Baude gets it entirely wrong with this bizarre accusation that I "champion government regulation of obesity." My post below says nothing of the sort -- in fact, I didn't propose any kind of policy at all, but rather drew attention to Krugman's broader argument about how we should interpret revealed preference. It turns out I'm actually quite conflicted about how to deal with obesity, as I've written before; yes, depending on the data I might advocate some policy solutions, but they would have to fall well short of "government regulation of obesity."
As far as the question about why some problems require government intervention, it's hard to argue with someone who doesn't seem to believe in public problems. But I guess I'd just refer him to his own list of non-coercive solutions, at least two of which (the campaign by medical experts and the decrease in land-use regulations for grocery stores) would almost certainly require government action and/or funding.
I confess that I don't understand how things like fast food lawsuits and other government-funded government-enforced "policy solutions" fail to qualify as "Regulation" in the relevant sense. But I've updated the post anyway.
Not really sure what you mean by "in the relevant sense," but if it's that any action on the part of the government that has any effect at all constitutes regulation, then there's nothing more to argue about...
Thanks, in any case, for the retraction!
Okay; I think I used "regulation" in the expansive sense, so my original post should really have said-- why can't private education campaigns and for-profit weight-loss groups along with more government *in-action* (no corn syrup subsidies, no candy vending machines in subsidized public schools, &c.) solve the problem?
Post a comment