« Girls, episode 8 | Main | Response to comments about the top out-of-sight upper class »

June 05, 2012


"Food oriented towards SWPLs costs more because SWPLs have greater ability to pay."

People need to understand this. I know it well because I've been in charge of pricing for a large company. If you can make a lot of profit off a few people it's sometimes better then a little profit off a lot of people. Perfect price discrimination is impossible.

"I think that the ban on cigarette smoking in bars and restaurants was a great idea; it made these places a lot more pleasant."

Spoken like a true Communist....

[HS: It is a regulation that actually WORKED. The one in a hundred regulation that has a notable improvement on your life. It has nothing to do with communism.]

The non-Communist version of the smoking ban would be to permit each bar/restaurant to decide for themselves whether or not they wanted to ban it, then let the market decide. (Personally I would patronize places that did not permit it.)

Can we get a blanket ban on TVs in bars and restaurants, too? That regulation would also have a notable improvement on everyone's life...

Stunning revelations of "liberal hypocrisy - finally EXPOSED!" aside

Those that champion cigarette smoking bans in bars delude themselves.

Health? Then, let's ban everybody with FLU from being in public. Why should I PAY for someone else's disease?

And, no - I AM NOT a cigarette smoker. I pride myself on taking views not based upon my personal habits or vices.

The relevent question on smoking bans are:

How frequently do non-smokers go to bars? How frequently does the average smoker go to bars? Even before a smoking ban was enacted, in every location I've lived a decent number of bars catered to the non-smoking drinker usually with a higher priced or limited offering bar (wine only or a brewery's tap room). The biggest, cheapest bars almost always allowed smoking. After the ban, the biggest, cheapest bars usually were reduced to a smaller number of meat market type bars, while the others moved up or focused on a segment (sports etc).

"Guccie Little Piggy is wrong about the reason why soda is cheap; it has nothing to do with the cost of corn syrup vs. the cost of white sugar. Food and beverages that poor people like are priced lower because poor people are more price-sensitive."

Step backwards through the logic on this one HS... if poor people are more price-sensitive doesn't that mean that the cost of corn syrup vs the cost of white sugar could actually make a difference in which one finds it's way into the drinks poor people buy? GLP is only wrong if the subsidies don't make *enough* of a difference in the price differences between HFCS and white sugar drinks. Also, the impact of food subsidies on health would be interesting to know more about...

Shouldn't you be against the smoking ban on principle? It's a violation of private property rights. If the government can tell you what otherwise *LEGAL* behaviors people can and cannot engage in on your private property (say, your bar), what is the limit on their curtailing of individual freedoms?

We need to distinguish bad laws that happen to benefit me personally from good laws on principle. I hate smoke, it gives me allergies and asthma. The smoking ban happens to benefit me personally. So would a law requiring every adult male to transfer $50 to my bank account. But both are BAD laws on principle.

"in his post about sugary drinks, Gucci Little Piggy correctly points out the contradictory nature of liberal beliefs. On the one hand, liberals believe that poor people are too stupid to be able to purchase soft drinks, but on the other hand liberals think that everyone should have the right to vote."

Maybe liberals think that stupid people have the right to vote?

"I don’t care if poor people drink huge sodas,"

These issues are perfect for explaining why federal responsibility for anything reduces liberty. If we're all covering each other's health care costs then YOU DO have to care about poor people drinking huge sodas.

YOU DON'T have to care about rich (privately insured) people drinking huge sodas.

There is a cupcake place in my neighborhood, and cupcakes are $3.50 or $3.75. For a freaking cupcake, for freak's sake. But the place often has a long line. It's part of a local chain owned by a lesbian who was a big supporter of Obamacare. The company has always provided health insurance, but at $3.75 a freaking cupcake, it can certainly afford to.

FWIW, people are sloppy in their terminology. For many people Communist and Statist are synonyms.

Whether the regulation was successful, however you define successful, is irrelevant to its propriety. Unless you are a Statist.

[HS: It is a regulation that actually WORKED. The one in a hundred regulation that has a notable improvement on your life. It has nothing to do with communism.]

Worked for whom? The private property owner who can no longer use and enjoy his property? The non-smokers who are now paying more for their drinks?

[HS: 95% of non-smokers had a better restaurant experience, and restaurants didn't actually have any drop in revenue. Win-win.]

What you both forget is that fat people usually drink diet soda, which suggests that it's not the soda itself that makes people fat.

As for bottled water having only one free ingredient, sure, but water is extremely heavy, so the transport costs of it are enormous. Any lefty who considers himself an environmentalist and drinks bottled water should think about how much diesel gets burned lugging his water around. A huge waste: he can just by a PUR water filter and drink tap water.

In contrast, only syrup concentrate gets shipped to your local fast food restaurant to make its fountain soda, so you could argue that fountain soda is "greener" than bottled water. Of course, no lefty will argue that, because, as you note, fountain soda is considered low class.

Another inconsistent omission from Bloomberg's diktat is Starbucks Frappuccinos (because they contain milk). Plenty of of sugar in those.

"[HS: It is a regulation that actually WORKED. The one in a hundred regulation that has a notable improvement on your life. It has nothing to do with communism.]"

I agree that it was a good regulation. One of the pleasant things about going out in California versus New York in the '90s was the smoking ban in CA. It was nice to see NY follow suit, so you could go out for drinks and not come back smelling like an ash tray. And I agree it's not an example of communism. But you understate the effectiveness of simple regulations.

Where regulations go wrong is when they are long, opaque, and complex. That opens doors for rent-seeking, corruption, crony capitalism, and overall ineffectiveness (this will be the likely result of Dodd-Frank, for example). But regulations that simply ban stuff work often work pretty well. Banning leaded gas, for example, worked, and improved the environment.

I completely disagree with you on the smoking bans. As a smoker and an (ex) regular bar patron, I've witnessed first hand the decline in the clientele over the past ten years.

The fact of the matter is that those who drink the most, who are the most social, the most fun, are also smokers. Those people have stopped going so often, only to be replaced by the red-bull drinking, shiny-pants-wearing, can't-hold-my-liquor hipster/clubber demographic.

The people who voted for the smoking ban, go to bars once a month tops. Now - instead of good honest drunks - we have idiot kids infesting the places.

The bans destroyed a subculture, for the sake of 'health' benefits which are dubious at best. Not to mention the whole private property violations. If you don't smoke, and you regularly go to bars, then you're the exception; it's really not your place to be imposing a rule that the free market doesn't support.

If I was in NY, I'd like to spend $1000 on 5000 cans of soda at Walmart. Then I'd hand them out free on the steps of City Hall at a time that's inconvenient for His Majesty to the first 5000 takers:


Of course I'd probably end up in jail on some kind of peace violation courtesy of His Highness's police state.

Look who supports "National Donut Day". Yes, you are correct it is Mayor Doomberg. There also was a foot long donut unveiled to kick it off friday morning. Talking about sending a mixed message.
FOOT LONG Donuts good....Soda over 16oz Bad!


This ban will just create more waste as people who normally drink big ass drinks will just buy higher quantities of smaller bottles of drinks. Subsidies for growing organic fruits and vegetables would provide a better incentive for healthier eating habits, which would be easier to implement than picking and choosing which foods could be considered for a junk food tax.

I too am in favor of the smoking ban. Before the ban, the vast majority of businesses allowed smoking. My life was highly restricted before the ban, as I either had to just endure the smoke or forgo going to numerous establishments that I enjoyed patronizing (like hospitals or airplanes). Banning smoking in businesses allowed non-smokers more freedom to move about without having to endure carcinogenic smoke caused by the minority of smokers. Also, smoking cigarettes are still legal, and you losertarians act as if there was some sort of prohibition on cigarettes.

"This is an example of SWPLs outlawing low class foods rather than going after foods that are too sweet. So this is why we probably won’t see cupcakes outlawed, because SWPLs like to eat them. They might try to come up with some law that outlaws the Twinkie while retaining the equally caloric cupcake from Magnolia."

The problem here is that poor people eat so much junk food that they become fat. SWPLs occasionally eat food that is just as bad as junk food, but they have self-control (unlike poor people) and therefore they don't eat so much of it that they become fat.

I have no sympathy for public smokers, public drinkers or bar patrons. I'll extend my lack of sympathy to caffeinated and sugary drinks. But, like others, I still object on the basis of property rights. It doesn't bother me those things are banned. I'm actually glad that they are. But I object out of principle. Though, admittedly, my objections lack passion.

But why would I object when I personally prefer that it be banned? Because its a slippery slope. And the next thing they go after might be something I don't want banned. So just what might Bloomberg want to ban next? He's a gun grabber. And while guns are already fairly restricted in NY I suspect this soda ban is the opening shot in a campaign to ban a lot more stuff elsewhere.

Tennessee's ban on smoking in bars and restaurants passed a few years ago had a loophole that any place that was 21 and up all the time could still allow smoking. This seems like a better way to do it as it was a way to separate places that strictly had an adult clientele from those that were more family-oriented.

Overnight a bunch of bars switched to being 21 and up.

Will the forty ounce beer bottle be banned next?

The smoking ban should be repealed. Bars are not intended to be healthy places.

What nobody seems to notice is that the ban is essentially just a ban on large soft drinks at fast food restaurants.

Nicer restaurants don't serve drinks in large containers. They do offer free refills, though.

7-11 is still allowed to sell Big Gulps because 7-11 is considered a grocery store.

HFCS isn't really any worse for you than cane sugar, but it's become a convenient whipping boy, mainly for people who want to do away with farm subsidies, and largely because the switch to HFCS has roughly coincided with the obesity epidemic.

If you've ever been around proles, proles treat being fat (at least for men) as a good thing. Most people seem completely unaware of the health risks of obesity, while everybody is plainly aware of the risks of tobacco and alcohol (but people still smoke and drink.)

"If I was in NY, I'd like to spend $1000 on 5000 cans of soda at Walmart. Then I'd hand them out free on the steps of City Hall at a time that's inconvenient for His Majesty to the first 5000 takers:

Cool idea but it wouldn't work. Due to New York's pervasive Islam-Will-Conquer-the-World panty piddling paranoia, City Hall is all fenced off with thuggish cops earning lavish salaries manning guard posts at the entryways.

"I think it’s rather humorous that the ban doesn’t extend to fruit juice, even though fruit juice has as much calories as soda and fruit punch. This is an example of SWPLs outlawing low class foods rather than going after foods that are too sweet. So this is why we probably won’t see cupcakes outlawed, because SWPLs like to eat them. They might try to come up with some law that outlaws the Twinkie while retaining the equally caloric cupcake from Magnolia."

True dat. If I recall correctly, back in the 80s Jesse Jackson (in a rare instance where he was right) questioned why the penalties for posession of crack were so much greater than those for possession of regular cocaine, insofar as ghetto dwellers were more likely to use the former, while the latter was primarily an affectation of the yuppie class (known today as SWPLs).

I don't understand why these sodas are being categorized as low class/prole drinks. I see just as many middle class types sucking on these baby bottles.

It's not so much they're stupid, it's that they're weak and actually quite bright. These fatties, low class and middle class, know full well that they don't have to exhibit any kind of self control and they'll be taken cared of.

The simple fact is these people are fat, they are getting fatter, they are doing nothing to slow down getting fatter. I wouldn't care except for the fact I got to pay for them, a part of my life will be spent paying for their diabetes, heart problems, joint problems all because there's no benefit to disciplining themselves like I do. I'd love to eat pizza and coke for lunch all the time but I don't.

Freedom for these pigs? Please, do you really think any of them deserve it? I hate to say it but bloomberg is spot on here. All you card carrying freedom bleating types, explain to me what you would do to solve this very real problem of these fat pigs.

And diet soda contributes to obesity as badly as regular.

Half Sigma,
I agree with Bloomberg. I mean I used to be a libertarian but when I realized how most Americans, even white Americans, just can't control themselves, I switched to wanting government regulations.

I mean, do you really want people to be allowed to drive their children around without the children having seatbelts on?

And look at what Steve Sailer is constantly harping on, the fact that compared to 30 years ago white people are buying much much bigger houses with more amenities and going in to debt in order to do so.

Steve blames the NAMS, says that the only way to avoid living in a neighorhood with NAMS is to buy a large house. So if only there were no NAMs then whites would buy more reasonable sized houses and most mothers wouldn't have to work etc.

But I spend a great deal of time traveling on business to cities like Indianapolis and Omaha. Cities with reasonably good job prospects for professionals. I will speak only of these two cities since they are the ones I know best. In both cities there are more than a dozen different suburban neighborhoods that have school districts that are not at all "diverse" or "vibrant"

In both cities you can find a single family house on a quarter acre of land in a non diverse non vibrant school district for only $200k

With today's low mortgage rates, the mortgage on that $200k house will cost you only $900 a month.

This $200k house won't have granite counters or stainless steel appliances, but it will be nicer than what most professionals lived in thirty years ago

Half, in most of america today a family with a professional father will have no trouble comfortably keeping mom at home so long as the family buys modest middle class two year old cars rather than new luxury cars.

However what you actually find in Omaha and Indianapolis is that many many families choose to live beyond their means, not because they are forced to in order to avoid the nams, but rather just because they have a desire to consume more than they can afford on one salary

No one NEEDS to drive a Lexus or a Benz, but many families prefer to, and decide to get themselves in to debt to do so.

No one needs a four bedroom four bath four thousand square foot house but many many families choose a large house with all the modern amenities because they want to, and this choice means that mom must work.

Again, half, here is the analogy - a big part of the reason why why white Americans have health problems is due to their being over weight. immigration and diversity and nams did not cause whites to be over weight, it is simply that the whites lack the judgement to not over eat. Same thing with white families that choose the four thousand square foot house and the two luxury cars and then moan and complain about the two income trap and how mommy has to work full time and never see her kids. It is a lack of judgement.

Now again, I will be the first to admit that what I am saying does not apply to the expensive coastal cities. Yes, in expensive coastal cities like Manhattan usually both parents need to work in order to be able to get away from the dysfunctional nams.

But in most of America, both mom and dad work NOT cause of the nams but cause of choices, choices to buy luxuries that few people saw the need for thirty years ago

"Guccie Little Piggy is wrong about..."

Not thinking very clearly here HS.

Why is 100% grass fed beef much more expensive than prole beef?

Why are cherries more expensive on a per calorie and per gram basis than gummy bears?

Why is asparagus more expensive than bread?

Taxes on prole food would cause starvation?

According to HS prices on more healthful food would come down once proles were in the market despite the increased demand.

Second-hand smoke is not carcinogenic. So all those who think the smoking ban was a great idea because it made them safer are supporting increasing government power for no good reason. Now really those who feel better going to smoke-free bars are merely expressing a preference. If they hate the color red, do they have the right to support a ban on red furnishings and upholstery in bars? If not, why not? Isn't there a study somewhere that asserts that the color red increases stress and hostility? What could be more unhealthy than hostility in a place where men go to drink hard liquor and get drunk fast?
I go to a bar in Georgia which has clearly separated smoking and non-smoking sections, separated by a hermetically sealed glass partition, like the one separating men's and women's sections in mosques, and with as much real justification.

Uncivilized hunter gatherers have a diet superior to most of the rich in the US and the rest of the developed world.

There are too many people for everyone to eat so healthfully.

Corn syrup is soylent green.

All commenters here have missed the really big point.

Junk food is SOLD, PROMOTED.

Health food IS NOT.

Proles watch TV and may be more susceptible to advertising. That Taco Bell and Coke are allowed to advertise suggests to the naive prole that they can't be so bad for him.

The market isn't the solution. The market is the problem.

Why not let the owner of the bar/restaurant decide themselves if smoking is allowed? Crazy, I know...

[HS: That USED to be the way it worked, but it resulted in a market failure, because the vast majority of restaurants allowed smoking, even though the vast majority of customers didn't smoke. The new rules work better for the majority, and restaurants have not lost any money.

Yeah, hard to believe that a non-libertarian regulation results in a win-win plus situation, but it did.]

A lot of strong feelings towards the smoking ban! I, for one, like the ban. I always hated my clothes smelling like an ashtray. But I also think the purpose of this smoking ban is to TRY to discourage more "troublesome" types from frequenting bars, since smoking and low income TEND to go hand in hand.

The negative though is that without smelling like cigarette smoke, it's easier for a spouse to bullshit as to where he/she was.

"Junk food is SOLD, PROMOTED.

Health food IS NOT."

Sure it is. Plenty of commercials on TV touting the health benefits of yogurt, oatmeal, etc.

The plague of obesity is really just the flip side of 100 years of successful development of transportation, high-tech agriculture, labor-saving devices, etc. In the big picture, it's a better problem to have than its opposite (starvation).

I have asthma, so the smoking ban was a big win for me. Second hand smoke gave me a lot of problems.

As for food and drink, remembe that to these people it's a religion. Did you read the Steve Jobs biography? The guy was a nutcase on food and health. It ended up killing him. Bloomberg is cut from the same cloth.

Like a religion, there is going to be a bunch of illogical contradictory stuff. Everyone needs a dogma in their life, for the secular it can be any crazy thing.

"Sure it is. Plenty of commercials on TV touting the health benefits of yogurt, oatmeal, etc.

The plague of obesity is really just the flip side of 100 years of successful development of transportation, high-tech agriculture, labor-saving devices, etc. In the big picture, it's a better problem to have than its opposite (starvation)."

Well, pay attention to what shows the commercials appear on.

I would think that advertisements for healthy food appear far less often on shows that proles watch. Companies know their market, and healthy foods don't appeal to proles.


Thanks for your insights. You support what I've been saying: escaping from NAMs can't be the only reason that Whites are buying bigger houses and can't be why they're driving fancier cars. The status arms race ala Robert H. Frank *does* play a role. I will note that there's nothing saying that those two phenomena are mutually exclusive.


"The plague of obesity is really just the flip side of 100 years of successful development of transportation, high-tech agriculture, labor-saving devices, etc. In the big picture, it's a better problem to have than its opposite (starvation). "


No one who talks about obesity seems to consider that at some point the increase in the obesity rate has got to slow and eventually level off. At some point, everyone with a genetic susceptibility to obesity will be overweight. The fact that plenty of people remain thin in today's world indicates that there are many people not as genetically inclined to weight gain. They will remain thin in the future.

As having working for a vending company that used to service pool tables, pin ball games, juke boxes, and cigarette machines (when they were legal) in bars, it was an open fact that whether the bar was big on smoking or not had to do whether the owner/manager smoked. It was also an open fact that smokers made lousy customers who did not tip and spent less.

That is why so many restaurants/bars had to be forced to end smoking even though 75% of adults do not smoke.

The total number of restaurant meals sold is much higher after the smoking bans. Air travel is much nicer after the smoking ban. Hotels are nicer after the smoking ban.

Smokers shot themselves in the foot by being inconsiderate, messy, and rude. That is why most Americans support smoking bans.

I don't think voting for a ban on large soft drinks while
simultaneously being in favor of the democratic process is hypocritical. The right to do X and the right to vote are different things.
But it raises the question, should a supporter of democracy allow voting rights to in turn be decided by a vote.

HS - You should do a post about Tropical Fantasy...

For decades this has been a very popular soda brand for NAMs in the city, but I can't recall EVER seeing a white person drink a Tropical Fantasy product. I don't think your average UWS or UES New Yorker even knows the brand.

[HS: I've never heard of this brand or seen it anywhere. But I Googled it, and it runs out that it's a real brand, and it turns out that its selling point is that it's half the price of other brands, which demonstrates my point about how cheap products are marketed to poor people because they are more price-sensitive.

TF will be hit hard by this sugary-beverage ban, because their selling point is the 24-oz plastic bottle.]

Where are all the links proving that smoking bans have been win-win economically? Considering how many of them went into effect around the time the market crashed makes me think it's not even possible. HS leftist tendencies aren't best exemplified by his politics, but more by his hatered of poor whites.

I have been conflicted about the smoking ban. I don't smoke and like bars. I initially opposed the smoking ban in New York on the grounds of personal freedom. I don't have a huge problem with government regulation, but I think that the government should refrain from telling people what to do unless there is a really good reason. The research about the dangers of second hand smoke are dubious. I don't think its the governments business to try to extend peoples' lives by a few years if they are willing to do something that is harmful but that they take pleasure in. Everyone will have to die at some point. And non-smokers usually have more choice about entering or not entering bars than they do about entering hospitals or airplanes.

However the ban has saved me a fortune on dry cleaning!

But the commentator "Aurini" makes an interesting point about how the bar culture in New York has been ruined during Bloomberg's term of office (essentially the typical bar patron now is simply less social and less interesting). I've also noticed that the more smokers you see smoking outside a bar, the more fun the bar will probably be. However, I always attributed the decline of the bar culture to the hypergentrification of the city, or at least Manhattan. Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn have had an influx of affluent white people, most seemingly from the Midwest, and the fact is that these people are not very friendly and fairly boring.

"I have no sympathy for public smokers, public drinkers or bar patrons. I'll extend my lack of sympathy to caffeinated and sugary drinks."

Caffeine too? Are you a Mormon? Coffee is one of best "vices" to pick up. I'd put money on coffee drinkers not only being healthier than the general population, but also thinner.

@Nicolai Yezhov

"The market isn't the solution. The market is the problem."

Grandpa (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Yezhov) would be proud.

He had a few effective solutions to the problem.

Didn't the food dictators also ban foie gras? They're classless ... in more ways than one.

The comments to this entry are closed.