In Favor of the Direct vs. the Indirect

my 1st "May I speak freely?" post

As I warned earlier today, you may need to suffer more random ideas, thoughts, and opinions from me going forward, this will be my first (maybe my last depending on the reaction 😉).

These thoughts started percolating when I recently was listening to the Joe Rogan podcast with Dr. Aseem Malhotra.

During this conversation, Dr. Malhotra on several occasions argued that public policies (taxes, restricted locations to smoke, etc.) that resulted in a decrease in smoking was the largest health benefit in the last many decades (far more impactful than any pharmaceuticals). In addition, he expressed support for taxes on sugary drinks. For folks that advocate for these policies, I don’t think I am going out on a limb here to say the goal is to reduce these activities (smoking, and consuming sugary beverages). In fact, I would go further in saying the ultimate goal is to drive the level of these behaviors to zero.

I’m not going to argue in this post whether that is a noble goal or not, but if that is the goal, I have a very simple question…..

Why don’t you just ban (make illegal) cigarettes and sugary drinks?

Let me explain why this makes more sense than taxing these activities. Can we agree that if we taxed a pack of cigarettes or a can of soda at $1million that would be the equivalent of banning those items? “But, T Codd, no one is advocating for a ban or a tax that high.” Fine, but the purpose of the taxes is to discourage the consumption of cigarettes and sodas, correct? Some people will give up those behaviors entirely, while others will reduce their consumption. If that’s not true, then what is the point of the tax? If it is true, ask yourself which people are being financially coerced to reduce their smoking and soda consumption? Obviously those taxes won’t affect the behavior of the very wealthy. The greatest impact will be on folks with the least money. Per this site, the current tax on a pack of cigarettes in New York is $4.35. Will that make any difference to the smoking private equity dude? Not a chance. Will it impact the taxi driver? Almost certainly.

So, the current public policies in regards to taxing cigarettes & sugary drinks is thus:

Wealthy people, continue doing what you are doing. Poor people, we are going to ban (or fine you significantly) for smoking or enjoying a Pepsi.

I doubt very much whether Dr. Malhotra or other advocates of these policies would describe it this way, but that is what is actually happening. So, I return to my question… if what we really want is to eliminate these things, why are we doing it indirectly, just ban the damn things! And if banning is too extreme and you just want to limit them, then that can be done as well. Give everyone a punch card that allows them X number of smokes, and Y sodas a year. I’m not saying this would be a wise policy, but I am saying it would be a more honest and efficient way of achieving the goals of these programs.¹

---

I won’t say a ton about my second example, but another example on my mind is in regards to college admissions and racial diversity. I am not an attorney, but my understanding of previous Supreme Court rulings on this topic was that 1) Having racial diversity within a university was a legitimate goal of the school and 2) While explicit racial quotas were not permitted, a school may take measures in the admissions process to encourage diversity.

Again, I am not using this post to argue whether or not racial diversity at a university is a noble goal. What I will argue, however, is that if this has been decided as legitimate & permissible goal, then making quotas illegal is a really stupid policy. Obviously if a school believes racial diversity is a critical and worthy goal, then they have some idea what % of each racial group is required to be admitted in order to achieve the right amount of diversity. To do this, the admissions process becomes some sort of black box where no one knows how various factors are judged or weighed, but somehow the outcome results in the desired racial mix. Wouldn’t it be easier to just say, “We’re going to accept at least x% of this group, y% of this group, and z% of that group.”

Again, I am not saying whether achieving a racial diversity for a worthy goal of a university or not, but I am saying that if that is the goal, then having a direct quota system would be a more honest and efficient way of achieving that goal.

---

Hopefully the meaning of the title of this post is obvious. Given a stated goal, why wouldn’t you try to achieve that goal in the most direct way possible? Won’t that naturally be the most efficient way? Won’t it have the least side effects? Isn’t it better to make it clear and honest to all involved?

Don’t be shy in letting me know of a blind spot I might have or an error in my logic. Other examples? Counter-examples?

1. Note, some may respond that the tax is meant to cover the additional medical costs that these folks impose on the system. 1) I’m not sure it’s true (smokers die younger, so don’t have as many years of medical costs) and 2) isn’t that why their insurance premiums are higher.