<p>Who know what’s next: after soda and beef lungs, maybe they’ll come after feathers in hats!</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>We used to do the same thing at McDonalds or Burger King (when we drank soda). We’d split the soda and fries and maybe the sandwiches too. It’s a lot cheaper to buy one huge soda and share then buy a bunch of small ones.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If this happens, the “ladies who lunch” will be devastated. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. If I have to pay more, I might as well forgo buying an item. It’s not like I need it. I am cheap, if I perceive something discretionary as a good deal, I will consider buying it. Otherwise, you can keep it.</p>
<p>“The U.S. Department of Agriculture is considering buying 400,000 tons of sugar—enough for 142 billion Hershey’s Kisses—to stave off a wave of defaults by sugar processors that borrowed $862 million under a government price-support program.”</p>
<p>[Big</a> Sugar Is Set for a Sweet Bailout - Yahoo! Finance](<a href=“http://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-sugar-set-sweet-bailout-234800763.html]Big”>http://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-sugar-set-sweet-bailout-234800763.html)</p>
<p>I think that ending price supports for sugar would result in higher prices for goods with sugar in them and that’s something that could reduce consumption for products with high sugar content. I’m a bit surprised at how powerful Big Sugar is after reading that article.</p>
<p>^^^
A perfect example of how more government involvement in food and nutrition is unlikely to produce the desired result.</p>
<p>Every wonder how it is that the Dept. of Agriculture is responsible for setting national nutrition standards (Food Pyramid, MyPlate…)? Is it really a big surprise that they have concluded it would be “best” for Americans if they gorge themselves on 6 to 8 servings of corn and wheat every day? 60% of calories from carbohydrates? Back in the 1960s, before the government started “helping” us, first with the McGovern Committee Senate Report and then the USDA guidelines, this was exactly the kind of diet to avoid if you were overweight. And, all the while, the government subsidizes sugar and corn.</p>
<p>How does this subsidy compare to many other subsidies our gov is involved?</p>
<p>Who knows? There’s probably a subsidy to grow sugar and a subsidy to not grow sugar…</p>
<p>If we really wanted to “help” people, go in a get rid of counter-productive subsidies and regulations before passing any new ones. Well-intentioned or not, regulations to dictate behavior just end up being vehicles for the best organized industries to game the system. General Mills loves the government marketing “healthy whole grains” for them. There is nothing whole or healthy about their breakfast cereals, but they gerrymander the guidelines so they can claim a healthy product for something this is, in reality, horrible for you to eat. The consumer loses in a fog of misinformation.</p>
<p>When Nikita Khrushcev visited US in 1959, he was fascinated by corn fields. Impressed by how successful that part of farming was in US, he came back to Russia and made Russian farms (called Kolkhos) grow corn. Needless to say, it was not a successful endeavor in Russia.</p>
<p>I am not sure when corn producers started to get subsidized in US, but I wonder if Khrushcev knew that those corn fields were subsidized, would he go ahead with his plans?</p>
<p>P.S. By the way, people trying to loose weight should not be eating corn.</p>
<p>If my memory serves right, I think sugar prices are artificially inflated in the US to help corn farmers. Does that sound right to you? Somehow high sugar price keeps corn price high.</p>
<p>Personally, I’d rather see farm subsidies than helping financial or construction sector. Hate to see farmland bulldozed over.</p>
<p>High-fructose corn syrup is a common substitute for sugar so if sugar prices are high, it would increase the demand for alternatives so I can see high sugar prices propping up corn prices.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suppose your view would different if you were working in financial or construction sector. I personally would like to see free market determine who sinks and who swims. One can only dream I suppose.</p>
<p>I do benefit greatly from the successes of financial sector. But I mind less Gov involvement in weak/banishing sectors just to slow the process. Besides, farmland is beautiful to drive through. Not so much mushroom houses.</p>