GameBanshee Forums

Dottie, Huh?
The way large scale production is being done and the large scale companies being supported by current government that are doing it has everything to do with his question.
If they are mass producing with the use of hazardous chemicals and untested genetically altered stock, also at the expense of environmental safety and humanity it is not the right way at all ... and I certanly don't "prefer" it as you say, and I don't think I'm alone either. The long term reprecussions are far too damaging and not at all worth a handful of rich people just getting richer.
And the more people who are becoming educated, the more are buying locally and supporting their neighboring local farmers for food produced the right way without harmful chemicals and with healthy, cared for animals. Unlike your supported mass production.

Well technically Vicsun's analogy has flaws. Firstly he completely ignores externalities, which can very easily decrease the consumer wellbeing and increase costs for the economy. One major example is the environment. The second is employment or rather creating unemployment due to kill small farms. The third is often described as the multifunctionality of agriculture which is basically saying plus the above two examples, agriculture helps in social issues. That is the stance the EU normally takes as does Japan and Switzerland.

However i do agree with the analogy he made that big corporations are overall evil and can not do any good. They actually do a lot of good by providing cheap products with economies of scale in one economy. But then again they can be exploiting labour and destorying infant industries in another economy.

What is the saying: Have 12 economists sit in a room and they will never agree on anything

CM, hehheh, I think that's how the saying goes.
I didn't touch the harm being done to the economy, but it's definitely on the list of why thinking it's okay for a few mega-size companies to "rule the roost" is a bad idea isn't it. One quick example is the out sourcing jobs to other countries that do 5 times the work for pennies ... who's gaining what here, ya know? ...

Lestat wrote:@ Vicsun: if politicians "sell" farmsubsidies to the general public with the argument that they are to help small struggling farms, to keep a traditional form of life alive and/or to keep a nice landscape, it's only fair to point out that subsidies mainly go large industrial type of farms who plant large fields of the same crop which to not exactly contribute to a nice landscape. And that is for instance what is happening in France.

If that's the case, I definitely see your point. Whether a nation should pay extra to preserve farming as a way of life is a social question though, so I'll gleefully ignore it

littlebit]Vicsun wrote: Argumentum ad Hominem Argumentum ad Hominem Argumentum ad Hominem

... and I guess you think it's a fine idea for one company to be able to patent pigs and seedstock ... and then actually charge and sue the small farmers because one giant companies patented, genetically altered, bee killing seedstock contaminated the "little farmers" own fields.

A very compelling argument against your patent system. I agree with you.

You may think that's perfectly fine, but I certainly don't.

Argumentum ad Hominem Argumentum ad... you get my point, right?

Not when the large companies forcing the little guys out decide it's perfectly fine to put profits way ahead of public health and keeping the environment safe for our children. No way.

Please substantiate what you're saying, instead of repeating rhetoric. How do big companies damage public health? What prevents small companies from doing the same thing? Does greed and evilness rise proportionally to the size of the company?

And no, the easiest way is not the best way and it's already being proven.

It's been scientifically proven that the easiest way is not the best way? Consider my mind blown.

Taking it down to a small scale, do you actually think it's better for everyone who has a weed growing in their yard to hop in there car, drive to walmart and buy a bottle of roundup, drive back and spray the poison on the plant then to just bend over and pull the weed? Which is more economical? WHich choice is better for you? Which choice whould you choose if you wanted to keep your pets and kids safe?

What has that got to do with anything at all, except being a blatant appeal to emotion invoking 'pets' and 'kids'? Or are you trying to say that small farmers can just as easily use pesticides as big farmers?

Back to the big scale ... I'll be darned if I'll sit back and let any bought off government force me to feed my children food that can do them harm simply because it's more profitable for the guys who mass produce it... When the small guys, who do it the right way, are being pushed out, they are tampering with my families source of safe food.

If you start with the assumption big business is out to kill your baby, and small business is completely awesome, it's very easy to come to the conclusion that big business is bad and small business is good.

(And yes, there is a right way to produce bountiful amounts of food without damaging the environment or altering the genetic code or pumping poison on and in it... and by being humane.)

Why are you equating 'altering the genetic code' with 'pumping poison in'? For that matter, why are you implying big companies pump poison into your food?

Dottie]@Vicsun: That was a horrible analogy. shame on you. [/quote] Haha wrote:If they are mass producing with the use of hazardous chemicals and untested genetically altered stock, also at the expense of environmental safety and humanity it is not the right way at all

Bearing the risk of sounding like a broken record in mind, I'll reiterate what I said: please substantiate your arguments. What hazardous chemicals are they using exactly, and why are those chemicals being used exclusively by big business?

CM]Well technically Vicsun's analogy has flaws. Firstly he completely ignores externalities wrote: Whenever I've discussed anything relating to economics with you, you always seem to jump in with externalities
I purposefully omitted them and did that for several reasons. Firstly, it would have been hard to fit in with my wonderful (horrible) analogy of Bob and Fred, and it would have taken a lot of typing to properly explain what exactly externalities are, how they can be prevented and how they're caused. And considering that externalities aren't the only form of market failure, I would have also had to write about public goods, merit goods, demerit goods, monopolies, and inequality caused by the market to provide a balanced post. Seeing as how all of those things are only marginally relevant (I couldn't think of gross externalities which absolutely had to be mentioned), I thought the impromptu model I presented was good enough to describe the situation.

It seems more like you just don't like what I have to say.
You stated that you didn't think I know what I was saying and was merely making a "safe" statement.
I elaborated with just a handful of reasons as to why I don't support the large corporations that our current government does support.
And you asked "why is the fact that the little guy will die off bad?"
I gave a brief reason as to why, but the reasons are many. I certainly will elaborate if you want. I don't easily come to such conclusions contrary to your lumping me into your "some people" category without even knowing where I'm coming from.
You are wrong with this statement, btw: "It's the consumers' well-being that generally matters." I wish that were true, but that's unfortunately one of the biggest problems. I'm not just assuming this. I see what's being done and by whom and then I draw my conclusions. If you want me to elaborate more with what I see that led me to my concerns, I will be happy to. But, like I said, you don't seem to like what I have to say.
And in your analogy you asked, "Would you ask Fred to grow it knowing he'd have to work for three weeks or would you ask Bob, knowing he can get that bushel of wheat out in half an hour?"
My earlier response was intended to let you know that, while on the surface it may seem wiser to get the wheat from the faster producer, the more that is found out about the way it was produced and the problems it causes changes my decision as to what is the wisest choice. I would choose Fred after weighing all the factors. Nothing is really easier or cheaper in the whole picture. You know the saying, "nothing's free". You're going to be paying one way or another.
What's nice to know here is, despite the new delima, I still have a choice though. The problem with Bob, with the support of his government, pushing Fred out of business, is that it takes away the consumers ability to choice what's best for them. The government and Bob now have complete control. The consumer has no choice but to buy Bob's wheat regardless of how it's being processed. I want to continue being able to buy the organic wheat from Fred. Why do you think it's okay for that to be taken away from me with the aid of a government. This isn't a good thing.
Your statements previously lead me to believe you don't care how Bob produces the wheat. I want to apologize for that first assumption, because now I think you just aren't aware of the extent of the lack of concern for "the consumer's well being".
You also asked, "Shouldn't the best way be whatever way is easiest and produces the best results? Which would also happen to be big farms in our case?" I beg to differ. The best way is not always the easiest way and in terms of best results, well that depends on what you believe "best results" is.
I don't just determine the results by the price tag on the loaf of bread nor the time in which it was made. There are other things that are important in factoring what the best result really is. And it simply is not true about the "big farms" being the ones that provide the best results.
They provide a product that is , for them, the cheapest to make and what yields the most profits, for them. They sure know it even if you don't.
Why do you think great measures are taken be these collaborating giants to keep the public in the dark about just how bad the quick and profitable processing is for our health, our environment and even for our wallets?
And in light of so many consumers learning, thus choosing to buy products from environmentally friendly companies and or organic farms ... why do you think these giants are having their government push legislation that does things like degrade organic standards? If their product is so much better, then why all these attacks to obliterate the competition and fool the public? Because it's not better and they know that people are factoring in all the ways they are paying for it ... and they are choosing not to buy Bob's wheat. Well Bob doesn't like this so he tries to take away the consumers choice ... and unfortunately, like Eisenhower warned us about, Bob now has all the power to do it.
This isn't just agriculture this is a handful of very powerful corporations playing very dirty hardball with people who now don't even have a weapon to fight back with.
I guess we could start getting more specific if you want, I know you think I mean all large companies in general and you obviously think the one's I am referring to aren't doing any harm by the ways they extend their "profit making" and takeovers. You also think I believe all small guys do things right and all big guys do things wrong .... but it's not the case and much more complex then that... it's just the lingo...big guy/small guy ... we're both doing it.
Large or small, if the company provides a product that's economical, safe for the environment and my kids, they have my full support.
It just so happens that the ones doing the greatest damage and costing us the most, on many levels, are some of the largest and most powerful companies in the world. So to get past this road block, maybe we need to be specific about companies and which ones are doing what ... or what do you suggest?

Oh, you did ask and sorry for not answering in the above post, "Why are you equating 'altering the genetic code' with 'pumping poison in' food? For that matter, why are you implying big companies pump poison into your food?" and "What hazardous chemicals are they using exactly?"
Have you heard of Roundup Ready Soybeans or any news at all on GMO corn?
One of the ways genetic code altering is being done is by adding pesticide to it.
I'm surprised you aren't aware because in the EU, there was a victory in stopping the misinformation to the public by companies that decide it's perfectly fine to put profits above public safety, health and awareness. By victory I mean now in the EU, those companies are required to remove unlabeled genetically engineered food ingredients from their products. Unfortunately it's not yet a victory for the United States or Canada.
Did you know Russia, Brazil and even China all require that foods using GMO ingredients be labeled? Even they are granting the public the right to make their own choice.
Currently, in the U.S. and under the gutted Food and Drug Administration, companies like Monsanto don't even have to let the FDA know they're putting a new product on the market.
Under the Bush Administrations FDA, the giant biotech industry is completely allowed to regulate itself.
This isn't protecting public health.
I understand you don't believe it and are wanting names so I guess Monsanto, one of the biggest biotech companies in the world, will make a fine example.
This very large and powerful corporation has been very busy and with the aid of our government.
We're actually helping them too, right now, whether we want to or not. Literally billions of U.S. tax dollars are going right towards subsidies for mass produced, genetically engineered giant crops ... like corn and soybeans.
We've come full circle, eh ... it really does all tie in now doesn't it.
Monsanto is one of the large corporations I'm talking about:
You wanted examples of why they're bad news and how they don't have consumer's best interests at heart?

• They attack farms like Oakhurst Dairy (owned by a family since 1921). Monsanto wanted them out because the farmer was simply following consumer demand by providing milk free of rBGH (you wanted chemical names right). Monsanto sued them by actually claiming they should not have the right to inform their customers that their dairy products do not contain the Monsanto chemical. Oakhurst barely was able to hang on to his farm. He was forced to settle out of court. And that's just one of many and one of the luckier ones.
• And they're a company that has employees in high places, I'm not just making it up (I wish I was) ... The Secretary of Defense's prior work was with the board of directors of Monsanto's owned Searle Pharmaceuticals. Monsanto donated $50,000 to the U.S. Secretary of Health for his Wisconsin governor campaign. The chairman of the House Agricultural Committee and the Head of the Department of Homeland Security received the most donations from Monsanto. And did you know that Clarence Thomas was Monsanto's lawyer? There's more but you get the point of my concern here?
• And speaking of your "better Bob's wheat", Monsanto's highly toxic glyphosate (roundup), has been found to help spread spread fusarium head blight ... a big killer of wheat crops.
• Monsanto, the company that's literally destroying our U.S. agricultural economy with it's poisonous, global power and commodity gain strategy ... what do you call things like $300 million dollars in exports lost?
• And this is a scary tactic of control .. Monsanto, the company that is the main source of global contamination of our waters, oh you want chemical names don't you ... dioxin, glyophosate, PCB's to name a few. You do know this is the same company that made Agent Orange... anyway, get this business strategy, they then privately take over the polluted water, filter it and sell or lease it to whoever has enough money to purchase.

... unfortunately, the list goes on ...
Companies like Monsanto are personally profiting and gaining power all the while they're leaving behind an environmental and economic disaster. Frighteningly enough, I shudder to think that may be their intent ... it's gaining them control.
Our health, our food, our water and our energy. Everything that we need to survive, we'll have no choice but to turn to them? That's way not cool. Unfortunately it's already starting to occur in some countries. Now that's power. Sound's like a sci-fi doesn't it?
If you get the chance do some deep research on Monsanto.
If you want, I'll post articles, documents, anything you want from my own research, just ask. I can promise you, despite your words, that I never make decisions and draw conclusions based on hapless rhetoric. It's very important for all of us to be responsible consumers and do our homework before we put dinner on the table ... and before we head to the voting booth.

[QUOTE=Vicsun]Whenever I've discussed anything relating to economics with you, you always seem to jump in with externalities

I purposefully omitted them and did that for several reasons. Firstly, it would have been hard to fit in with my wonderful (horrible) analogy of Bob and Fred, and it would have taken a lot of typing to properly explain what exactly externalities are, how they can be prevented and how they're caused. And considering that externalities aren't the only form of market failure, I would have also had to write about public goods, merit goods, demerit goods, monopolies, and inequality caused by the market to provide a balanced post. Seeing as how all of those things are only marginally relevant (I couldn't think of gross externalities which absolutely had to be mentioned), I thought the impromptu model I presented was good enough to describe the situation.[/QUOTE]

Really? I think we have had one or two conversations on this. With agriculture externalities are extremely important. That is how europe defends its entire agriculture sector. If it was the case of efficiency Europe wouldn't have an agriculture sector at all. Secondly the reason i posted was not to make it balanced. But was to make sure that the other side was shown, specifically when the example shown can not be applied to 90% of the worlds agriculture sectors. The above example only works for the US and Australia and in few cases some European countries.