is very minor. Definitely not worth stopping a good program for reversing one of America's saddest phenomena.
It certainly is important whether or not other brands will start up. New companies provide jobs, create products, help "boost the economy" in general, and a number of other small things. It is possible that a brand like Pepsico would start selling other products in the U.S. though to avoid the tax, but I suppose I was assuming Centreri's tax would be smart enough to get around simple substitutes which still contain ingredients which contribute to the weight problem. At that point it may be more profitable for companies like Pepsico to avoid the U.S. altogether and focus on the rest of the word, like China, for example, where there are a billion people.
Also BeDazed, your quip about taxation in America is completely irrelevant. The underlying problems were things like lack of representation, unfair treatment, unfair courts, and other forms of general oppression. "No Taxation Without Representation!" does not describe the entire scenario.
I'm assuming that the government would be capable of executing this. I can't draw up a list of every ingredient with the corresponding tax all by myself.
People who care about health have already begun eating healthier foods, and even without taxing them- the trend still continues toward 'healthiness' and 'well-being' and so and so like that. And promoting it with nationally supported education and health care would do the job, with some propaganda. It will get better as time goes on without taking those 'easy and drastic' measures which only backfire. If there was an easy solution to every problems like these, America wouldn't have any problems. That's unfortunate to say that it's far from the truth.
You're being incredibly vague about any problems or solutions, and are starting off with the wrong evidence regarding the 'trend' towards 'healthiness' and 'well-being'.
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html . Any trend toward thinness at this point would be people going from being able to afford burgers to not being able to afford them. And since I posted this in the first post, I supposed you saying this proves that you didn't read the entire topic?
It's not important whether or not other brands will start up, but take their place? I think that would be highly unlikely, because most of that model only views the market 'inside' of America- meaning there won't be any competitors. But that's far from the truth, as America isn't the only market- rather the world is. The companies America drove out will still dominate most of America's markets, selling sugar-free drinks without additional taxing, and sugary products with cheaper ingredients?
And if the already devastated America doesn't support another food chain to gain competitiveness against these large 'conglomerates' would be unlikely.
What model, how would it lead to no competitiveness, and how does America lose if other companies turn to other countries?
You guys should remember that taxing too much in America got really ugly for Britain. Why shouldn't we say the same for America and it's corporate buddies?
Related how?
None.