My class on legislation in the first year of law school (which was quite innovative, as at that time most law schools didn't require a course in legislation at all) was taught by one of the legal scholars who literally wrote the book on the subject.
Almost everyone, "conservative" or "liberal," who took that course began the semester supposing that passing a new law is an effective way to solve a social problem. By the end of the semester, hardly any of us thought that anymore.
Agreed. I work in the health care industry and it's amazing how gov't regulation (well intentioned as it may be) creates incredibly perverse incentives.
If you want to read up on this type of thing, just read how ASP (average sale price) reimbursement for Medicare drugs works. Doctors and drug wholesalers make money hand-over-fist because of the system.
Capitalism creates wealth by matching buyer and seller. If kids want happy meal toys (thus parents want them too) they'll get them one way or another, regulations be dammed.
This story and the comments here are quite interesting and I'm really torn on this.
On one hand, I think the government does have a job to intervene when negative externalities affect society (like obesity has). On the other hand, as this story demonstrates, they clearly suck at intervening.
On a personal level, I don't care what McDonalds does because I don't take my kids there (I have 3 kids under 7). But I care about obesity being a drain on society and a healthcare issue we all have to share. McDonalds, well, they care about profits.
I wonder if there is some political philosophy to describe my thoughts on this - but I never understood why government just didn't set up taxes on things it didn't like, and directly allocate the revenues from those taxes to the opposite side of whatever stance it took (versus going towards general expenses).
For example with this, tax the happy meal and other fatty kids foods, allocate revenues earned from that tax directly to childhood obesity prevention campaigns.
McDonald's still makes money, kids still can get happy meals, and childhood obesity is reduced through funding effective programs.
Nothing stops the government from simply changing the law to fix such loopholes. So, it's actually safer to craft something vary specific and deal with attempts to get around the intent than craft something really generic. AKA, no store which generates 95+% of it's revenue from food may sell, give away, or market Toys. would probably have worse downsides than simply creating an ineffective law.
I don't understand how obesity is a drain on 'society,' except through state-financed medical care. I don't suffer anymore because other people are fat. Why should I be able to control what they eat?
"Negative externalities" should never be a license to abridge individual liberty. What about the "negative externalities" of smoking, drinking, listening to punk music, homosexuality, or reading subversive literature?
No thanks, you can keep your nanny state to yourself. I may not approve of my fellow citizens feeding their children happy meals but by god I will defend their right to do so just as strongly as I'll defend anyone's right to love who they desire, listen to what they want, read what they want, and say what they want.
That’s the first I’ve heard of personal obesity as an externality. Frightening idea. What if someone lives a lifestyle that makes them more likely to contract an STD, say?
Any "sharing" is a choice. Why are they obligated to make that choice less expensive? If you don't like their expenses, don't pay them. And, don't take their money.
> But I care about obesity being a drain on society
Surely you're not arguing that people "owe" society full-productivity or somesuch?
They prefer food. If that's a problem for you, perhaps you should wonder why food is more important to them than the things you want them to value.
I don't disagree but I think the larger point here is Government is painfully ineffective at meddling. So much so that they end up making the problem they were trying to prevent worse.
I mean, this was a pretty obvious work around for McDonalds. If the SF City Council was serious about this they should have seen it coming from a mile away.
Only an unintended consequence if you accept the article's premise that a non-trivial number people actually went to McD's and only bought the toy, and those people will continue to go for the toy but buy the happy meal to get it. And feed it to their kid.
Scofflaws deliberately seeking loopholes are not "unintended consequence." nwnted consequences, perhaps, but not unintended consequences.
An unintended consequence of a ban on toys with meals might be something bizzare like a rise in minivan accidents because kids full of caffiene and sugar have nothing to play with in the car and bug their parents while they're driving home from lnch.
I was in McDonald's a few weeks ago and heard a parent say "we've been to 3 locations looking for this toy!" Apparently some kids want them bad enough to force their parents to go to extremes to get them.
It seems like it would be easy to redraft the law to close the loophole. I mean, I can't just walk in and donate $.10 and get a toy. They have gone from bundling a toy with the happy meal, to bundling an option to purchase a toy.
The article was quite clear. You have to donate 10c to charity (Ronald McDonald House) for the toy, instead of getting it for free. But you can only dontate if you get a happy meal.
Also, apparently you used to be able to buy the toys separately, which is no longer an option.
When debating issues like this in my mind, I frequently flip-flop. I can argue both sides. On one side, I don't want a corporation taking advantage of the consumer by using immense resources to exploit a flaw in human behavior. On the other hand, I don't want the government deciding what is right and wrong for me. In doing so, the government draws an arbitrary line and uses it to promote and also defend its actions, ultimately limiting my rights.
This whole Happy Meal debate would be a non-issue if consumers didn't want Happy Meals. It turns out they do, so work-arounds work just like prohibition did not eliminate alcohol from our culture.
The government is elected to serve and represent the people. The people want Happy Meals (and alcohol) (and drugs sourced from Mexico).
[+] [-] tokenadult|14 years ago|reply
http://store.westlaw.com/eskridge-frickey-garretts-legislati...
Almost everyone, "conservative" or "liberal," who took that course began the semester supposing that passing a new law is an effective way to solve a social problem. By the end of the semester, hardly any of us thought that anymore.
[+] [-] refurb|14 years ago|reply
If you want to read up on this type of thing, just read how ASP (average sale price) reimbursement for Medicare drugs works. Doctors and drug wholesalers make money hand-over-fist because of the system.
Capitalism creates wealth by matching buyer and seller. If kids want happy meal toys (thus parents want them too) they'll get them one way or another, regulations be dammed.
[+] [-] callmeed|14 years ago|reply
On one hand, I think the government does have a job to intervene when negative externalities affect society (like obesity has). On the other hand, as this story demonstrates, they clearly suck at intervening.
On a personal level, I don't care what McDonalds does because I don't take my kids there (I have 3 kids under 7). But I care about obesity being a drain on society and a healthcare issue we all have to share. McDonalds, well, they care about profits.
[+] [-] morrow|14 years ago|reply
For example with this, tax the happy meal and other fatty kids foods, allocate revenues earned from that tax directly to childhood obesity prevention campaigns. McDonald's still makes money, kids still can get happy meals, and childhood obesity is reduced through funding effective programs.
[+] [-] Retric|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MaxGabriel|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|14 years ago|reply
No thanks, you can keep your nanny state to yourself. I may not approve of my fellow citizens feeding their children happy meals but by god I will defend their right to do so just as strongly as I'll defend anyone's right to love who they desire, listen to what they want, read what they want, and say what they want.
[+] [-] mwsherman|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anamax|14 years ago|reply
Any "sharing" is a choice. Why are they obligated to make that choice less expensive? If you don't like their expenses, don't pay them. And, don't take their money.
> But I care about obesity being a drain on society
Surely you're not arguing that people "owe" society full-productivity or somesuch?
They prefer food. If that's a problem for you, perhaps you should wonder why food is more important to them than the things you want them to value.
[+] [-] driverdan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TomOfTTB|14 years ago|reply
I mean, this was a pretty obvious work around for McDonalds. If the SF City Council was serious about this they should have seen it coming from a mile away.
[+] [-] Herring|14 years ago|reply
http://www.wikinvest.com/images/3/37/Obesity.jpg
[+] [-] staunch|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bstrand|14 years ago|reply
Seems dubious to me.
[+] [-] raganwald|14 years ago|reply
An unintended consequence of a ban on toys with meals might be something bizzare like a rise in minivan accidents because kids full of caffiene and sugar have nothing to play with in the car and bug their parents while they're driving home from lnch.
[+] [-] bstrand|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NiceOneBrah|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] veyron|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colanderman|14 years ago|reply
I'm gonna guess you haven't spent much time around kids ;)
How much a kid wants a toy is directly proportional both to how well it is marketed, and to how much their peers want it (which, since their "peers" appear in ads for the products, is really just a proxy for how well it's marketed). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogs#Popularity and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beanie_babies#Marketing_strateg...
[+] [-] TomOfTTB|14 years ago|reply
Apparently they distributed over 1.5 Billion toys in 2009 (Lftqgs: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1460556/mcdonalds_g...)
So I'd say yes
[+] [-] moe|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] byoung2|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joelhooks|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bkudria|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geoffschmidt|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] refurb|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mindstab|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zizee|14 years ago|reply
Also, apparently you used to be able to buy the toys separately, which is no longer an option.
[+] [-] 8ig8|14 years ago|reply
This whole Happy Meal debate would be a non-issue if consumers didn't want Happy Meals. It turns out they do, so work-arounds work just like prohibition did not eliminate alcohol from our culture.
The government is elected to serve and represent the people. The people want Happy Meals (and alcohol) (and drugs sourced from Mexico).