gashouse gorilla

Los Angeles Declares War on Colonel Sanders (and Your Portfolio)

Dylan, that's a classy first response. As to your subordinate's response (which you're adopting), I'll respond.

>> Where did he ever insult the citizens of LA?

Implicitly. Not explicitly. Which is no worse than what LA did. Let's review.

According to Dylan, LA thinks some of its constituents make poor eating decisions. Well, also according to Dylan, we must help parents educate children or educate themselves about making better dining choices. So, you see, Dylan and LA are in agreement about one of the problem's root causes: some people don't know better.

Now, nowhere does LA come out and call their people "stupid", "dense", etc. But, you READ THESE INSULTS INTO IT. Over what? Over the same observation Dylan made? Be careful: The fact that you suggest different policy prescriptions doesn't make a difference regarding the "insults". The fact is: you, too, Dylan, think some people need "help" making better decisions. LA hasn't been any more "insulting" to its citizens than you. If you want to read insults into it, then do the same with your piece.

And then there's Dylan's reference to retarded people, the "people riding the little yellow buses". (Don't anticipate that I misread Dylan's explicit statement, because I didn't.) Yes, I read your statement "everyone you, Dylan, knows" knows junk food is junk food. Explicitly, you're saying "there isn't anyone who doesn't know just how bad junk food is" and, therefore, "I, Dylan, am not calling anyone retarded". But, as I said, if one of YOUR solutions is "education", then one of the problems is "lack of information". By definition, that means some people really DON'T know junk food is that bad for them. That contradicts your earlier statement. You DO believe some people lack information to make better decisions. Worse, LA never compared these people to retards. But, YOU DO. Not explicitly. But, this seems implicit to me.

I'm sure you didn't (and maybe still don't) see it that way, or else you wouldn't have written the piece exactly this way. I understand.


>> What he is saying is that citizens ARE smart enough to make their own decisions - especially when given proper financial incentives

If they're "smart enough", then why do they need "financial incentives"? Don't you see the implicit contradiction here?

>> For starters your suggestion that he replace "instead of" with "addition to" completely ignores

Not "completely". Yes, my one point doesn't address his whole sermon. But, it should provide cause for you to calm down.

Dylan kept repeating "instead of, instead of, instead of". Some of his outrage comes from his *apparent* interpretation of LA's decision as "the only thing LA is going to do to combat the problem is this stupid law" (my paraphrasing). But, restricting fast food outlets isn't the only thing LA wants to do to help its citizens eat better.

"Instead of" implies exclusive alternatives. If that wasn't the message intended, then perhaps Dylan's article should be edited to improve/refine his message. (Come to think of it, since you have his login, maybe that was part of your job? Would that explain why your response is hostile and even personal?)

>> the basic premise of the article which is to get government out of the lives of citizens.

If you want to get "government out of the lives of citizens", then why are you recommending "financial incentives" to get people to eat the food you want them to eat? I don't live in LA. But, to use an analogy that affects me greatly, is not the bailout of Fannie & Freddie "getting into my life", even though it's "only" a financial action?

>> (i.e. tax breaks for certain kinds of food joints, tax breaks for parents of children deemed to be in good health, etc).

So, restricting permitting to favor certain outcomes *IS* "the nanny state in action" but rigging the tax code to favor these same outcomes isn't?

...

By the way, I heard on the radio yesterday that more and more LA urbanites have picked up GARDENING, so they can feed themselves healthier food. Land is somewhat fungible. So, when LA prevents the opening of new fast food outlets, some plot of land somewhere will become available for more gardening.

LA's mayor has been encouraging this. So, you see, LA is doing more than just restricting the opening of new fast food outlets. I don't follow this story closely. But, I doubt that's the only thing either.

Can/should they do more? Maybe you can help them brainstorm. If not now (because you're presently gainfully employed), then perhaps in the future.

Good luck, Dylan and crew.

Los Angeles Declares War on Colonel Sanders (and Your Portfolio)

>> Instead of
>> Instead of
>> Instead of

No, it's not "instead of". It's "in addition to". With this obvious distinction in mind, maybe you be less outraged.

>> Instead of looking at parenting or education or home life

"Looking at..." is not a solution. What's your alternative? Be specific.

Should they ban watching more than 1 hour of TV or video games a day? Even if it weren't a preposterous idea, how would you police that? Should they spend tax dollars on an anti-junk food campaign?

What can a local government do? One thing they can do is make the junk food less accessible. It doesn't have to be the only way to combat the problem of obesity. But, it's the kind of decision a local government has some control over.

>> Instead of lowering taxes for people so that they can afford to eat better foods, they thought it wiser to prevent any more Carl's Junior (SYM: CKE) or Burger King (BKC) restaurants from appearing.

If certain restaurants serve junk, why should the majority of educated people not prevent them from opening and hurting the health of their "uneducated" patrons? *

* It's hypocritical of you to on the one hand excoriate LA for recognizing many of its citizens make poor decisions when it comes to the food they eat while on the other hand mentioning (among the vague solutions you offer) "education" as the answer. Are there people out there who make bad eating decisions? There must be. Or else you wouldn't be recommending we "educate" them.

So, for daring to recognize that some diners don't know better, do you intend to rip yourself a new one?

>> Instead of creating incentives for businesses to come to Los Angeles to ...

Again, it's not "instead of". You're viewing these as "exclusive choices" when they're not.

...

Lastly, is this the kind of analysis and reasoning you use to evaluate investments? This sounds more like straight political argument. It's an issue worth debating. But, it seems out of place for "Seeking Alpha".