Jonesin' for a Soda
The tongue is a discerning instrument; in the hands of a traveled soda aficionado, it is capable of leading to insightful truths about agricultural geopolitics. To the drinker who has imbibed foreign sodas, this truth stems from the peculiar, yet incontrovertible fact that American soda is not delicious.
Though some blame this phenomenon on the use of aluminum cans over glass bottles, even the most elegant dress won't make a homely girl comely. Instead, to the trained tongue, the answer is clear: American soda is sweetened with artificially tasting high fructose corn syrup, while foreign sodas are made with natural cane sugar. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (53)
Hehe, nice try Max... you just screwed up one of the most wonderful aspects of Austrian econ and its concurrent libertarian political theory-- subjective value. You tried so hard to write a cutesy intro that you decided to share with the audience an "incontrovertible fact"-- that American soda is not delicious.
Maybe TO YOU it isn't delicious. And certainly your drive in the article to expose the use of HFCS over sugar cane and the political reasons for it were honest and correct, but it isn't a "fact" that American soda isn't delicious. That's your subjective analysis. I'd have to agree, having tasted soda from all around the world myself, that sugar cane-based sodas taste sweeter and lighter than their HFCS-burdened equivalents, but that would lead me to conclude they're more delicious, not that American soda is not delicious at all.
Of course, that's MY subjective valuation of the two.
I thought I was going to read about something sophisticated, such as world wines, but then I remembered you're in high school.
Published: September 5, 2007 9:42 AM
On the other hand, if you don't fructose corn syrup or cane sugar you could try aspartame sweetened drinks.
Published: September 5, 2007 9:53 AM
A few things:
Obviously it was just supposed to be a funny, sarcastic sentence. But regardless, have you ever read any of Rothbard's movie reviews? The NERVE of him...how can he profess to make any value judgments on movies...Austrians are supposed to "live value free."
Secondly, there is no problem with using subjective valuations as a jumping off point for further investigation. So let's say that all artwork in a given area is "crappy." This could lead us to discovery that it is heavily subsidized by the government, and consumer demand is taking a backseat.
But should we not point out that the art work is "bad." If we cannot do that, then there is no point being economists. Good economists don't use subjective value to support their conclusions, they use subjective value because they are human and use it to determine where to do their research.
I decided to write this article after drinking some of Jones soda and comparing it. How DARE I insert my own capricious subjectivity! I'm basically a LTV Marxoid!
Published: September 5, 2007 9:56 AM
Aspartame is a great substitute if you like brain cancer, Sam.
Published: September 5, 2007 9:59 AM
Max,
First, keep in mind that in giving his personal evaluation of a movie in a movie review Rothbard was not acting purely as an economist, or not as an economist at all.
Second, deliciousness is not identical with sweetness. Some may find the greater sweetness of cane sugar-based sodas to be too sweet, even cloying, and therefore not delicious.
Personally, I prefer Sam's cola, which is between Pepsi and Coke in sweetness. It also happens to be significantly cheaper but that isn't why I think it is more delicious; it's just an added bonus.
The economic analysis in your paper is spot on, but it is as wrong and non-Austrian for you to say categorically, as an economist, that American sodas are less delicious as it was for George Reisman to say categorically that the new fluorescent light bulbs are aesthetically displeasing. The error is a simple one to correct, by simply qualifying the statement so that it is clearly a subjective preference of yourself and perhaps many others (but not all).
Published: September 5, 2007 10:30 AM
Coke tastes way better in China, because they use real sugar. I'm not a soda drinker in the U.S., but I have it frequently overseas.
Published: September 5, 2007 10:39 AM
I was being sarcastic. The sentence originally read something like, "It is an incontrovertible fact of human existence that American soda is crap."
BUT...if we really want to get technical, what I said didn't really contradict subjective value.
I said that to the traveled soda aficionado the fact is incontrovertible.
So if an Austrian were to write "To da Vinci fans, the Mona Lisa is beautiful," there would be no problem.
So if by traveled soda aficionado I meant someone who has "worldly" tastes, contained in the concept of that person is a desire for non-HFCS soda. This was just what I meant as a writer, you can critique my definition, but it poses no problem to subjective value.
Published: September 5, 2007 10:42 AM
Well, not speaking as an economist of course, I can tell you that sugar-sweetened Dr. Pepper does taste very much better than corn syrup-flavored Dr. Pepper, because there is still one Dr. Pepper bottling plant in north Texas that still uses pure cane sugar. Makes it taste so much better in my opinion.
Also not as an economist, new fluorescent light bulbs are EXTREMELY aesthetically displeasing, all artificial sweeteners give you cancer, and coke tastes to me like the sewer lines run into the bottling factory. Mr. Pibb is by far the best soda, but so hard to find.
Published: September 5, 2007 11:29 AM
Fluorescent light bulbs are uglier than sin, which is okay when the bulb is covered up, but not okay when I have to stare at them all the time in my home.
And wow... leave Max alone. It is just a DAILY ARTICLE!
Published: September 5, 2007 12:02 PM
Brent,
Regarding the fluorescent light bulbs, that's your personal aesthetic judgment. Others may disagree. You miss the point.
Regarding the other issue you bring up: A little constructive criticism is healthy. You're not doing Max or anyone else any favors by telling us to stop. Surely you can tell that we're not being harsh or making personal attacks?
Published: September 5, 2007 12:20 PM
Max,
"I said that to the traveled soda aficionado the fact is incontrovertible."
I could quibble with this as well, as it is on the one hand an empirical claim that may or may not be true and on the other, as you point out, a claim arguably based on a tendentious definition. It strikes me as pretentious and probably a spurious generalization of one's own tastes as being the best and representative of all other people with good taste. In any case, as the original sentence in the essay stands, it is far from clear 1) that it is meant to be sarcastic and 2) that it is a personal opinion and not thought by the author to be an objective truth (economic or otherwise). Like I said before though, otherwise I thought it was a good article.
Published: September 5, 2007 12:32 PM
Geoffrey,
I would agree that my definition is tendentious, but it still helps me escape from your criticism of calling my claim "non-subjectivist."
Published: September 5, 2007 12:36 PM
I clearly remember when both the Coca Cola Company and Pepsi switched from suger to corn syrup here in Italy. They were quickly followed by almost everybody else: just Ferrero refused to follow suit. Their drinks division is small fries compared to the others' and their line of business is mainly into snacks and candy bars.
For them is cheaper to use the same sugar they use in their snacks and candy bars than corn syrup. Talk about bulk quantities.
But for the other soft drinks manufacturers is cheaper to use corn syrup.
Why is that?
European common agricultural policy. The EU decided that Italian farmers needed to cut sugerbeet production in order to rise prices. This mainly helped the usual suspects (French farmers) and Italian sugarbeet production fell dramatically.
The farmers, left to choose another cash crop among a few ones (French and German farmers take the main share and the Padanian Plain is a wholly different place from Sicily), turned to growing corn.
This increased over the years: after the Mad Cow saga we switched to feeding corn to cattle and the recent biofuel craze surely hasn't improved things.
This led to soil degradation (monoculture is an harsh mistress), water supply problems, microclimate changes etc.
A textbook example of government meddling with the market.
Published: September 5, 2007 12:50 PM
Max,
"I would agree that my definition is tendentious, but it still helps me escape from your criticism of calling my claim "non-subjectivist.""
Perhaps, but for it to do so unequivocally I think you would have to make it more clear that the assertion doesn't have the same claim to truth that the economic analysis in your paper does. As it stands, it is not clear that you see it as being any less certain than the economic principles discussed in the rest of the essay. Hence, Taylor thought you were making a non-subjective economic claim.
Taylor may have been accusing you of missing an important Austrian insight. I, on the other hand, am not saying that you don't understand the importance of value subjectivity in economic analysis. I'm just saying that you were not sufficiently clear in the essay that you understand that your claim is tendentious and also not an economic insight. By phrasing the claim as you do, you open up a can of worms that distracts from the main purpose of your essay.
Published: September 5, 2007 12:58 PM
Okay...so long as you aren't attacking my Austrian street cred.
Published: September 5, 2007 1:17 PM
I wouldn't say that soda made with cane sugar rather than HFCS is more or less sweet.
Having tasted Coca-Cola made in the US and Mexico, I've noticed that soda made with cane sugar isn't as heavy as that made with HFCS. It is difficult to describe, but I agree that the lightness of the sugar cane based drinks adds to the quality.
True, value is subjective, so I cannot say HFCS soda is worse than cane soda, but if someone tells me that they prefer HFCS soda, then I'd wager that they prefer boxed wine as well. ;)
Published: September 5, 2007 2:10 PM
Remember New Coke (aka CokeII)? That was just the Coca-Cola company's clumsy attempt to covert from cane sugar to HFCS. In the end Coke Classic was never the same as the original since it uses HFCS.
Would the Coca-Cola company ever have attempted to switch things up if they hadn't been forced into it by rising sugar prices?
Reference:
Oliver, Thomas; The Real Coke, The Real Story, Penguin, 1986; ISBN 0-14-010408-9; 125
Published: September 5, 2007 2:13 PM
Very good article..Unfortunately the important point of Government Intervention in the Market Place as being bad for the consumer at large and good for Special Interests is being sidetracked by
the subjectivity of taste.
The Sugar Industry subsidies is just the tip of the iceberg. To put it bluntly the American consumer is being screwed by its Politicians in more ways than meets the eye or tongue.
Published: September 5, 2007 2:19 PM
Honestly, I think Jones Soda tasted better when it was made with corn syrup. After the switch to sugar, it just tastes too sweet. Even drinking it out of a glass stuffed with ice doesn't seem to help.
Published: September 5, 2007 2:29 PM
I wish I could find a place that sells Jones...the only place I've ever seen it was the UT campus store when I went to school. Anyone know where I could find some?
Published: September 5, 2007 4:24 PM
Max, great article overall. Just be careful in future to make it explicit that when you're referring to tastes, you're speaking outside your capacity as a(n) (potential) economist.
Mauro, interesting points. Could you point to a source with more information on the effects of such government meddling?
As a note, I do not like British Coke at all. I always prefer the stuff I find in continental Europe.
Published: September 5, 2007 6:33 PM
I thought it was a great article... especially considering Max is a high school student. I was a high school student 45 years ago, and only got through 5 high school years before having to go get a job.
I don't recollect ANY high school students being able to writye such nan in depth well researched article while I was in school.
I prefer soda's sweetened with Stevia Extract... but I don't see any companies going to the expence of using that as a sweetener in their drinks.
Stevia Extract is a 100% natural, non-fattening, safe and extremely sweet product that is used in some brands of toothpaste, but otherwise is only sold in health food shops as far as I know.
I use Stevia instead of sugar in all my tea, coffee and cooking at home and it tastes great.
Published: September 5, 2007 7:30 PM
Great article, Max. I recall one of my undergrad economics professors mentioning this subject.
In regards to the "incontrovertible fact" issue, I, as Max seems to have intended, took his statement as sarcastic hyperbole. It doesn't really affect the merits of the essay, whether or not it is understood by the reader as the author intends.
Regardless of subjective preferences, the main contention is that consumers are not best served under the current scheme.
Published: September 5, 2007 7:53 PM
Alas, without the government interference in the economy, we would have nothing but Walmart, Coke, Mcdonalds and Pepsi, since they have the sheer economic clout to outcompete practically any free-spirited American entrepeneur. The big corporations can run below cost a lot longer than mom and pop, and once they are out, the consumer has but one choice. You can't have it both ways.
Published: September 5, 2007 9:13 PM
Barry, no special interest pleading, please! Once you let the Government in the door, it won't ever leave! As for your Ma-and-pa corner store, Ayn Rand once tried an interesting thought experiment- let's give every Ma-and-Pa store a guaranteed monopoly! What would happen if nobody was allowed to compete with them for a mile around their store!? What would happen to the quality and quantity? Ma-and-Pa would be laughing all the way to the bank, of whom they would become the best customers! You, on the other hand, would have to put up with sloppy service and don't-need-to-give-a-damn staff, when they bothered to open. You can't have it both ways.
Published: September 5, 2007 10:22 PM
Barry,
You are correct, but you're ignoring two things:
1) Maybe most people like huge stores over mom-and-pop operations. I like to be able to shop at Walmart 24/7, although the customer service in a mom-and-pop store is much better.
2) Many regulatory laws act as a regressive tax on smaller businesses, and the ability for large corporations to lobby the government gives them other advantages.
Published: September 5, 2007 11:03 PM
No, those fluorescent light bulbs are hideous--no subjective valuation needed.
Published: September 5, 2007 11:10 PM
I just bought two cases of Coke in glass bottles made with cane sugar imported from Mexico at Costco today. Cost: approx. $18.00. Totally worth it in my opinion as I don't like the feeling that I've just coated my tongue goo.
Published: September 5, 2007 11:30 PM
At the risk of straying from the topic, to those who hate flurorescent bulbs must only have to access to el cheapo ones or something. The ones I happen to have give a good near-white glow and outdo incandescent bulbs that use 5x the wattage. The drawback is hearing about the mercury cotent. Ouch!
Published: September 6, 2007 12:59 AM
"Alas, without the government interference in the economy, we would have nothing but Walmart, Coke, Mcdonalds and Pepsi, since they have the sheer economic clout to outcompete practically any free-spirited American entrepeneur. The big corporations can run below cost a lot longer than mom and pop, and once they are out, the consumer has but one choice. You can't have it both ways."
Barry, government interference in the economy restricts competition from smaller businesses thus concentrating wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands. It was primarily wannabe monopolists who lobbied for things like minimum wage laws, OSHA standards, trade restrictions, and other such things during the Progressive Era. Read Gabriel Kolko's "The Triumph of Conservatism" and Timothy P. Carney"
Published: September 6, 2007 1:53 AM
This is a good article. Taste is subjective, but the major points are the tax differences between what should be a free choice of product and the big corporations always getting their way pushed through at the consumers expense.
Unfortunately we have a similar system in Europe - high tariffs on imported sugar, otherwise we'd probably be importing a lot more of our sugar from Africa (cheaper for the consumer, more trade for Africans, buy hey, big business wins again).
Maybe you should also mention Aspartame as another major beneficiary of high import tariffs on sugar?
From a health point of view, as a family we always buy the full sugar versions of products, regardless of price. Sugar has the benefit of hundreds of years of health testing, so at least we know the extent of the damage is mainly to your waistline, whereas Aspartame and Fructose are new and there are other health suspicions like cancer!
From the Austrian point of view, it would be nice to be able to make those choices without the hidden extra costs.
Published: September 6, 2007 2:19 AM
Yeah, in case no one knows, HFCS is identical to other sugar. It is absolutely the same. Think about it; the name means "very sugary syrup, gotten from corn". It's the same as High Fructose Cane Syrup, if you want, it's just not CALLED that. It's not "artificial", it's taken straight from a plant and your body can't tell the difference between it and any other sugar. Aspertame? Yeah. Splenda? Sure. HFCS? No, because it's the same on a molelecular level. Really, there is a widespread hatred of HFCS, and it is indeed somewhat supported by the government, but first and foremost, it's cheap and effective and much easier to grow and produce than sugar beats or sugar cane.
Published: September 6, 2007 3:38 AM
Barry, I am not sure how you can say that, in view of just how much government interference has hampered competition and harmed small/medium businesses. Large businesses only succeed if their service is that much better; if it isn't, and they succeed anyway, it is by way of political means.
Published: September 6, 2007 7:08 AM
OUt here in texas we have access to something called dublin doctor pepper. It is doctor pepper made in the orignal plant with cane sugar, you truly would not believe how much better it tastes.
Published: September 6, 2007 8:15 AM
Did I read correctly that the author is in high school? Why in the world would I listen to something a teenager has to say? Even the smart ones are psychologically fried by all the bubbling hormones, and I doubt I stumbled across one of the smart ones at that. Maybe, MAYBE if the topic were about one of the teen drama TV shows I might listen to their opinion but even then it'd be highly suspect.
So here's the deal, kid. Shut your mouth (ie - step away from the keyboard) for about 10 years and then perhaps you'll have something interesting to say along with the experience and knowledge to back it up. Until then, you're little more than a biological converter for turning candy into pimples.
Published: September 6, 2007 8:22 AM
Jon, by your comment it is you who have indicated an utter lack of maturity. Instead of engaging in pointless ad-hominem attacks, should you disagree with Max (whose knowledge of economics and libertarian ethics is anything but unsound), why not actually engage his arguments? Or are you merely peeved that a teenager got an article on Mises.org, and you didn't...?
Published: September 6, 2007 8:30 AM
You write extraordinarily well. This is one of the best things on the subject I have read. I have great disdain for for corn syrup. This should be an easy thing to topple now that we "need" the corn to fuel our cars
Published: September 6, 2007 9:01 AM
Yes joshua I am also aware of the dublin Dr. Pepper. It really is quite devine. Too bad I live too far south to get it.
Max, good job on the article. I used to write a lot of libertarian stuff in high school, but I was never put on a big website. Congrats. Unfortunately I'm now an engineering major, so there is no time for serious writing. Sad, but you keep on writing good stuff like this
Published: September 6, 2007 9:07 AM
Surely the real point is that the US govt favours one input (corn syrup) over another (cane sugar)? That is, the producers of corn syrup use govt clout to keep a potential competitor out of the market. Without tariffs (taxes) the relative supplies of drinks flavoured with cane sugar/beet sugar/corn syrup/artificial sweeteners/whatever, would match the relative demands for each.
Incidentally, many of us have raised infants. Ever try telling an infant that his/her preferred baby goo is chemically identical with some other brand? Any changeovers? What price the massive corporate power of Heinz? Gerber? etc.?
Published: September 6, 2007 9:12 AM
Hello!
Just liked to let u know that I love Jones Soda, but it's still acidic like every other soda. Although it is LESS acidic, it still has a low pH. Some of your other points are valid/debatable, but your last one, made for effect, was a bit over the top... and sophistry would be required to defend it.
Just try not to do that in the future! kthxbye!
Published: September 6, 2007 10:04 AM
While HFCS is an abomination, cane sugar is no more pure and no more healthy. What implicates HFCS in obesity applies equally to cane sugar. It is what unnaturally high levels of fructose does to the body that causes obesity, and HFCS has its fructose raised only to the level of cane sugar so as to be a suitable substitute.
For those that suggest that artificial sweetners cause cancer, sugar/HFCS is absolutely known to cause obesity and adult-onset diabetes. Of all the sweetners, sugar is scientifically shown to be the most unhealthy.
I think it's amusing that there are those that champion sugar as healthier than other sweetners, such as aspertame, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, yet what is even more ridiculous is the suggestion that HFCS is to blame. The cause of the obesity epidemic in the USA is the pervasive use of HFCS in processed foods, but if the US government didn't subsidize the corn farmers the epidemic would still exist only with cane sugar at its source.
Guest researcher? Goes to high school? That explains the concern with the taste of a soda rather than the true root cause.
Published: September 6, 2007 10:05 AM
And lets give a special thanks to Jones soda PR firm for such a well formulated article that taughts their brand. Kudos capitalist spin doctors, kudos.
Published: September 6, 2007 10:20 AM
No seriously, how about you prove your idiotic claims? You can't? Maybe someone should've "taughts" you not to slander at school. Bye bye now.
Craig, I think the guest researcher part was in jest.
Published: September 6, 2007 10:43 AM
PS: the word you're looking for is "touts".
Published: September 6, 2007 10:45 AM
You fail to show how Coke or other companies would be more like Jones if there was less government intervention. All you have shown is that in this case government intervention cause more harm than good. You can easily find examples of the opposite where government intervention has helped.
The truth is Jones made a moral decision, not a financial one. They chose the more expensive sweetener because they thought it was the right thing to do rather than the economic thing to do. It seems to me that his is not an Objectivist motivated decision.
Furthermore, the HFC issue seems to be a very showing example of how people refuse to participate in social change. Whether humans are lazy by nature or just don't know, I am not sure. Here is a product that seems bad and yet people refuse to boycott it (the accepted response in laissez-faire) or push for change by lobbying the government (the accepted response in a non laissez-fair system).
The main difference between a regulated and a laissez-faire policy is who regulates the people. Be it the government through laws, or the companies through control of products that people need. In both cases and in both extremes we see breakdown: Stalinism in extreme socialism, and all the issues we had before the 1900s for capitalism.
Everyone chooses their own master(s), but everyone will end up having one. Even the farmer has to buy tools to make food. However, in choosing who gets more control over my life, I think the telling thing is: the stated goal of the govt (ours anyways) is to work for the people where as a company will only ever look out for themselves. That doesn't mean I trust the government 100% only more than I trust Coke, or Microsoft. But of course the healthiest thing a man can have skepticism against everything be it government, or corporation, or even his own philosophies.
Someone above tried to make the argument that monopolists pushed for OSHA and minimum wage, but if you remember your history, some of the worst monopolists were well before these institutions. In the late 19th century, there was child labor, the triangle shirtwaist fire, widespread environmental damage, and about zero rights for workers. Yet monopolies were stronger than they are now.
I know it's easy to paint things black and white, but really the middle ground seems to produce the best results.
Published: September 6, 2007 11:41 AM
I don't buy foriegn cars or steele. I do drink jones because it taste good. and its not a foriegn soda it comes from Seattle!.
More interesting stories
Published: September 6, 2007 3:38 PM
Geoffrey,
I didn't miss the point. You missed the point - YOU ARE BEING WAY TOO SERIOUS!
Published: September 6, 2007 4:22 PM
Patrick, have you read even a single Austrian (or even Chicagoite) work on the 19th century or on regulation? Furthermore, you seem to be under the illusion that by the market we are referring to unrestrained corporatism, when in fact it is nothing of the sort. And, BTW, since when has the "objectivist" decision necessarily been an economic one?
Published: September 6, 2007 6:47 PM
Matt wrote: "Very good article..Unfortunately the important point of Government Intervention in the Market Place as being bad for the consumer at large and good for Special Interests is being sidetracked by the subjectivity of taste."
I agree. Hence, my point that the author opens up an unnecessary can of worms with his choice of phrasing.
Brent wrote: "Geoffrey, I didn't miss the point. You missed the point - YOU ARE BEING WAY TOO SERIOUS!"
Yes, you did miss the point because your response to me was simply to flat out contradicted me in your aesthetic evaluation of fluorescent light bulbs and then remark that we should leave Max alone. Since these remarks were unqualified, I took them seriously. You seemed to be saying that fluorescent light bulbs are aesthetically displeasing, categorically, period, for everyone. This is plainly not true and contradicts Austrian subjective value theory. By your new comment that I'm being way too serious am I to interpret your previous remarks as being meant in jest? If so, then you need to work on making your humor less obscure. Incidentally, this is the problem I see with the article. It is far from clear Max was being sarcastic or writing in jest when he made his subjective value claims that appear to be categorical statements. Some people caught it but a number didn't. This is a minor problem, one of writing strategy, and easily learned from and fixed. Would you rather Max didn't learn that a part of his essay didn't come off to everyone as he had intended, so he can improve his writing in order to convey his message more effectively?
We don't want to be overly serious on this blog, but this is an intellectual blog about serious ideas. We cannot afford not to be serious (when seriousness is called for) either. It seems to me, Brent, that your comments are an attempt to push us into the latter error of not taking the article seriously. Isn't Max's article by and large a serious article about a serious issue (even though it attempts to use humor as a starting off point)?
Another reason this subjective value issue came up is because when George Reisman made his claim about fluorescent light bulbs he did so seriously, universalizing his aesthetic judgment about the bulbs, and forgetting that other people might actually find their visual aesthetics to be neutral or even attractive. It is an important error for economists to avoid. It is an error that I think is not inherent in Objectivism itself (Reisman is an Objectivist) but rather in an overly rationalistic interpretation of it. Notably, Reisman's claims, although meant seriously, had the same distracting effect on his main argument that Max's un-serious claims did.
Published: September 7, 2007 9:54 AM
Patrick: "It seems to me that his is not an Objectivist motivated decision."
What do you mean? It seems to have been a good business decision for Jones. It is a profitable business. It is not like the company is losing money or is unsuccessful. Max's point in the article is that Jones would be more profitable if the government didn't artificially raise its costs.
On a different note - from the article: "In the absence of sugar quotas, Jones wouldn't have to suffer financially for their decision to give people what they want. They would be allowed to give us more flavors, like Bohemian Raspberry flavored with delicious cane sugar. But instead we are confined to brown, industrial strength soda, capable of loosening rusted nails and removing corrosion from car battery terminals. Ultimately, this is always the choice society must make."
Incidentally, Inder is correct in that this is another over the top and tendentious, perhaps only half-serious, passage that opens up a can of worms. Two points: 1) we do have more than one flavor and color of soda, 2) using high fructose corn syrup instead of cane sugar does not prevent American soda companies from producing non-brown and differently flavored sodas. Again, it is unclear that this passage is not meant to be taken as completely serious. If this was made more clear, then it wouldn't be an issue.
Finally, to express my own personal tastes in soda again, I've tasted some pretty nasty European sodas that use cane sugar. Very odd flavors. Cane sugar is neither necessary nor sufficient for a delicious soda.
Published: September 7, 2007 10:18 AM
Max,
I thought your column was very good. It was well written and made some excellent points; and, being relatively new to economics, I learned something. As someone who used to teach, I was pleasantly surprised to see that it was written by a high school student.
My only recommendation is that you avoid making comments that draw the reader's attention away from the main thrust of your argument. As you most likely noticed, your criticism of "American soda" attracted more attention than the point you were actually trying to make. If you had simply praised Jones Soda and indicated a preference for it, I suspect everything would have gone more smoothly.
As for "John Slamm" and his rude comments, he is simply jealous that you are garnering accolades at such a young age. You will run into others like him. Just ignore them.
I look forward to seeing more of your work.
Good luck!
Published: September 7, 2007 3:41 PM
Fortunately for us, the unwinding of the USECONOMY with the deflating of several asset bubbles increases the likelihood of a global depression. This is the best and only means to disbanding the welfare state. Expect sugar and agricultural quotas/subsidies in US to gradually be unwound... Danone and kraft have started advertising hfcs free products could it actually be because international cane sugar is at 9.5 cents a pound!! OH the travesty...
Florida, largest cane producer wanted to ban hfcs in schools. They failed. If they try again they won't.
THeres a way to profit immensely from the artificial prices prevailing at the moment...
Message me if interested.
-Viraj Shah
Published: September 17, 2007 6:43 AM
I was forwarded a copy of the link to this story and blog, and I found the reading interesting. Not due to the implication of the government regulation in trade policy and the result on consumer price and corporate choice of raw material supply, but more from the total lack of information on the differences in HFCS and other sugars. That is right, HFCS is a sugar. As one writer indicated, High Fructose Corn Syrup is identical to other sugars in the impact on the body. In fact, all sugars break down to glucose molecules once digested and taken into the blood stream. HFCS is a blend of fructose, glucose, and other higher sugars. Fructose is also known as "fruit sugar" since it is naturally produced by fruit as they mature and begin to ripen. Fructose is a sugar made up of two glucose molecules chemically bonded. Sucrose is a three glucose molecule naturally produced in cane and beets, while fructose is naturally produced by bees in the form of honey.
I have always found it interesting that "purists" prefer honey over artificially refined sugars, while the process of producing HFCS is identical to the enzyme process of complex starch reduction to sugars that industry uses to produce HFCS. Just goes to show you that you need to do your own research if you want the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Published: July 28, 2008 8:11 PM