Not the be all and end all - but I do think there should be a strong presumption in favor of activities that consist of providing people with something they want in exchange for money.
Generally those transactions are welfare improving. Indeed, significant improvements in welfare over the last century can be largely traced to the bubbling up of transactions like these.
Sure, redistribute the winnings later on - but picking winners and banning certain transactions should be approached with skepticism. There should be significant foreseen externalities that are either evidentially obvious (e.g. climate change) or agreed upon by most people.
> "I do think there should be a strong presumption in favor of activities that consist of providing people with something they want in exchange for money."
> "There should be significant foreseen externalities that are either evidentially obvious"
Wireheading.
An obesity crisis[1] which costs $173Bn/year of medical treatment. $45Bn/year in lost productivity due to dental treatments[2]. Over half the uk drinking alcohol at harmful levels[3]. Hours of social media use per day linked to depressive symptoms and mental health issues[4].
People are manipulable. Sellers will supply as much temptation as the market will bear. We can't keep pretending that humans are perfectly rational massless chickens. Having CocaCola lobbying to sell in vending machines in schools, while TikTok catches children's attention and tells them they are fat and disgusting and just shrugging and saying the human caught in the middle should just pull on their self control bootstraps - society abandoning them to the monsters - is ridiculous, and gets more ridiculous year on year.
The Lancet[1] says "Childhood obesity rates have increased substantially over the past year in the UK, according to a new report from the UK Government's National Child Measurement Programme. This rise in prevalence is the largest single-year increase since the programme began 15 years ago and highlights the worldwide rising trend for obesity among children and adolescents [...] it is now an undeniable public health crisis."
and "a US study reported an increase in recreational screen time of almost 4 h a day in children aged 12–13 years during the COVID-19 pandemic."
Why do you think this is "mostly okay" and why is "mostly okay but getting worse" good enough for you?
> "I view this as a veil for conservatism."
I view this as sticking your head in the sand and trying to distract from it with a cheap insult. By 2030 do you think obesity prevalence will have gone up or down? Screen time? Depression levels? Happiness? Isolation? They've all been trending in bad directions for years, despite COVID. Smartphone apps aren't going to magically get fewer gambling mechanics and dark patterns, two hundred million people aren't magically going to stop responding to advertising and stop eating McDonalds, American cities aren't magically going to turn away from cars and pro-walking.
> "Tiktok fat shaming is bad but leading your “society is dystopia” comment with obesity rates in the US is fine?""
Calling out a public health crisis isn't fat shaming, so yes it's fine.
> "More extensive redistribution rather than moral panic + regulation over tiktok. Let’s not waste time on speculative interventions."
You can't fix juvenile diabetes by taking cash from McDonalds and throwing it at the sick child, or the sick child's doctors. There's nothing speculative about this - companies engineer food to exploit our senses, and engineer advertising to exploit our weaknesses, we know it works, we see the results of it, and we should stop it.
> "view this as a veil for conservatism because they don’t behave the same as you.*"
It isn't about how they behave, it's about why we behave. The why is willful manipulation by companies which want profit and don't care about harming us to get it. The manipulation is effective, coersive, substantial, powerful, abhorrent.
Not trying to be inflammatory, but you're trying to manipulate readers right now. Why is your manipulation good but companies manipulation is bad?
> companies engineer food to exploit our senses [...] and we should stop it
I'm struggling to comprehend what you actually mean here, because the only interpretation I'm coming up with is that you believe a central authority should stop people from making food taste better.
> "you're trying to manipulate readers right now. Why is your manipulation good but companies manipulation is bad?"
I didn't say my manipulation is good. Why is lifting 1Kg good but lifting 1000Kg bad? My manipulation doesn't have a billion dollars and a team of PhDs behind it. "Children need to be protected from pervasive junk food adverts in apps, social media and video blogs, the World Health Organization says." - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37846318
> "the only interpretation I'm coming up with is that you believe a central authority should stop people from making food taste better."
Even when people are suffering obesity with malnutrition[1] to the point of death while companies advertise 'happy meals', we still won't face that there's a problem. Central authorities act to prevent harm societal harms at the expense of personal freedoms in many existing situations. Here is a societal harm. Here is some central authority pushback: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/45110055 and https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-advertising-rules-to-...
This is just a maximally edgy way to phrase "companies are making tasty food". Which I don't disagree with - like Stephan Guyenet and (apparently) you, I blame the fatness problem on the fact that we've evolved to eat a bit extra because food wasn't always available, and now we're surrounded by an extreme variety of tasty food 24/7. I don't believe any of these food ideologues (keto, anti-grain, carnivore) who try to vilify a single ingredient or food group. But then, how could you possibly regulate that? If it was some bad ingredient then it could be limited or banned, but how would you regulate tastiness itself? To me, this seems hopeless, and I'm expecting the obesity problem to get addressed by a combination of making cities more walkable and normalizing semaglutide-like drugs to the point their use is as ordinary as popping a vitamin pill with breakfast. I'm curious to hear if you have different ideas.
In 2001, 23% of American adults were obese and the Surgeon General declared it a nationwide epidemic and a major public health problem.
By 2010 the FDA's "Healthy People Program" setup to tackle obesity reported failure, then 34% of adults were obese.
In 2013 no states had more than 35% obesity, the CDC reports.
Now 22 states have have more than 35% obesity.
Now 41.9 percent of adults have obesity, says Trust for America's Health.
Is that really all down to "companies are making tasty food" and not any kind of problem? Being surrounded by an extreme variety of tasty food 24/7 isn't only about the food, it's also about the surroundings. Advertising, billboards, TV, internet, apps, in-school vending machines. Vending machines, slogans, bright colours, targetting more impressionable and impulsive and weak willed subset of the population (children), or more time-stressed people (parents, people with two jobs), presenting food in association with bright colours, happy characters, happy situations, good life outcomes, yadda yadda, focusing on the positives (convenience) and downplaying the negatives (health).
> "I'm expecting the obesity problem to get addressed by a combination of making cities more walkable and normalizing semaglutide-like drugs to the point their use is as ordinary as popping a vitamin pill with breakfast. I'm curious to hear if you have different ideas."
National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the UK says about Semaglutide[5]: Side-effects For semaglutide; Common or very common: Appetite decreased (in patients with type 2 diabetes); burping; cholelithiasis; constipation; diarrhoea; fatigue; gastrointestinal discomfort; gastrointestinal disorders; hypoglycaemia (in combination with other antidiabetic drugs, in patients with type 2 diabetes); nausea; vomiting; weight decreased (in patients with type 2 diabetes). Uncommon: Pancreatitis acute; taste altered. Manufacturer advises to record the brand name and batch number after each administration. Patients and carers should be counselled on the effects on driving and performance of skilled tasks—increased risk of dizziness, particularly during the dose escalation period.
Drugs.com has worse "more common" side effects as well as those: Anxiety, blurred vision, chills, cold sweats, confusion, depression, fast heartbeat, fever, headache, large, hive-like swelling on the face, eyelids, lips, tongue, throat, hands, legs, feet, or sex organs. nightmares, slurred speach, trouble breathing.
Don't stop Coca Cola advertising, instead normalise taking drugs to try and counter the effects of drinking Coca Cola. It's a for-profit arms race, and our bodies are the battlefield. I'm in favour of more walkable cities though. I'm expecting it not to get addressed - restricting advertising is counter to the "everyone can advertise anything and it's up to you if you choose to buy it" norm, and I think it's partially not up to us and we are manipulatable, and that goes against the "I'm a free Human!" norm. I'm expecting a continuance of the "willpower, personal responsibility" useless sayings while the industry continues to get better and better at overcoming willpower, wearing down willpower, removing alternatives, normalization of deviance, lobbying.
Generally those transactions are welfare improving. Indeed, significant improvements in welfare over the last century can be largely traced to the bubbling up of transactions like these.
Sure, redistribute the winnings later on - but picking winners and banning certain transactions should be approached with skepticism. There should be significant foreseen externalities that are either evidentially obvious (e.g. climate change) or agreed upon by most people.