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: [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: 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: 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 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: [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/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]
Jim Devine wrote: Ok, so now we know there won't be Starbucks after the revolution. Finally a bit of detail. no loss! Starbucks burns its beans, producing inferior coffee. "I don't like it. It smells burnt." - Jackie Mason
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]
Jim Devine wrote: no loss! Starbucks burns its beans, producing inferior coffee. http://www.junofish.com/jackie.html A Dissent on Starbucks by Jackie Mason Starbucks is the best example of a phony status symbol that means nothing, but people will still pay 10x as much for because there are French words all over the place. You want coffee in a coffee shop, that's 60 cents. But at Starbucks, Cafe Latte: $3.50. Cafe Cremier: $4.50. Cafe Suisse: $9.50. For each French word, another four dollars. Why does a little cream in coffee make it worth $3.50? Go into any coffee shop; they'll give you all the cream you want until you're blue in the face. Forty million people are walking around in coffee shops with jars of cream: "Here's all the cream you want!" And it's still 60 cents. You know why? Because it's called "coffee." If it's Cafe Latte - $4.50. You want cinnamon in your coffee? Ask for cinnamon in a coffee shop; they'll give you all the cinnamon you want. Do they ask you for more money because it's cinnamon? It's the same price for cinnamon in your coffee as for coffee without cinnamon - 60 cents, that's it. But not in Starbucks. Over there, it's Cinnamonnier - $9.50. You want a refill in a regular coffee shop, they'll give you all the refills you want until you drop dead. You can come in when you're 27 and keep drinking coffee until you're 98. And they'll start begging you: "Here, you want more coffee, you want more, you want more?" Do you know that you can't get a refill at Starbucks? A refill is a dollar fifty. Two refills, $4.50. Three refills, $19.50. So, for four cups of coffee - $350. And it's burnt coffee. It's burnt coffee at Starbucks, let's be honest about it. If you get burnt coffee in a coffee shop, you call a cop. You say, "Oh, it's a blend. It's a blend." It's a special bean from Argentina. " The bean is in your head. And there're no chairs in those Starbucks. Instead, they have these high stools. You ever see these stools? You haven't been on a chair that high since you were two. Seventy-three year old Jews are climbing and climbing to get to the top of the chair. And when they get to the top, they can't even drink the coffee because there's 12 people around one little table, and everybody's saying, "Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me." Then they can't get off the chair. Old Jews are begging Gentiles, "Mister, could you get me off this?" Do you remember what a cafeteria was? In poor neighborhoods all over this country, they went to a cafeteria because there were no waiters and no service. And so poor people could save money on a tip. Cafeterias didn't have regular tables or chairs either. They gave coffee to you in a cardboard cup. So because of that you paid less for the coffee. You got less, so you paid less. It's all the same as Starbucks - no chairs, no service, a cardboard cup for your coffee - except in Starbucks, the less you get, the more it costs. By the time they give you nothing, it's worth four times as much. Am I exaggerating? Did you ever try to buy a cookie in Starbucks? Buy a cookie in a regular coffee shop. You can tear down a building with that cookie. And the whole cookie is 60 cents. At Starbucks, you're going to have to hire a detective to find that cookie, and it's $9.50. And you can't put butter on it because they want extra. Do you know that if you buy a bagel, you pay extra for cream cheese in Starbucks? Cream cheese, another 60 cents. A knife to put it on, 32 cents. If it reaches the bagel, 48 cents. That bagel costs you $312. And they don't give you the butter or the cream cheese. They don't give it to you. They tell you where it is. "Oh, you want butter? It's over there. Cream cheese? Over here. Sugar? Sugar is here." Now you become your own waiter. You walk around with a tray. "I'll take the cookie. Where's the butter? The butter's here. Where's the cream cheese? The cream cheese is there." You walked around for an hour and a half selecting items, and then the guy at the cash register has a glass in front of him that says "Tips." You're waiting on tables for an hour, and you owe him money. Then there's a sign that says please clean it up when you're finished. They don't give you a waiter or a busboy. Now you've become the janitor. Now you have to start cleaning up the place. Old Jews are walking around cleaning up Starbucks. "Oh, he's got dirt too? Wait, I'll clean this up." They clean up the place for an hour and a half. If I said to you, "I have a great idea for a business. I'll open a whole new type of a coffee shop. A whole new type. Instead of 60 cents for coffee I'll charge $2.50, $3.50, $4.50, and $5.50. Not only that, I'll have no tables, no chairs, no water, no busboy, and you'll clean it up for 20 minutes after you're finished." Would you say to me, "That's the greatest idea for a business I ever heard! We can open a chain of these all over the world!" No,
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/
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
