Meh, its not a perfect correlation (and the time series for the poverty map and the diabetes map are different), but most chronic diseases tend correlate with poverty pretty well. You should look at a map of obesity. It follows the same form.
Nah, that’s actually a my bad for not getting my point across. Looking back on my comment: I know I was trying to commend you, but I must’ve gave up on trying, because it fell completely flat (Not to just you, but to me too when I reread my reply). Dunno where my head was when I posted it, but I can see that I stopped trying at some point and just hit “send”
The reason I commented to your post at all was because my first reaction was, “holy shit, that’s so specifically accurate and funny at the same time… how was this person seeing a fucking heat map, and able to respond with their own map, that is both wildly accurate and hilarious, given the context”.
So I scoured the maps, because I wanted to commend you and also try and be as witty. Hawaii was one of the only (obvious) differences I could find (which makes sense when talking about diabetes and poverty)… but then idk what I did. Just literally gave up on being clever and posted a “spot the difference” comment
So yeah, doesn’t much matter in the grand scheme of things, but I still wanted to let ya know just in case… I thought your comment of the map was surprisingly astute, and I was kinda flabbergasted that it seemed like you just had that on standby. Like you were just waiting for this moment your whole freaking life, and then pulled that very specifically accurate map out of your ass, as soon as it was relevant.
My comment fell flat on it’s face, because it truly couldn’t be topped. And I think I must’ve gotten distracted and gave up on my response, because the only thing I really wanted to convey was… fucking brava my friend. That was some S-tier shit you dropped; and so casually too. It wasn’t necessarily news to me, but hot damn if it wasn’t quick.
My original comment should’ve just been “you win” or some shit like that, but I failed on both ends to get that across
So very much so… holy hell friend bwahahahaha!!! Well fucking done (and pardon my language). But that was the very definition of “under-rated comment” to me. My applause to you
It should be taxed on the corporate side. Taxing sugar on the consumer side becomes a poor tax, because poor people will still want sweets from time to time, making those treats now more and more expensive. Well off people will just accept the tax because it’s marginal to them, but when your chocolate bar that you treat yourself to once a week goes from 1.29 to 3.29, then it really fucks your day up.
What should be done is incentives to provide less sugar/glucose-fructose on the product side and encourage companies to make snacks and beverages that have less sugar content.
It doesn’t make a difference which side you tax. If consumers are taxed then corporations will still feel it through reduced demand for their product. If corporations are taxed, consumers will still feel it through increased prices. The tax burden does not depend on who is taxed, but rather how elastic supply and demand are.
It literally doesn’t. The price is the same either way. Reduced demand from the higher tax makes it so producers will lower prices. This is really basic microeconomics.
From Wikipedia: “tax burden does not depend on where the revenue is collected, but on the price elasticity of demand and price elasticity of supply”
Well that explains the diabeetus.
That is really just a map of poverty.
Hawaii doesn’t check out, but they do look very similar
Meh, its not a perfect correlation (and the time series for the poverty map and the diabetes map are different), but most chronic diseases tend correlate with poverty pretty well. You should look at a map of obesity. It follows the same form.
Nah, that’s actually a my bad for not getting my point across. Looking back on my comment: I know I was trying to commend you, but I must’ve gave up on trying, because it fell completely flat (Not to just you, but to me too when I reread my reply). Dunno where my head was when I posted it, but I can see that I stopped trying at some point and just hit “send”
The reason I commented to your post at all was because my first reaction was, “holy shit, that’s so specifically accurate and funny at the same time… how was this person seeing a fucking heat map, and able to respond with their own map, that is both wildly accurate and hilarious, given the context”.
So I scoured the maps, because I wanted to commend you and also try and be as witty. Hawaii was one of the only (obvious) differences I could find (which makes sense when talking about diabetes and poverty)… but then idk what I did. Just literally gave up on being clever and posted a “spot the difference” comment
So yeah, doesn’t much matter in the grand scheme of things, but I still wanted to let ya know just in case… I thought your comment of the map was surprisingly astute, and I was kinda flabbergasted that it seemed like you just had that on standby. Like you were just waiting for this moment your whole freaking life, and then pulled that very specifically accurate map out of your ass, as soon as it was relevant.
My comment fell flat on it’s face, because it truly couldn’t be topped. And I think I must’ve gotten distracted and gave up on my response, because the only thing I really wanted to convey was… fucking brava my friend. That was some S-tier shit you dropped; and so casually too. It wasn’t necessarily news to me, but hot damn if it wasn’t quick.
My original comment should’ve just been “you win” or some shit like that, but I failed on both ends to get that across
So very much so… holy hell friend bwahahahaha!!! Well fucking done (and pardon my language). But that was the very definition of “under-rated comment” to me. My applause to you
I’m going to look at how poverty is defined. You just gave me an idea for my grad school program.
Would love to see an updated graph. I feel like everyone gained 50lbs in the last three years.
Sugar should be heavily taxed, it’s so dangerous at rates of more than 10 grams a day
It should be taxed on the corporate side. Taxing sugar on the consumer side becomes a poor tax, because poor people will still want sweets from time to time, making those treats now more and more expensive. Well off people will just accept the tax because it’s marginal to them, but when your chocolate bar that you treat yourself to once a week goes from 1.29 to 3.29, then it really fucks your day up.
What should be done is incentives to provide less sugar/glucose-fructose on the product side and encourage companies to make snacks and beverages that have less sugar content.
It doesn’t make a difference which side you tax. If consumers are taxed then corporations will still feel it through reduced demand for their product. If corporations are taxed, consumers will still feel it through increased prices. The tax burden does not depend on who is taxed, but rather how elastic supply and demand are.
It sure makes a difference to the people buying it, that’s the point
It literally doesn’t. The price is the same either way. Reduced demand from the higher tax makes it so producers will lower prices. This is really basic microeconomics.
From Wikipedia: “tax burden does not depend on where the revenue is collected, but on the price elasticity of demand and price elasticity of supply”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence
I have never once seen this happen… i just see prices rise
Do you actually think that 100% a tax burden will always fall on consumers?
Whoa settle down there
Sucrose is 1:1 glucose/ fructose which is near the optimal 0.8 ratio for fueling endurance activities
I rode 100 miles solo in less than 5 hours Sunday on 360g sucrose in 4 750ml bottles
It’sa lot cheaper than all that fancy SIS/skratch etc
Carbs aren’t poison if you move your body
If you paid twice as much for the sugar, would it materially impact you?
At this point in my life no. When I was young, for sure