The Fourteenth Banker Blog

October 25, 2010


Filed under: Running Commentary — thefourteenthbanker @ 7:24 AM

I am copying this entire post from Baseline Scenario.

Food and Finance

By James Kwak

I just read Michael Pollan’s book, In Defense of Food, and what struck me was the parallels between the evolution of food and the evolution of finance since the 1970s. This will only confirm my critics’ belief that I see the same thing everywhere, but bear with me for a minute.

Pollan’s account, grossly simplified, goes something like this. The dominant ideology of food in the United States is nutritionism: the idea that food should be thought of in terms of its component nutrients. Food science is devoted to identifying the nutrients in food that make us healthy or unhealthy, and encouraging us to consume more of the former and less of the latter. This is good for nutritional “science,” since you can write papers about omega-3 fatty acids, while it’s very hard to write papers about broccoli.

It’s especially good for the food industry, because nutritionism justifies even more intensive processing of food. Instead of making bread out of flour, yeast, water, and salt, Sara Lee makes “Soft & Smooth Whole Grain White Bread” out of “enriched bleached flour” (seven ingredients), water, “whole grains” (three ingredients), high fructose corn syrup, whey, wheat gluten, yeast, cellulose, honey, calcium sulfate, vegetable oil, salt, butter, dough conditioners (up to seven ingredients), guar gum, calcium propionate, distilled vinegar, yeast nutrients (three ingredients), corn starch, natural flavor [?], betacarotene, vitamin D3, soy lecithin, and soy flour (pp. 151-52). They add a modest amount of whole grains so they can call it “whole grain” bread, and then they add the sweeteners and the dough conditioners to make it taste more like Wonder Bread. Because processed foods sell at higher margins, we have an enormous food industry pushing highly processed food at us, very cheaply (because it’s mainly made out of highly-subsidized corn and soy), which despite its health claims (or perhaps because of them) is almost certainly bad for us, and bad for the environment as well. This has been abetted by the government, albeit perhaps reluctantly, which now allows labels like this on corn oil (pp. 155-56):

“Very limited and preliminary scientific evidence suggests that eating about one tablespoon (16 grams) of corn oil daily may reduce the risk of heart disease due to the unsaturated fat content in corn oil.”

With this fine print disclaimer:

“FDA concludes that there is little scientific evidence supporting this claim. To achieve this possible benefit, corn oil is to replace a similar amount of saturated fat and not increase the total number of calories you eat in a day.”

Unfortunately, nutritionism is pretty much bogus science. The major claim of nutritionism over the past thirty years–that fat is bad for you–turns out not to have any foundation at all.*

What does this all have to do with finance? Roughly speaking, read academic finance for nutritionism; the financial sector for the food industry; subprime loans, reverse convertibles, and CDOs for highly processed food claiming to improve your health but actually killing you; current disclosure laws for the FDA-approved health claims on corn oil; thirty-year fixed-rate mortgages and index funds for the neglected, unsubsidized, unadvertised fruits and vegetables in the produce section; the OCC and OTS for the FDA; and the long-term increase in obesity and diabetes for the long-term increase in household debt.

In both cases, you have an industry that earns profits by convincing people to do things that are not in their long-term interests; that, in the process, creates negative externalities for the rest of society; and that has cowed regulators into submission, if not outright cheerleading. In both cases, the industry defends itself from critics by saying that it is simply providing what customers want, and hence any new constraints (even, say, accurate organic labeling laws) constitute a paternalistic intrusion into people’s economic freedom. And in both cases, the industry claims that if it isn’t allowed to continue on its current course, the economy as a whole will suffer. (After all, our corn- and soy-based diet is what enables the industry to provide huge numbers of calories at low cost.)

One big difference is that when it comes to the food system, there is a fair amount you can do to protect yourself and your family from its unhealthy effects (if you have the money). With the financial system, it’s a bit harder.

* It’s a bit more complicated than that, so before you take this as advice, read Part I, Chapter 5.

So naturally I agree with this assessment. What you see is not what you get. The question is how do we make finance wholesome?  I rather like Bill Black’s idea for a starter but it mainly serves to deconstruct, not to construct.




  1. In the very early 1970’s, I began reading a lot about nutrition and eating healthy, devouring everything Adelle Davis wrote, along with Ewell Gibbons (“Stalking the Wild Asparagus”). It made sense to me that there are many things in whole foods that hadn’t (and still haven’t) been identified and singled out, let along investigated within the human body. It also makes sense to me that millions of years of evolution did not lead us to ADM or Cargill. Living in a state that has more pigs than people, I’ve learned that’s never been about bringing us better food; it’s always been about maximizing profits for the factory farmers. I wonder what generations of eating factory food will bring us?

    Comment by sandi — October 25, 2010 @ 2:40 PM | Reply

  2. Did anyone see James Kwak’s most recent post on P & L for professors at Texas A&M !!!

    Talk about complete corporate takeover of every area of our lives !!!

    This is the kind of concentrated power that is destined to breed abuse and it’s self destruction due to it’s own excesses.

    Comment by Vocalbanker — October 27, 2010 @ 11:57 AM | Reply

    • I read Kwak’s latest this morning too. Actually, from the perspective of those requiring the revenue accounting , such a report makes good sense. The head office types understand that they keep their personal revenues functioning only if the prof’s deliver sufficient revenues outside of tax based grants from the legislature. Everything else does not matter. It’s just business from the perspective of overhead employee’s separate business…. their employment.

      The real question though, for those requiring non tax based revenues is ” Does sending the message that you cover your own costs plus revenues to cover us too or you go before we do actually work?”

      Comment by Jerry J — October 27, 2010 @ 1:53 PM | Reply

    • I just read it. Thanks for mentioning. I don’t think they have any idea what a monster they will unleash. It amazes me that at this stage these types still don’t get the unintended consequences that arise from trying to create markets out of literally everything. Some things need to be done because they are inherently good. Many of the least “popular” classes or those that do not bring in industrial grants are actually those that have been least corrupted. I guess Texas A&M does not favor the road less traveled.

      Comment by thefourteenthbanker — October 27, 2010 @ 3:26 PM | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at