Re: Farm subsidies
On 21/09/2008, at 1:58 PM, Euan Ritchie wrote: > NZ's population is just over 4 million (in a country 20% larger than > the > U.K), we have more like 60 millions sheep currently and not many of > their pastures were rain forests (only the very North of NZ is > sub-tropical, mostly we've a temperate climate). Rainforest isn't all tropical or sub-tropical, it's just that's the best known. Rainforest is based on rainfall, not latitude. F'rex, south-east and south-west Victoria have a mix of temperate forest and temperate rainforest (Mainly the Otway Ranges on the Great Ocean Road, and far south-east Vic past Orbost and Cann River, and into NSW). The rainforest is characterised by dense undergrowth, thick hanging mosses and lichens, and some of the largest trees in the southern hemisphere (not far behind parts of Tasmania and southern Western Australia, as well as, of course, the monsters in South America). Much of New Zealand's pastureland (by no means all) is cleared land, and that means some of it would have been rainforest, even on the South Island. Apart from that, as you were. :) Charlie List Biologist Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Dan, I hope that You and yours and your home are OK. I heard that half of the Houston area is still without power, if you're home I hope you're among the lucky half. Dan wrote: > > Well, I guess it depends on what you base your understanding of evidence > on, > and to what degree you accept science when it counters common sense. I > would hope that, if I give the results of extremely well verified theories > of science (e.g. theories that give precise results over many orders of > magnitude (IIRC the range is > 10^20) that you will accept such theories as > valid, and common sense understandings that contradict them as limited. > That, if there is a conflict between the two, you would side with science > vs. common sense. An example of this is the fact that evolution shows that > the order in nature does not prove the existence of a creator, > Ok, where on the web can I read about the truth apart from us?Can I find widespread support for the idea among scientists? Or will I find, as Wiki suggests, that "most physicists consider non-instrumental questions (in particular ontological questions) to be irrelevant to physics. They fall back on David Mermin's expression: "shut up and calculate"" > > > > > That we have > > There is no constant, absolute right or wrong. Its the one that works > > best in the given situation with the caveat that in five years or five > > months or even five minutes the circumstances that made it work well > > might change. > > > How quickly and completely did American attitudes and indeed, their > ethics > > change on Dec. 7, 1941 or on 911? > > The question of whether a particular action is right or wrong is dependent > on the circumstances involved. But, look at what you said > > "Its the one that works best in the given situation" > > This, as with Charlie, simply moves the question slightly. What I have > stated repeatedly is the question of how one defines things like best, > worst, good, bad, etc. Self referential statements don't address the > question, they are mere tautologies. Is there no way to define success in evolutionary terms? Wiki describes natural selection thus: Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment" Is the use of best in that description a mere tautology? Or if I had said best-suited would it have changed the meaning of my statement appreciably? > If in one hand and... But if either of them had won, how long do you > think that they could have kept their conquests under their thumb? Do you > think that their social constructs would have been successful? Well, leaning on a former list member who is a PhD candidate in > international relations, and who believes that a proper study of history is > important to this, the answer is that the evidence is strong that > totalitarian regimes are internally stable. The USSR failed after 60 years > or so, but that was in a situation where it was competing with the US > militarily and ended up spending 40%+ of its GDP in that competition. First of all, I respect Guatam's credentials, but he's been wrong on more than one occasion (remember the guarantee that there would be WMDs in Iraq) so his they aren't impeccable. Second, you state that totalitarian regimes are inherently stable but the only valid example you can give is a regime that lasted less than a century. Thirdly I don't believe it is valid to compare societies from different eras because of the widely varying circumstances. It's like trying to compare experiments that had thousands of uncontrolled confounding factors. So aside from the fatal flaws in your historical analysis that Rich pointed out, I don't believe that that type of comparison is valid in the first place. > > > > Would they have stood the test of time? I have serious doubts that > > they would have, > > Well, then you stand against most students of the field. Can you site an example or two? > In a long term > competition, countries with representative governments have advantages over > totalitarian governments. But, the 19th and 20th centuries demonstrated > that freer societies have long term advantages in productivity, but it took > a long time for those advantages to take hold. > > And, in times of war, the US required a president who went outside the law > to defend the country and then stepped back inside it. Some of what FDR > did > was unneeded: e.g. the internment of the Japanese. But, the pushing of the > boundaries of lend-lease, the use of US destroyers against Germany before > war was declared, etc. was necessary. > > In the case of the Civil war, the illegal arrest of the Maryland > legislators > on their way to a vote on secession from the Union was absolutely essential > to maintaining the Union. The fact that Lincoln could violate the > constitution to save it is amazing. But, it also shows the
Re: Farm subsidies
> unfortunately the domestic sheep population in new zealand numbers > over 75 million (mostly for export) and their hooves are destroying pasture > that used to be rain forest. > the human population is less than 5 million... > http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/sustainable-resource-use/organic-production/organic-farming-in-nz/org10005.htm#E11E5 Coincidentally I happen to be a New Zealander and shared a flight home from a Samoan holiday recently with a NZ MAF official who has the responsibility of drawing up policy on sustainable exploitation. NZ's population is just over 4 million (in a country 20% larger than the U.K), we have more like 60 millions sheep currently and not many of their pastures were rain forests (only the very North of NZ is sub-tropical, mostly we've a temperate climate). Our greatest problem at the moment is water wastage and pollution from fertiliser run off and dairy herd operations (dairying having boomed in recent years). NZ has no particular shortage of water but growing urban areas are creating bottle-necks of supply. Also, as climate change policy is very much in the news, arguments over levying of taxes/charges to meet our greenhouse reduction agreements. Farmers claim a special status where non-descriminating policy would hold them responsible for exactly their share of methane production. Our fisheries policy is much more rigorous and well implemented following very turbulent times in the 1980's when the whole thing was over-hauled as part of meeting Waitangi Treaty obligations (in 1840 the combined tribes of Maori signed a treaty with the British crown cedeing soveriegnty for property right gaurantees - european immigrants and governments often betrayed that treaty but in recent years have been making amends via a thorough judicial/arbitrary system that generally ends in government policy designed to fulfill Waitangi Tribunal recommendations). NZs fisheries were reorganized into a strictly quota managed operation where individuals would own and trade fishery quotas that are expanded or contracted by MAF (Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries) on the advice of their researchers into the health of our fisheries. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Farm subsidies
> The standard rational - supporting farmers is > supporting food security, but it generally > isn't true, because a vast proportion of farm > subsidies do not actively support the growing of > staple crops but merely corporate profits. > A considerable amount of farming subsidies > discourage actual farming. the rich countries > are not delivering on their promise of removing > farm subsidies and opening farm trade that > poorer nations can actually provide. > our seas are bcoming depleted with voracious > nations moving from fishery to fishery as they > exhaust them. some 40% of the worlds protein is > currently taken form the sea at unsustainable > rates while, again according to Jared Diamond, > expert opinion is that a wellmanaged fishing > industry could sustainably take twice the > current amount. very well put euan, i would add that more nations should follow the model of cuba and new zealand. unfortunately the domestic sheep population in new zealand numbers over 75 million (mostly for export) and their hooves are destroying pasture that used to be rain forest. the human population is less than 5 million... http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/sustainable-resource-use/organic-production/organic-farming-in-nz/org10005.htm#E11E5 http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1994/11/mm1194_06.html jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welfare fraud
Except that when you charge more, you tend not to be able to sell your crop at all. The pricing limits are pretty tight, and it's often a matter of taking what you can get for what you produce -- and like I said, if you have a good harvest and produce more, you're increasing the overall supply enough that the demand doesn't support the price anymore, so you end up making about the same thin margin. It's also different because there are a large number of variables that are pretty far out of your control, unless you spend *more* money on irrigation (and the water to run it, and these days, a lot of areas are slapping meters on *water wells* and billing for that too) and give up on your 3-5 year bid for organic certification and start soaking your crops with chemicals .. at which point you end up at the mercy of ADM or Monsanto or whoever when you give up and buy their GMO seed and you can't save your seed anymore (thanks to biopatents). If you're really genuinely farming the traditional way, there are far more ways for you to get screwed than there are to actually make money. The risks in other sorts of businesses are fairly hard to calculate, but they're at least predictable to some extent. The risks in farming are largely related to weather, and even today, meteorology is doing really well if it can predict 2 weeks in advance .. and we're talking about an investment that's counting on knowing what the weather is going to do for a full growing season. There are entire colleges at rural universities like Texas A&M dedicated to figuring some of this stuff out, and even the IRS acknowledges that farming is economically unique -- look closely at the 1040 package next year when it comes in and notice the special exceptions and rules that apply to farm income/ loss. And, again, the basic reality is that the business sector that most if not all of our food comes from, either directly or indirectly, is not one we can afford to play games with or risk having it collapse. Last estimate I heard was that there's about a 2 week supply of food in the supply chain. Enough said. On Sep 19, 2008, at 11:31 PM, Euan Ritchie wrote: > I don't understand how farming is supposed to be different from other > investments. You invest money/effort, reap the result, sell you > product > at the market price. If it's profitable you win, if it's not you lose. > > Same rules as for anyone. The risks are hard to calculate in farming > and > therefore they ought be trying to charge higher prices to compensate. "They love him at a barbecue, not so much with the nuclear launch codes." -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welfare fraud
> [snip] when you turn farmers loose and > try to hold them accountable to economic theories that don't take the > reality of farming into account, to sink or swim on their own, more > often than not, they sink. I don't understand how farming is supposed to be different from other investments. You invest money/effort, reap the result, sell you product at the market price. If it's profitable you win, if it's not you lose. Same rules as for anyone. The risks are hard to calculate in farming and therefore they ought be trying to charge higher prices to compensate. If local farmers can't get people to pay a high enough price to compensate them for their risk (a.k.a insurance against bad crops) it can only be because of cheaper competition - because without cheaper competition people will be compelled to pay the price of food. Thus if cheaper competition exists then it's simple market forces that put your farmers out of business - like any other, nothing peculiar to farming about it. That's where the security of food supply comes in - a rational person might feel uneasy about outsourcing their food production to other countries. It becomes a strategic target (and exactly the one Germany assaulted in the Atlantic battle of WW2). However to my mind if a government wants to ensure local production for security of supply the correct method is barring foreign imports rather than subsidising local producers so the internal market can be left to function with minimal distortion. If you're going to open up to foreign markets then you have to stop thinking about international relationships as zero sum games between competing nations and work harder on international institutions and integration to reduce the possibility of strategic assaults on the infrastructure you build. Problem is everyone wants to have cakes and eat them too - be independent nations while getting cheap goods from overseas. It's untenable. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
