Cancer is a product of industrial environment

#201
#201
utgibbs said:
It is profitable because it doesn't pay for its externalities.

:facepalm:

However, an enlightened view on ethanol!
Click to expand...

it's not profitable because you are forced to do anything by another potential buyer, period.
 
#203
#203
utgibbs said:
I was actually making sure you understood your hypocrisy.

I don't subscribe to your views. I don't have a narrow, negative definition of freedom. I subscribe to the positive definition of freedom.
Click to expand...

what hypocrisy of mine? I have a freezer full of meat that came from me or someone in my family putting a hole in it. Please explain how you're paying for that. If anything my fees paid subsidize your enjoyment whether you understand that or not

of course you view your beliefs in a positive light. However the stance you're taking on this is pretty different than one you take on other similar issues. Funny how that works
 
#205
#205
Rasputin_Vol said:
Don't you guys see the sarcasm dripping in his posts?
Click to expand...

you're definitely on to something. Out of one side of his mouth, he admits he's a capitalist pig slumlord, out of the other side he's declaring his solidarity with Marxist thugs.

I just wonder if gibbs and gsvol are the same person.
 
#206
#206
utgibbs said:
On the question of feeding 300+ million you would be dead wrong. We are a huge exporter of food in just the first instance. We can look at the Cuban example as well of a population who went from a "peak oil" scenario to near self-sufficiency in less than a decade. In fact, Cuba has less of a hunger problem than we do, according to our own USDA. England feeds over 60 million in a country the size of Alabama. Sure, they import stuff (as does Cuba), but they don't have to do so. If we paid the true cost of transport, they would import far less (and we would export far less). And they rely far, far less on industrial livestock production (especially cows and pigs - not so great on chickens).

If we stop exporting food, people starve.

You are simply locked in an ideology.

I'm the one locked in an ideology?

The distribution question is by far the easiest. Far more local production and rail. No brainer. Good globalization began a long time ago. Not that I'm defending the conquistadors, but the potato made its way onto Hindi tables within a decade of coming out of South America. Distribution is easy.

Sure it is - let's take New York city metro. Not sure where the free range chickens will be located nor the sustainable farms. Somehow the vast variety of food products desire a massive distribution system is required to bring together finished goods into readily accessible inventories. Likewise, to create virtually all foods other than farm fresh, ingredients from any number of locations must be brought to a production facility then redistributed back out to the various warehouse and retail locations. Rail ain't doing that. Huge amounts of industrialization required.

Regarding meat being more expensive, it is a two way street, volinbham. You are making me pay for the externalities generated by industrial meat production. You are restricting my freedom. And thus you prove you do not truly believe in the market, and further prove the market must be "doctored" in order to work. Again, there might be less meat in the diet because of cost, but it would taste better and be more nutritious and improve health. Quality ahead of cheap tat. Your "controlling diet" argument is specious and ridiculous.

So you eliminate externalities by eliminating industrial production? You can't be serious. The quality above cheap tat quote is getting old. Free range chickens have externalities too. Any form of food production does and the model you advocate leads to a drastic reduction in availability of foods that millions enjoy all in the name of your dream of free range chickens. If you are going to use externalities as an argument be upfront enough to recognize the huge externalities of the world you are advocating.

If we look at the municipial solid waste figures (these do not include industrial wastes) we see that 60% of what we throw away is compostable materials. :facepalm: Of these 250 million tons 14% are straight "food scraps."

So a starving populace will waste less food - that's awesome.

As far as "thinning the population" well, the obesity epidemic is predicted to be the #1 health problem in the near future (if not already). Again, a beneficial consequence falling out of a new paradigm.

Forced starvation will lower health costs. Awesome. I bet if we strictly determined everyone should eat rice (quality stuff, not that cheap tat version) and a tin of tuna a week our health costs would plummet. Great solution.

You are locked in the Man's paradigm. De-industrialization has nothing to do with returning to the Stone Age. It has everything to do with recognizing the true human condition outside the backdoor and turning the tools of Enlightenment away from the needs of Capital and directing them at the needs of people.

You want to keep all the outputs of industrialization yet de-industrialize. This it the paradigm you are locked in.
Click to expand...

you and the real world have parted ways long ago.
 
#208
#208
utgibbs said:
Not at all.

I merely repeated Communist China had raised more people out of poverty than anyone over the last 40 years.
Click to expand...
And they did so NOT by continuing or increasing central control but by introducing market principles AND by industrializing.

I've never referred to China as the "torchbearer". In fact, you are far more likely to see an establishment economist do so.
Click to expand...

They ARE a torch bearer. Social freedom has not yet followed but they clearly bear witness to what happens when you move an economy in the OPPOSITE direction from what you so consistently advocate. Lower taxes, more freedom, loosened regulation... yield greater wealth.

They are untethering their people and resources from central planners... and cannot raise interest rates enough to cool their economy off. Theirs is a supply side/free market miracle.
 
#209
#209
utgibbs said:
Part of the profits of the industrial model is won from its lack of paying for externalities.
Click to expand...

very, very little. Economies of scale is the main difference maker. Some industries lend better to it, and meat is one of the better examples. I know that doesn't fit your worldview very well, because it's not out your back door being trampled by a homosexual gorilla, but it's the truth.
 
#210
#210
gibbs have you ever been to a feed lot? Have you ever known or talked with people in the beef and commercial farming business?

I live with them and talk to them all the time. I know this isn't the first time I've had to tell you this... but you need to get out into the real world with an open mind. What you believe about economics is detached from how people behave and operate in the real world.
 
#211
#211
utgibbs said:
I post source material for your edification.

Not for mine.
Click to expand...
The last two times you have posted material for my "edification"... it took a about 2 mouse clicks to demonstrate they were useless to the point you were trying to make.

I understand why you don't want to look at the real poverty in the US with a straight and manly gaze. It's appaling. It's dumbfounding. It makes you question every ideal you've ever held.
Click to expand...

Holy cow. I KNOW many people included in those statistics. There are VERY FEW people in America who will ever not be able to get food for reasons that they could not control.

Just bluntly, if someone can afford alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, cell phones, cable tv, etc then they can afford food. I see people every day who make the choice to give their babies soft drinks so they have money to buy cigarettes.
 
#212
#212
gibbs argument that poverty is worse today is soley because the rich are richer. makes zero sense logically.
 
#213
#213
droski said:
gibbs argument that poverty is worse today is soley because the rich are richer. makes zero sense logically.
Click to expand...
I just laughed at him tying it to inequality as he was espousing the Chinese changes for raising hundreds of millions out of poverty.
 
#214
#214
what is the world's poverty line? I'm guessing if there is one then the US poor are not even close to approaching it
 
#215
#215
Gibbs gave us a cool which back door he's looking out:

Wendell Berry

Tell me if any of this sounds familiar.

His nonfiction serves as an extended conversation about the life he values. According to Berry, the good life includes sustainable agriculture, appropriate technologies, healthy rural communities, connection to place, the pleasures of good food, husbandry, good work, local economics, the miracle of life, fidelity, frugality, reverence, and the interconnectedness of life. The threats Berry finds to this good life include: industrial farming and the industrialization of life, ignorance, hubris, greed, violence against others and against the natural world, the eroding topsoil in the United States, global economics, and environmental destruction. As a prominent defender of agrarian values, Berry's appreciation for traditional farming techniques, such as those of the Amish, grew in the 1970s, due in part to exchanges with Draft Horse Journal publisher Maurice Telleen. Berry has long been friendly to and supportive of Wes Jackson, believing that Jackson's agricultural research at The Land Institute lives out the promise of "solving for pattern" and using "nature as model."
Click to expand...

Wendell Berry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are being snowed by The Man while Gibbs is being snowed by this man.
 
#216
#216
is Wendell Berry also an apologist for Communist China, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara? If he is, then it's beyond a reasonable doubt that gibbs' "real world" is merely a figment of some other guy's imagination.
 
#217
#217
volinbham said:
Gibbs gave us a cool which back door he's looking out:

Wendell Berry

Tell me if any of this sounds familiar.



Wendell Berry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are being snowed by The Man while Gibbs is being snowed by this man.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you can be "snowed" by Wendell Berry. That's an interesting (laughable) concept. His history of the transformation of American agriculture will never be matched though.

It was just a "further reading" suggestion. Since he has lived in Owensboro all his life (and I lived in Clarksville for my formative years) it is small wonder we have looked upon the Mennonite / Amish example with some wonderment and appreciation? I believe you are also on record the Amish are living the American Dream.

I'm not sure why a "further reading" example would get you so bent out of shape. :dunno:
 
#218
#218
utvolpj said:
what is the world's poverty line? I'm guessing if there is one then the US poor are not even close to approaching it
Click to expand...

You and BPV are on record as saying poverty is relative.

Which is it?

(I think the UN considers < $1.25 / day destitution with < $2.00 / day abject poverty. But double check)
 
#220
#220
sjt18 said:
gibbs have you ever been to a feed lot? Have you ever known or talked with people in the beef and commercial farming business?

I live with them and talk to them all the time. I know this isn't the first time I've had to tell you this... but you need to get out into the real world with an open mind. What you believe about economics is detached from how people behave and operate in the real world.
Click to expand...

Many, many times, sjt. I've certainly been part and parcel of the free range / organic livestock production for half my life. :hi:
 
#221
#221
utgibbs said:
Many, many times, sjt. I've certainly been part and parcel of the free range / organic livestock production for half my life. :hi:
Click to expand...

you mean when you aren't playing your role as the capitalist pig slumlord?
 
#222
#222
utgibbs said:
You and BPV are on record as saying poverty is relative.

Which is it?

(I think the UN considers < $1.25 / day destitution with < $2.00 / day abject poverty. But double check)
Click to expand...

and in your opinion a significant % of the population in the united states lives off less than $730 year?
 
#224
#224
If we stop exporting food, people starve.
Click to expand...

Who, exactly? The Cuban example, for one (which, as far as I know, Wendell Berry has never written on), suggests we would easily continue to export. Regardless, the entire paradigm switches as soon as peak oil hits - not as much corn, wheat, and soybeans - more of a lot more. Give my your over / under on 90 million barrels....

I'm the one locked in an ideology?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Sure it is - let's take New York city metro. Not sure where the free range chickens will be located nor the sustainable farms. Somehow the vast variety of food products desire a massive distribution system is required to bring together finished goods into readily accessible inventories. Likewise, to create virtually all foods other than farm fresh, ingredients from any number of locations must be brought to a production facility then redistributed back out to the various warehouse and retail locations. Rail ain't doing that. Huge amounts of industrialization required.
Click to expand...

Rail / sea would do that easily. Look at London. Game, Set, and Match.

So you eliminate externalities by eliminating industrial production? You can't be serious. The quality above cheap tat quote is getting old. Free range chickens have externalities too. Any form of food production does and the model you advocate leads to a drastic reduction in availability of foods that millions enjoy all in the name of your dream of free range chickens. If you are going to use externalities as an argument be upfront enough to recognize the huge externalities of the world you are advocating.
Click to expand...

Free range chickens have externalities? Like what since they are integral to sustainable agriculture? Cancer and Cheap Tat Unite? Is that the Industrialist Bourgeois call to arms? Your premise that food availability will go down has no basis in fact. In fact, it is wholly repudiated by the Cuban experience. This paragraph from you is just ridiculous. If anything, decentralizing the gene pool will lead to GREATER choice in the food we eat! :facepalm:

So a starving populace will waste less food - that's awesome.
Click to expand...

Where is the starving population? What is your over / under on 90 million barrels? You are basically condemning the world to starvation! It is you, not me. Besides, this was more an indication of the amount of compost we could make.

Forced starvation will lower health costs. Awesome. I bet if we strictly determined everyone should eat rice (quality stuff, not that cheap tat version) and a tin of tuna a week our health costs would plummet. Great solution.
Click to expand...

Again, baseless and ridiculous. The industrial model provides high energy content cheap tat (from the excess and poor quality corn, wheat, and soybeans) which gives people plenty of calories and almost no nutriment. While there might be fewer cheese doodles, there would be more strawberries, mangos, etc. This is often the cheapest food on the shelves as well. It's fodder for the poor. It's shameful.

You want to keep all the outputs of industrialization yet de-industrialize. This it the paradigm you are locked in.
Click to expand...

No, I want to keep all the gifts of the Enlightenment and apply them in "enlightened" ways.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top