Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Big Food vs. the People

lighthousereports.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 196 posts

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#101

Post by Straw »

cogman10 wrote: post #60
Straw wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you wanted to do the most to improve competitiveness possible, by far the most effective strategy would be free trade. Trade barriers prevent competition from overseas, making monopolies much easier to maintain.

Free trade has little impact on monopolies. The biggest corporations in the US are international and the massive amount of free trade we've had from Reagan to Trump's second term has only resulted in these companies becoming even more consolidated. What free trade enables is for monopolistic corporations to take control of foreign resources to circumvent and undermine US labor laws. They'll buy the rights to the same…

You claim that a law that prevents or hinders you from making transactions with certain parties, while privileging other parties by exempting them from these restrictions, doesn't make it easier for the privileged parties to form a monopoly?

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#102

Post by Straw »

vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #43
Straw wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, governments tend to produce monopolies. Can you find true monopolies in the free market, in the last 100 years, that have lasted for at least 20 years, without some kind of government backing/suppression of competitors? I only know of one. Things only count as monopolies if they have monopoly pricing power; Google is not a monopoly, they cannot even charge 1 cent per search. In practice, despite economies of scal…

What you are describing sounds great in theory, but the real world doesn’t work like that. In more and more areas the obstacle to enter a market is not regulations but money.

I'd say exactly the same about antitrust. Can you give an example of a lasting monopoly not backed by some government policy? At any point in the last 150 years?

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#103

Post by cogman10 »

Straw wrote: post #101
cogman10 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free trade has little impact on monopolies. The biggest corporations in the US are international and the massive amount of free trade we've had from Reagan to Trump's second term has only resulted in these companies becoming even more consolidated. What free trade enables is for monopolistic corporations to take control of foreign resources to circumvent and undermine US labor laws. They'll buy the rights to the same…

You claim that a law that prevents or hinders you from making transactions with certain parties, while privileging other parties by exempting them from these restrictions, doesn't make it easier for the privileged parties to form a monopoly?

No, I claim that we spend 3 decades of free trade and we didn't see corporations get smaller. Republicans and Democrats had a free trade policy since Carter really.

If it were true that free trade results in more competition, then you'd expect that there would be more companies competing, not fewer. We see fewer companies.

Your theory has been tested in reality and it fails.

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#104

Post by throwawayffffas »

titanomachy wrote: post #66
arthurjj wrote: post #13

I'm about as hippie with my food as you can get, but this "article" is badly written propaganda that conceals more than it reveals. Half way down the article you learn that ~80% (193 out of 239) of the lawsuits are in Mexico and > many of them were against the country’s labelling regulation. Quinto Elemento Lab reveals the companies’ arguments: that the laws were a violation of their constitutional rights But the art…

I don’t know that the lack of information should lead you to assume that the Mexico lawsuits are justified. From what I’ve read, they’re contesting (among other things) the mandated black octagon on the front of packaging that says “exceso calorías” or “exceso azucáres” (excessive calories and sugar) and also bans on advertising to children. The cases that have already been decided have overwhelmingly been in favor o…

If they didn't sue they wouldn't be doing their jobs. Coca Cola for example has had 39grams of sugar per 12ounces since the 50s. Now almost 80 years later it's suddenly excessive?

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#105

Post by Straw »

cogman10 wrote: post #103
Straw wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You claim that a law that prevents or hinders you from making transactions with certain parties, while privileging other parties by exempting them from these restrictions, doesn't make it easier for the privileged parties to form a monopoly?

No, I claim that we spend 3 decades of free trade and we didn't see corporations get smaller. Republicans and Democrats had a free trade policy since Carter really. If it were true that free trade results in more competition, then you'd expect that there would be more companies competing, not fewer. We see fewer companies. Your theory has been tested in reality and it fails.

There are many other factors affecting the size of corporations. For example, a significant increase in the amount of regulation in other sectors of the economy.

More importantly, the raw number of corporations isn't how you measure a monopoly. Profit margins are the key sign of monopoly pricing- but in practice, corporate profit margins have been relatively stable in percentage terms over time. Prices for virtually all consumer goods are way down in real terms over the last 30 years.

In particular, trade might get you more competition with fewer corporations, but via competition with overseas producers. These might show up as a few importing corporations, representing a whole slew of competitors abroad.

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#106

Post by randysalami »

mmooss wrote: post #65
thegrim33 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have to learn to recognize the patterns. In this case, lighthouse reports is an international NGO which receives on the order of ~1MM in income per year (an extremely common pattern for these NGOs), which was directly given to them by (unspecified) government grants and (unnamed) private donors (can see all this in their openly published annual reports). In exchange for the funding (80.38% of which they paid o…

Just look at their About page, which conflicts with much of the parent comment: > international NGO What does 'international' mean here and why do you mention it? About page: "nonprofit organisation registered in the Netherlands with ANBI (Public Benefit Organisation) status" > ~1MM in income per year They have a staff of over 30. They must spend much more than $1 million/year. > In exchange for the funding (80.38% o…

In Europe though that can be a lot, or South America. And NGO people I know are mostly idealistic college kids who want to do good. Lots of creepy guys too

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#107

Post by cogman10 »

Straw wrote: post #97
cogman10 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you find true monopolies in the free market Your definition of monopoly isn't what people are commonly talking about when they say "monopoly". Granted, you have the correct definition, just not the colloquial one. What people say "monopoly" what they are really talking about is industries captured by few big players. For example, grocery stores. There's not a true monopoly there but there is damage done by the…

Groceries are an excellent example of competition. Profit margins on groceries are razor thin. The large chain leverage results in lower consumer prices. Large grocery chains don't have anomalously high profits, ROI, or really anything that would indicate harm to consumers. Groceries are cheaper than ever compared to median wages. The memory market is international, its not clear what anti trust even means here. Even…

> Large grocery chains don't have anomalously high profits

Define "anomalously" What do you mean by this? You'd admit that large grocery chains do have high profits right? Even with "razor thin" margins.

Large grocery outlets do love to claim that their margins are razor thin yet somehow each of them are some of the wealthiest in the nation. How can that be if they are so good for the customers?

> its not clear what anti trust even means here.

Price fixing [1]

> There's such a strong incentive to defect and secretly sell more under the table. Even OPEC could not maintain one.

OPEC is the exception, not the rule. And enforcement is a lot easier when there are fewer players. The reason OPEC has a hard time enforcing it's prices is because there are are too many players. Were they standard oil, they'd almost certainly be able to maintain their prices and discipline.

Cartels very rarely dissolve on their own. The free market naturally tends towards consolidation and cartels forming.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_industry_price_fixing

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#108

Post by throwawayffffas »

shermantanktop wrote: post #42
thegrim33 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have to learn to recognize the patterns. In this case, lighthouse reports is an international NGO which receives on the order of ~1MM in income per year (an extremely common pattern for these NGOs), which was directly given to them by (unspecified) government grants and (unnamed) private donors (can see all this in their openly published annual reports). In exchange for the funding (80.38% of which they paid o…

I think you are saying "an NGO probably has an agenda." Ok, sure, they are not robots with no opinions, and if you read even the first few sentences of that report you can see the opinion. But if you are suggesting that this NGO is carrying water for some unspecified shadowy group that is pulling the strings, you'll need to provide some backing for that. Who has a nefarious motivation to oppose junk food? Trial lawye…

It's not they are not robots with no opinions. The agenda is the reason the organisation exists. NGOs exist to push agendas. If you are on the other side of an agenda it's always "outrageous" the government is funding them of course.

I do not know who is pushing but if you think there is not an entire industry of "healthy" alternatives for the companies in the article, you are very much mistaken.

Hell it might be the artificial sweetener industry, in the UK it's now practically impossible to buy a soda that is not full of artificial sweeteners, excluding regular coca cola, and regular red bull.

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#109

Post by thatmf »

mathgeek wrote: post #56
thatmf wrote: post #36

Fantastic infographics!

Came here to see if anyone was discussing the infographics, but oddly enough because I found them incredibly distracting and in that zone of "pretty to look at but taking too long to comprehend well, if at all". To each their own!

Fair point! Some of them are certainly more legible than others. I thought the vending machine one was brilliant. But for instance the one with the slices of pizza... does get a little lost in its own sauce, yes :P

I just rarely see someone commit to the bit so deeply, and I think that's fun.

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#110

Post by onedognight »

arthurjj wrote: post #13

I'm about as hippie with my food as you can get, but this "article" is badly written propaganda that conceals more than it reveals. Half way down the article you learn that ~80% (193 out of 239) of the lawsuits are in Mexico and > many of them were against the country’s labelling regulation. Quinto Elemento Lab reveals the companies’ arguments: that the laws were a violation of their constitutional rights But the art…

When the Mexican government signed up for NSO’s spyware, who did they target? A woman who was working to pass a sugar sweetened beverage tax. And her children.
Post reply on HN