Opinion of Michael Bloomberg

[they don't love you like i love you]

Most cyclists in major US cities are too poor to afford a car.

Erm, I HIGHLY doubt that's true. Ignoring the fact that it's not a either/or situation and many probably also have cars (like I myself use both), most people riding around on $600 fixed gear bikes aren't doing it out of poverty.

Not having a car because you can efficiently travel without one is not a bad decision by any means, nor one that should be discouraged, but the majority of cyclists anywhere are not doing it because of poverty. But Cathcon's whining is quite silly, because making the city more bike-friendly is designed to LESSEN the type of things he's complaining about.

[bedstuy]

Yeah, you'd very quickly stop cycling like that here- either because you've learnt otherwise or been run over.

Tell that to delivery guys in Manhattan.  Seriously, I think the suburban auto-chauvinist arguments against riding bikes are always dumb, but especially in the NYC context.  This is not a convenient city to drive a car around every day.  Bicycles can be parked more easily, they don't pollute the air and they don't usually kill people.

The soda thing is really silly, I mean come on does anyone think just limiting the max size is going to cause a decrease in obesity in NYC? Imagine if Bushie was limited to the max soda size he could order and how much of an effect that'd have. Very pointless regulation.

However that is far from the main reason he's a HP.

It actually might make a difference though if people just tend to buy smaller sodas.  If you drink one soda per day, a 20 ounce coke is 234 calories vs. a 16 ounce coke is 187 calories.  Considering those are just empty calories, 47 Calories or 100 calories if you drink 2 sodas per day, that would make a difference over a long period of time.  The question is whether people would just find other ways to drink more soda. 

How many people drink one soda per day in the type affected by the regulation though? Even those that want more would just buy more in bottles unaffected by it. I myself never buy the max size of a fountain drink anyway because drinking all that at once gives me a stomachache. I can't see how it can make any actual difference in total consumption.

That's a silly argument.  People are not that logical when it comes to eating/drinking.  If people were logical, they would never drink soda at all.  Nobody is saying, I want between 18-20 oz of soda, I need to buy a that much to quench my thirst.  People just grab something and if what's in front of them is slightly smaller, they'll probably just drink less.  If what they grab is bigger, they'll drink the entire thing, even if it gives them a stomach ache.  So, it does make sense that the ban would have reduced soda consumption at least somewhat.  How much is debatable and you might be right that it wasn't worth regulating.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Don't like him or hate him, I certainly don't approve of his purely political move of becoming an independent.  However, I voted FF out of protest because of how bad of a rap he's gotten in this forum...

[they don't love you like i love you]

The soda thing is really silly, I mean come on does anyone think just limiting the max size is going to cause a decrease in obesity in NYC? Imagine if Bushie was limited to the max soda size he could order and how much of an effect that'd have. Very pointless regulation.

However that is far from the main reason he's a HP.

It actually might make a difference though if people just tend to buy smaller sodas.  If you drink one soda per day, a 20 ounce coke is 234 calories vs. a 16 ounce coke is 187 calories.  Considering those are just empty calories, 47 Calories or 100 calories if you drink 2 sodas per day, that would make a difference over a long period of time.  The question is whether people would just find other ways to drink more soda. 

How many people drink one soda per day in the type affected by the regulation though? Even those that want more would just buy more in bottles unaffected by it. I myself never buy the max size of a fountain drink anyway because drinking all that at once gives me a stomachache. I can't see how it can make any actual difference in total consumption.

That's a silly argument.  People are not that logical when it comes to eating/drinking.  If people were logical, they would never drink soda at all.  Nobody is saying, I want between 18-20 oz of soda, I need to buy a that much to quench my thirst.  People just grab something and if what's in front of them is slightly smaller, they'll probably just drink less.  If what they grab is bigger, they'll drink the entire thing, even if it gives them a stomach ache.  So, it does make sense that the ban would have reduced soda consumption at least somewhat.  How much is debatable and you might be right that it wasn't worth regulating.

There's nothing "illogical" about drinking soda anymore than it's illogical to eat Big Macs, logic doesn't dictate you can only consume things that are healthy. What would be illogical would be to eat or drink something that is quite unhealthy when someone that's less unhealthy and that have at least equal preference to the taste is available but yes there are plenty of cases where people would do that regardless. As far as the rest of your example goes, that sort of scenario still makes up a very small percentage of soda sold and drunk. I'm sure an overwhelming majority is bought and consumed at home, and even for ones bought on the go bottles are far more common.

But this isn't something that just has a neglible impact, it's also harmful in that sense as well. It sparked an outrage against Bloomberg that yes while silly, did destroy the credibility of public health regulations including ones that would be more effective. It's similar to how the Assault Weapons Ban and other ineffective gun control laws hurt gun control overall. Plus I'm sure the small decrease in consumption was offset by the idiots who decided to drink more in protest. And then there's how Bloomberg used a pretty undemocratic method to put it in place which is why the courts later threw it out, thus making the whole thing a pointless attention wasting spectacle. So it is something Bloomberg deserves criticism for, being well intentioned is not an excuse for such bad policy.

It is however quite low on the list of negative things I'd say about Bloomberg.

[bedstuy]

The soda thing is really silly, I mean come on does anyone think just limiting the max size is going to cause a decrease in obesity in NYC? Imagine if Bushie was limited to the max soda size he could order and how much of an effect that'd have. Very pointless regulation.

However that is far from the main reason he's a HP.

It actually might make a difference though if people just tend to buy smaller sodas.  If you drink one soda per day, a 20 ounce coke is 234 calories vs. a 16 ounce coke is 187 calories.  Considering those are just empty calories, 47 Calories or 100 calories if you drink 2 sodas per day, that would make a difference over a long period of time.  The question is whether people would just find other ways to drink more soda. 

How many people drink one soda per day in the type affected by the regulation though? Even those that want more would just buy more in bottles unaffected by it. I myself never buy the max size of a fountain drink anyway because drinking all that at once gives me a stomachache. I can't see how it can make any actual difference in total consumption.

That's a silly argument.  People are not that logical when it comes to eating/drinking.  If people were logical, they would never drink soda at all.  Nobody is saying, I want between 18-20 oz of soda, I need to buy a that much to quench my thirst.  People just grab something and if what's in front of them is slightly smaller, they'll probably just drink less.  If what they grab is bigger, they'll drink the entire thing, even if it gives them a stomach ache.  So, it does make sense that the ban would have reduced soda consumption at least somewhat.  How much is debatable and you might be right that it wasn't worth regulating.

There's nothing "illogical" about drinking soda anymore than it's illogical to eat Big Macs, logic doesn't dictate you can only consume things that are healthy. What would be illogical would be to eat or drink something that is quite unhealthy when someone that's less unhealthy and that have at least equal preference to the taste is available but yes there are plenty of cases where people would do that regardless. As far as the rest of your example goes, that sort of scenario still makes up a very small percentage of soda sold and drunk. I'm sure an overwhelming majority is bought and consumed at home, and even for ones bought on the go bottles are far more common.

But this isn't something that just has a neglible impact, it's also harmful in that sense as well. It sparked an outrage against Bloomberg that yes while silly, did destroy the credibility of public health regulations including ones that would be more effective. It's similar to how the Assault Weapons Ban and other ineffective gun control laws hurt gun control overall. Plus I'm sure the small decrease in consumption was offset by the idiots who decided to drink more in protest. And then there's how Bloomberg used a pretty undemocratic method to put it in place which is why the courts later threw it out, thus making the whole thing a pointless attention wasting spectacle. So it is something Bloomberg deserves criticism for, being well intentioned is not an excuse for such bad policy.

It is however quite low on the list of negative things I'd say about Bloomberg.

Yeah, nobody is going to argue that the "Soda Ban" was handled well.  It didn't go through in any case.  But, I do think it's legitimate to think about how society can encourage people to eat smaller portions or fewer portions of unhealthy food.  Direct government regulation is not generally the answer. 

But, that's only a part of the Bloomberg health department legacy.  You also have the smoking ban, trans fat ban and greater emphasis on grading restaurants' sanitary conditions.  Those were successful for sure.

[WalterMitty]

a personal hero of mine.  ff.

[H. Ross Peron]

Made a decent mayor but shouldn't hold any office at the state or national levels.

[TNF]

One of the worst.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

The future of the Democratic Party. FF

[SWE]

The future of the Democratic Party. FF

So the Democratic party is going to get even worse in the future? Yikes!

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Was a great mayor in his first term, but went bad in his second and third terms.  If the term "RINO" applies to anyone, it would be him (as much as I hate it.)

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

Was a great mayor in his first term, but went bad in his second and third terms.  If the term "RINO" applies to anyone, it would be him (as much as I hate it.)

Bloomberg is democratic-leaning, even though he is in the closet right now.

[Rockefeller GOP]

The future of the Democratic Party. FF

So the future of your party is a Republican?  What's the point of your party then?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

HP.

[Maxwell]

Don't like him or hate him, I certainly don't approve of his purely political move of becoming an independent.  However, I voted FF out of protest because of how bad of a rap he's gotten in this forum...

He was a registered Democrat before he ran for Mayor, so his whole existence as a "Republican" was purely political ANYWAY, so your point is stupid.

[bedstuy]

Don't like him or hate him, I certainly don't approve of his purely political move of becoming an independent.  However, I voted FF out of protest because of how bad of a rap he's gotten in this forum...

He was a registered Democrat before he ran for Mayor, so his whole existence as a "Republican" was purely political ANYWAY, so your point is stupid.

Exactly.  And, it's not like New York City politics is partisan anyway.

[AggregateDemand]

How many people drink one soda per day in the type affected by the regulation though? Even those that want more would just buy more in bottles unaffected by it. I myself never buy the max size of a fountain drink anyway because drinking all that at once gives me a stomachache. I can't see how it can make any actual difference in total consumption.

What is the cost of banning oversized sodas?

Few people would decide not to eat restaurant food because the soda size is limited. Average ticket and transaction prices would probably not fall, if the restaurant has any pricing expertise. If the ban were effective, reduced soda consumption does not have lower marginal-utility over time (probably the opposite).

The marginal cost of the bill is virtually zero, but the health benefits could be substantial. Unfortunately, the economics of soda bans are not nearly enough to compensate for the gross intrusion of the nanny-state in our lives. As citizens, we'd prefer a tax. Perhaps, a sugar tax was the end game.

The soda ban was a dumb political move, but a disinterested educated aristocrat is not really interested in politics.

[Supersonic]

One of my favourite politicians, sorry not sorry.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Was a great mayor in his first term, but went bad in his second and third terms.  If the term "RINO" applies to anyone, it would be him (as much as I hate it.)

Bloomberg is democratic-leaning, even though he is in the closet right now.

I know.  But he was elected as a Republican during his first two terms, and was endorsed by the GOP in his 2009 campaign.

[ElectionsGuy]

Terrible

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

Was a great mayor in his first term, but went bad in his second and third terms.  If the term "RINO" applies to anyone, it would be him (as much as I hate it.)

Bloomberg is democratic-leaning, even though he is in the closet right now.

I know.  But he was elected as a Republican during his first two terms, and was endorsed by the GOP in his 2009 campaign.

They support many other closeted people: it doesn't make them any more straight then Republikkkan suport for Bloomberg makes him an R.

[IceSpear]

Horrible.

[Horus]

Stop and frisk = HP.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

Stop and frisk = HP.

Stop and frisk protects black communities. The only people opposed to it are thugs and good men like Al Sharpton who are sometimes mislead by them.

[Simfan34]

Al Sharpton is a race-baiting charlatan, not a "good man".