Taking Personal, Private, Public Obesity Seriously
"Canada in the New World Order" webinar recording HERE
DIRECTORY
? ? ? Contributions: Podcasts - audio Webcasts - video Newsletters Events
? ? ?Action: Subscribe Submit Ideas or Reply to [email protected]
Donate Help sustain KEI's contributions
? ? Fact or Fiction? Is obsesity a fat lie? HERE
Editor - Perry Kinkaide
The US President is serious - metaphorically speaking, in addressing "Obesity", in all forms: in People - with Robert Kennedy committed to waging a war on obesity, the Private sector - increased anti-trust enforcement, and the Public - with Elon Musk appointed to trim down the government. We should all be listening.
As for Canada, it appears to be heeding Trumps warning taken from Bryan Adams album "Waking up the Neighbours", as echoed in the following article HERE- Editor
Public, Private, and Personal Obesity Needs to be Taken Seriously
As President Donald Trump embarks on his second term, his administration faces a nation burdened not just by physical obesity but by a more systemic excess—the bloat of government, corporate overreach, and individual financial recklessness. Across the public sector, private industry, and household finances, the economic weight of inefficiency and overindulgence has reached unsustainable levels. While Trump has taken bold steps to curb bureaucratic expansion and promote self-reliance, his administration’s approach to corporate excess remains ambiguous. Will the White House rein in unchecked corporate power, or will policies continue to feed the private sector’s insatiable appetite for excess?
Trump has long championed the reduction of government inefficiency, and his administration’s second-term efforts reflect a renewed focus on trimming the fat from Washington. Large-scale deregulation initiatives aim to reduce bureaucratic hurdles for businesses, while cuts to federal agencies—particularly in education and environmental oversight—signal an effort to rein in what the administration sees as wasteful spending. Trump’s proposed entitlement reform seeks to curb dependency on government assistance, encouraging Americans to take greater financial responsibility. However, critics argue that shrinking government must be done carefully, ensuring that essential services remain intact. Reducing waster is a noble goal, but if services essential to long-term economic growth—such as education, infrastructure, and public health—are cut too deeply, the consequences may be more damaging than the original bloat.
At the individual level, Trump’s philosophy remains consistent: personal responsibility over government intervention. His administration has rolled back federal health and nutrition programs, favoring consumer choice over regulation. Economic policies have prioritized tax reductions, ensuring individuals retain more of their income, while a continued focus on job creation and wage growth aims to reduce reliance on government assistance. But while personal discipline is a factor in financial and physical health, systemic barriers—such as rising living costs, predatory lending, and the widening wealth gap—cannot be ignored. Without policies that balance individual choice with economic fairness, many Americans may find it difficult to shed financial weight in an economy that still favors the wealthiest. - continued below
Dr. Sabrina Kwon, originally from Regina, Saskatchewan, completed her medical education at the University of Western Ontario and a family medicine residency at the University of Alberta. She transitioned to obesity medicine in 2012, working at the Edmonton Adult Bariatric Surgical Clinic (EABSC), where she supported both the medical and surgical management of obesity. Dr. Kwon is a diplomate of the American Board of Obesity Medicine since 2015 and has focused solely on obesity medicine since 2017. Currently, she serves as the Medical Director of the Alberta Obesity Centre North, a role she has held since the center's opening in 2023.
Dawn Ringrose is the Principal of Organizational Excellence Specialists and the author of the Organizational Excellence Framework. She has been a consultant for public, private, and nonprofit sectors, enhancing their performance and guiding many to national excellence awards. Her expertise has earned her the Quality & Excellence Builder Award and the Alto Award for Innovative Marketing. Dawn's leadership extends to roles such as a judge and board member for the Global Bench-marking Network and ASQ’s Organizational Excellence Technical Committee. She currently leading a global study on organizational excellence.
Peter MacKinnon is a seasoned management consultant and academic with a rich public sector background. He has been integral in shaping public policy through strategic management consulting, particularly in government policies and programs, corporate development, and change management. His expertise spans disruptive technologies and business models, impacting political economies globally. Peter's public service background includes secondments to the Canadian Government, notably as Special Advisor for Advanced Information Technologies and as Counselor and Special Advisor Investment at the Canadian High Commission in London. These roles allowed him to influence high-level government and industry strategies, harnessing his extensive experience across continents and sectors like healthcare, education, and defense.
- continued from above
Corporate Consolidation and Market Power. More concerning, however, is the lack of meaningful action against corporate obesity. While Trump’s administration has made strides in addressing public sector reform and individual accountability, private corporations remain the most overindulgent actors in the economy. Companies have gorged on tax breaks, market consolidation, and unchecked growth, making them larger and more dominant than ever. Trump’s second-term agenda presents a mixed response to corporate excess. On one hand, further tax cuts are meant to stimulate economic activity, yet these policies may once again benefit corporate giants far more than workers. His continued trade confrontations with China, Mexico, Canada, and the European Union are designed to force businesses to become more competitive, but in practice, tariffs have raised costs for consumers rather than forcing a genuine restructuring of inefficient industries.
A potential bright spot is the administration’s evolving stance on antitrust enforcement. Trump’s Justice Department has signaled a stronger push to break up monopolies, particularly in the technology sector, where companies like Amazon, Google, and Meta have amassed unprecedented control over markets and data. The nomination of Gail Slater to lead the Department of Justice’s antitrust division suggests that a more aggressive approach to corporate accountability may finally be on the horizon. Yet antitrust action must go beyond tech giants. America’s financial, healthcare, and energy sectors have also grown increasingly consolidated, reducing competition and limiting economic dynamism. If only a handful of industries are targeted while others continue unchecked, the battle against corporate bloat will remain largely symbolic.
Deregulation is another area where the administration treads a fine line. Trump’s push to eliminate red tape is designed to boost efficiency, yet history has shown that unchecked corporate freedom often leads to speculation, environmental degradation, and financial instability. While a leaner regulatory framework can benefit small businesses and encourage entrepreneurship, it also allows large firms to consolidate power. Trump’s strategy assumes that a freer market will self-correct, but past crises—from the 2008 financial collapse to the speculative bubbles of the 1920s—suggest otherwise. Without balanced oversight, the risk of another corporate-induced downturn remains a serious concern.
North American Economic Integration. Importantly, the problem of obesity—whether bureaucratic, corporate, or individual—is not unique to the United States. Canada, too, must take the issue seriously. While its public sector remains comparatively leaner, the country faces rising corporate consolidation in industries such as telecommunications, finance, and energy. Canada’s housing market is a prime example of unchecked bloat, where skyrocketing property prices and speculative investment have created an artificial bubble that could be difficult to deflate without economic pain. Meanwhile, government spending in response to economic downturns has left Canada with growing debt, and individuals, much like their American counterparts, have become reliant on cheap credit and rising asset prices to sustain consumption. If economic reality catches up, Canada may be forced to undergo an involuntary financial diet—one that, like its southern neighbor, could prove painful.
The Coming Reckoning. As the world grapples with economic stagnation, rising debt, and market inefficiencies, the question is no longer whether a reckoning is coming, but whether it will be voluntary or forced. Trump’s administration has made significant moves to reduce public sector excess and encourage personal responsibility, but unless the private sector is held to the same standard, America’s economic bloat will remain. The same applies to other developed nations, including Canada, which must confront its own inefficiencies before an economic correction does it for them.
History has shown that nations rarely slim down by choice. The excesses of the 1920s led to the Great Depression, and the corporate greed of the 2000s resulted in the 2008 financial crisis. If real reform is not pursued in government spending, corporate accountability, and individual financial discipline, then the next crash may once again force nations—and their citizens—to undergo a painful and involuntary economic diet. The real question is whether policymakers will take action before the weight becomes unbearable.