No pop for you! Bloomberg to ban Big Gulps.

[cowboy]

If the government stopped subsidizing the corn farmers, chances are a 32oz soda would be too expensive for most people to buy on a regular basis.

FTR, I like Bloomberg.

Are you trolling, or are you really that misinformed?

[Indy Coug]

Are you trolling, or are you really that misinformed?

with government subsidized popcorn.

[Tim]

It is here that I personally draw the line. The morning after pill, to me, is okay. It is really no different than other forms of chemical birth control. It does not end life AFTER the combination of the three important components of reproduction have come together. Rather, it disrupts the union of the sperm, egg and host.

However, abortion, is different, in my mind. At that point, the egg, sperm and host have joined. All the ingredients are present and the embryo is undergoing mitosis...well on it's way to becoming an adult human. This path continues on for 9-ish months in the host and for 16-22 years after the embryo/baby is birthed. Why destroy it at 12 weeks post-implantation and not at 12 weeks post-birth?

Why draw your line so early, though, and not at the point of viability (much, much later in the gestation process)? I don't think you'll be successful at protecting the rights of 16 (soon to be 32, soon to be 64, soon to be 128, etc.) cells. There are millions of organisms in our bodies that enable cells to be produced or generated.

Don't think I'm attempting to validate Robin's argument -- I have no opinion on that and I'm attempting to perhaps add an additional fork to this discussion. I want to know why you require the protection of one tiny set of splitting cells far before the period in which that set of cells represents a viable human that could live outside of the womb, yet you don't have any problem removing cancers, killing viruses, and shaking out all the other random sets of cell reproduction processes going on in the human body at any given time.

[byu71]

When were you born?

After World War II.

[Moliere]

Are you trolling, or are you really that misinformed?

Probably both...

[RobinFinderson]

Are you trolling, or are you really that misinformed?

You make it seem like an informed person would know how much corn subsidies reduce the price of sugar-based soft drinks. So, how much would a 32oz coke cost without subsidies?

[Pelado]

At what point in our history do you think Americans in general became stupid.

After World War II.

You answered your own question.

[cowboy]

Probably both...

There is roughly 12 cents worth of corn sweetener in 32 ounces of soda. At current market prices, the value of the of corn required to make that much sweetener is roughly 4.5 cents. Current ag policy is driving corn prices higher, not lower, and beverage makers are moving away from HFCS and toward refined sugar.

A 20 ounce sugar-sweetened soda has about 8 cents of sugar/sweetener, or roughly 5% of the total value of a soda is sweetener. Of the total cost of sweetener, less than half is attributable to the underlying commodity. Thus, assuming refiners and beverage makers keep margins consistent, commodities like corn and sugar beets could quadruple in price and result in as little as 10% increase in the price of soda.

[Moliere]

There is roughly 12 cents worth of corn sweetener in 32 ounces of soda. At current market prices, the value of the of corn required to make that much sweetener is roughly 4.5 cents. Current ag policy is driving corn prices higher, not lower, and beverage makers are moving away from HFCS and toward refined sugar.

A 20 ounce sugar-sweetened soda has about 8 cents of sugar/sweetener, or roughly 5% of the total value of a soda is sweetener. Of the total cost of sweetener, less than half is attributable to the underlying commodity. Thus, assuming refiners and beverage makers keep margins consistent, commodities like corn and sugar beets could quadruple in price and result in as little as 10% increase in the price of soda.

And as we all know, HFCS is only used in soft drinks

[kccougar]

And as we all know, HFCS is only used in soft drinks

Uh, dude, do you really want to start an argument with cowboy over the economics of agriculture??

[Indy Coug]

Uh, dude, do you really want to start an argument with cowboy over the economics of agriculture??

Moliere is Jacob in embryo.

[Moliere]

Moliere is Jacob in embryo.

Personal attack!

[cowboy]

And as we all know, HFCS is only used in soft drinks

I guess I'm unsure what that has to do with my point. I was just pointing out two fairly common misconceptions that you appeared to be repeating:

1) That corn subsidies are keeping the price of corn lower. This may have been true at one time, but not anymore. The ethanol mandate, which isn't a subsidy per se but certainly is a support policy, is actually driving corn prices higher, and the subsidies currently available to corn growers are a rounding error for most farms. In fact, corn growers agreed to forgo direct farm payments in the next farm bill if the DEA would continue to mandate ethanol at current levels in our fuel supply.

2) That the value of the commodity, whether it is corn, cane, or sugarbeets, used to sweeten drinks is a substantial contribute to their price. This is a common misconception for all foods, and when commodity prices rise, we hear a lot of noise about food inflation. In actuality, commodity prices have very little to do with the price of most food, as evidenced by this example, where the value of corn used to sweeten drinks amounts to less than 10% of their retail value.

[SeattleUte]

I guess Big Gulps are worse than marijuana, at least in New York.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/ny...policy.html?hp

[Jacob]

I guess Big Gulps are worse than marijuana, at least in New York.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/ny...policy.html?hp

Or Bloomberg just hates fat people. This seems more likely.


Also, it seems like most of the obese people I know drink diet soda, if they drink soda at all.