Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]
Ken,
When I was chair of the Manitoba Milk Control Board/ Milk Prices
Review Commission we found that medium size producers where
by far the most efficient producers -- i.e about 60 milking cows.
Large producers were not efficient and small producers were not
either although in this case, because they were usually part of
mixed farming operations, any standard measure of 'efficiency' is
highly suspect. As you know, the same debate is being blown up
at the moment about large scale versus small scale pig farming. I
would expect that when externalities were included, large scale
operations would cease to be economically efficient. Whether the
current investigation of this issue under way in Manitoba will look at
externalities is problematic. The NDP has developed blinkers as
opaque as its neanderthal Conservative predecessors.
Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba
ps. on a totally different strain, my understanding is that airline
pilots get a very high return out of owning/using dishwashers.
Since they can't fly when they have colds, the decrease in colds
due to dishwashers brings an enormous return in terms of decline
of lost wages. In my own family, the decline in colds/flus has been
incredible -- and we don't pre-wash our dishes.
Date sent:Fri, 30 Jun 2000 15:42:29 -0500
From: Ken Hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:21062] Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd:
Position in the
World-System and National Emissions of]
> Perhaps Louis could explain what he means by small farms being more productive.
> Even if it is true of some small farms producing some items I am not sure what
> its relevance is to anything. If you can grow 50,000 watermelon on 10 acres but
> only 90,000 on 20 acres and you have a profit of 20 cents per melon is the
> farmer supposed to choose to farm 10 acres on the ground that the smaller farm
> is more productive?
> I doubt that smaller farms are more productive around here as compared to
> larger ones but whether they are or are not they often end up being sold to
> larger farmers because farmers cannot make a living from them.
> There is a smidgin of truth in Mark's remarks but small farmers certainly
> are not dead. The term small farm is undefined by Lou. A small farm here would
> be around a section i.e. a square mile. In the foothills of the Rockies or the
> Aussie outback that size unit would be a joke. In Japan it would be beyond most
> farmer's dreams. I can recall Don Wheeler a former economics prof. lecturing in
> Hungary. When he told them that farmers with a quarter section of land would
> starve in most areas of Manitoba they were sure he was spouting Commie
> propaganda. THis was when Hungary was communist.
> It would be nice to have some statististics. I expect the trend is that
> larger farms are increeasingly responsible for a larger proportion of total
> production but that smaller farms may not be decreasing all that quickly in
> number. Many smaller farms survive by family members having off-farm jobs. In
> fact some larger farms may crash from cash-flow problems as they over-invest and
> then have a crop failure with resultant crushing debt loads. I expect that the
> number of hobby farms may be increasing as well. But where are the data?
> CHeers, Ken Hanly
>
> Mark Jones wrote:
>
> > Small farming is dead. It doesn't exist esp in the US. 'Farmers' are the
> > social equivalent of laundromat-owners, the economically disenfranchised,
> > overmortgaged persons who apply lots of energy and toxic chemicals to things
> > and hope for the best. In the UK, the class of prepacked sandwich-makers is
> > more numerous than the class of farmers. I'm sure it's the same in the US.
> >
> > Mark Jones
> > http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
> > > Sent: 30 June 2000 17:37
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: [PEN-L:21031] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the
> > > World-System and National Emissions of]
> > >
> > >
> > > Louis Proyect wrote:
> > >
> > > >Doug:
> > > >>Does the revo also mean there won't be modern transportation,
> > > >>chemical fertilizers, mechnized plowing and reaping, etc.? Then
> > > >>there's truly no way to sustain a world population of more than, say,
> > > >>a billion people, maybe fewer - meaning that at least 80% of us have
> > >
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]
>humaneness. But even small farms use modern transportation and >machines. > >Doug I'm sorry I have to spell all of this out. It is not exactly a function of small versus big, although in haste I might have given that impression. The problem is that modern transportation systems have facilitated the physical separation of livestock from the fields, where crops are being grown. This leads to all sorts of problems, including pigshit pollution in North Carolina, etc., and reliance on chemical fertilizers. Such crops tend to be cultivated in separation not only from the farm animals, but from other plants that in the past furnished complementary enrichment of the soil. So in order to compensate for this lack and to make them less vulnerable to attacks by weeds and insects, the agrarian bourgeoisie relies on insecticides and herbicides. The problem--in a nutshell--is that modern farming is not sustainable in an ecological sense. Smaller farms tend to have more of a mix of livestock and various flora, which makes them generally more organic. But in the final analysis, they are reliant on the same technologies because of competition and hence end up adopting practices that are not ecologically sustainable. As I told you yesterday, all this is discussed in the MR journal on agriculture. If you would read this and any recent Worldwatch State of the World, you'd understand the issues much better. In fact as a public intellectual speaking on behalf of the left and having embraced the Seattle protests, it is almost unbelievable how innocent you are of the issues. You might also take a look at the foodfirst and globalexchange web pages. Frances Ford Lappe's books are indispensable. And so on. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]
Perhaps Louis could explain what he means by small farms being more productive. Even if it is true of some small farms producing some items I am not sure what its relevance is to anything. If you can grow 50,000 watermelon on 10 acres but only 90,000 on 20 acres and you have a profit of 20 cents per melon is the farmer supposed to choose to farm 10 acres on the ground that the smaller farm is more productive? I doubt that smaller farms are more productive around here as compared to larger ones but whether they are or are not they often end up being sold to larger farmers because farmers cannot make a living from them. There is a smidgin of truth in Mark's remarks but small farmers certainly are not dead. The term small farm is undefined by Lou. A small farm here would be around a section i.e. a square mile. In the foothills of the Rockies or the Aussie outback that size unit would be a joke. In Japan it would be beyond most farmer's dreams. I can recall Don Wheeler a former economics prof. lecturing in Hungary. When he told them that farmers with a quarter section of land would starve in most areas of Manitoba they were sure he was spouting Commie propaganda. THis was when Hungary was communist. It would be nice to have some statististics. I expect the trend is that larger farms are increeasingly responsible for a larger proportion of total production but that smaller farms may not be decreasing all that quickly in number. Many smaller farms survive by family members having off-farm jobs. In fact some larger farms may crash from cash-flow problems as they over-invest and then have a crop failure with resultant crushing debt loads. I expect that the number of hobby farms may be increasing as well. But where are the data? CHeers, Ken Hanly Mark Jones wrote: > Small farming is dead. It doesn't exist esp in the US. 'Farmers' are the > social equivalent of laundromat-owners, the economically disenfranchised, > overmortgaged persons who apply lots of energy and toxic chemicals to things > and hope for the best. In the UK, the class of prepacked sandwich-makers is > more numerous than the class of farmers. I'm sure it's the same in the US. > > Mark Jones > http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood > > Sent: 30 June 2000 17:37 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [PEN-L:21031] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the > > World-System and National Emissions of] > > > > > > Louis Proyect wrote: > > > > >Doug: > > >>Does the revo also mean there won't be modern transportation, > > >>chemical fertilizers, mechnized plowing and reaping, etc.? Then > > >>there's truly no way to sustain a world population of more than, say, > > >>a billion people, maybe fewer - meaning that at least 80% of us have > > >>to go. > > > > > >You don't seem to be aware that smaller farms are more productive than > > >large agribusiness type concerns. > > > > Where did I endorse large agribusiness? If small farms are more > > productive, then let's have more of them; I'm all for separating the > > imperatives of capital from those of real social efficiency and > > humaneness. But even small farms use modern transportation and > > machines. > > > > Doug > > > >
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]
Small farming is dead. It doesn't exist esp in the US. 'Farmers' are the social equivalent of laundromat-owners, the economically disenfranchised, overmortgaged persons who apply lots of energy and toxic chemicals to things and hope for the best. In the UK, the class of prepacked sandwich-makers is more numerous than the class of farmers. I'm sure it's the same in the US. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood > Sent: 30 June 2000 17:37 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:21031] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the > World-System and National Emissions of] > > > Louis Proyect wrote: > > >Doug: > >>Does the revo also mean there won't be modern transportation, > >>chemical fertilizers, mechnized plowing and reaping, etc.? Then > >>there's truly no way to sustain a world population of more than, say, > >>a billion people, maybe fewer - meaning that at least 80% of us have > >>to go. > > > >You don't seem to be aware that smaller farms are more productive than > >large agribusiness type concerns. > > Where did I endorse large agribusiness? If small farms are more > productive, then let's have more of them; I'm all for separating the > imperatives of capital from those of real social efficiency and > humaneness. But even small farms use modern transportation and > machines. > > Doug > >
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]
Jim, I live in England. Here, all sorts of people throw queenie fits, starting with the Queen. Portugese waiters do it (and waiters of all nationalities). Mostly actors do it. That is what they are famous for. Probably gay people do it less than the rest of us; they're probably more worked out. You don't like to be baited and neither do I. I have a history of supporting gay causes and issues going back to the 1960s, when to be gay was illegal and the subject was a taboo-covered perversion. So don't try to hang that on me, it is utterly absurd as anyone who knows me, knows. England is not America. Language usage is different. Keep talking economics, it's what you're good at. If I have offended you I am heartily sorry. It gave you an excuse to avoid debate. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Devine > Sent: 30 June 2000 03:36 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:21003] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the > World-System and National Emissions of] > > > At 01:49 AM 06/30/2000 +0100, you wrote: > >Yelling at people that they are atavists, apocalyptics etc, > doesn't answer > >any more than Jim Devine throwing queenie fits answers the questions. > > so Mr. Jones is gay-bashing me? I find that insults are always the last > refuge of the fuzzy thinker. In any event, though Jones thinks of this as > an insult, I do not. My sister is gay and she is an excellent person. > However, I think that gay-bashing does not belong on pen-l. > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine > >
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of] (fwd)
Growth of 0% is fine, but unfoprtunately it's not happening, especially in the US, where the population may rise to 500mn by 2050 and not stop there, either. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList - Original Message - From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 11:32 PM Subject: [PEN-L:20981] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of] (fwd) > >sustainable than the U.S. But is a growth rate of 0 low enough? Could > >we feed and house 6 billion people if we all spent our time searching > >for "Jack-in-the-Pulpits or fishing for pickerel"? That kind of rural > >leisure is available to someone living in a rich country; in a poor > >country, you'd be more likely tilling the soil or grinding corn from > >dawn til dusk. These apocalpytic imaginings aren't serious politics, > >they're just lurid fantasies. > > > >Doug > > My dear chap, I was trying to respond to your question about the > existential authenticity of my living on the Upper East Side 3 blocks from > Woody Allen, while defending a simple life close to nature. Now you've > switched gears in the most underhanded fashion and talk about > overpopulation, a legitimate topic of social science rather than pop > psychology. I ought to put a hungry wolverine in your knickers. > > Louis Proyect > Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/ > >
