Re: Re: POLITICS, Gliadin and antioxidants

[Guest guest]

Joe,

Was pie in the sky more than a pitch for anyone really being able to put

health before corporate profit. Have no beef with corn feeding (pun

intended) and know it's history well being a farm girl in Massachusetts. If

the statement no longer appears under the agricultural issue on the website

its been removed. It was there a few months ago. It didn't specify anything

other than more of a free market to the beef raisers who are not in the

circle of those paid and contracted by the big beef corporations and the

industry not owning the beef. Is that not good? With a doctor hormones could

be the issue rather than corn.

Wanita

From: " Joe " <jzbozzi@...>

> Yeah! Howeard Dean is gonna save us! But curious, no mention of the

> USDA on his web site. Oh I get it, the government gets to create

> problems, and then they get to save us from the problem! Kind of

> like terrorism, and health care, and... brilliant!

>

> " Corn is a mainstay of livestock diets because there is no other

> feed quite as cheap or plentiful: thanks to federal subsidies and

> ever-growing surpluses, the price of corn ($2.25 a bushel) is 50

> cents less than the cost of growing it. The rise of the modern

> factory farm is a direct result of these surpluses, which soared in

> the years following World War II, when petrochemical fertilizers

> came into widespread use. Ever since, the U.S.D.A.'s policy has been

> to help farmers dispose of surplus corn by passing as much of it as

> possible through the digestive tracts of food animals, converting it

> into protein. Compared with grass or hay, corn is a compact and

> portable foodstuff, making it possible to feed tens of thousands of

> animals on small plots of land. Without cheap corn, the modern

> urbanization of livestock would probably never have occurred. "

>

> http://www.nehbc.org/pollan1.html

>

>

> > Read a Dean Rolling Stone interview where he said his

> health and

> > environment decisions will be from scientific proof. Keep it in

> mind. :-) On

> > his agriculture agenda at his website is confronting the big beef

> industry

> > leaders under antitrust laws, same as Microsoft, so they cannot

> own large

> > amounts of beef, dictate raising and continue to control the

> market and

> > health of the beef. Doesn't hurt to imagine what could be without

> crash and

> > burn mindsets.

> > >

> > > I found this very interesting ... gliadin seems to promote free

> radicals

> > > -- maybe that is why we need so much Vit C on the Western

> diet ...

> >

> > Wanita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/24/04 5:16:25 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> It didn't specify anything

> other than more of a free market to the beef raisers who are not in the

> circle of those paid and contracted by the big beef corporations and the

> industry not owning the beef. Is that not good?

Wanita,

Are you using this Orwellian type of speech deliberately? Government is

going to intervene to make a " free market " by breaking up companies?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/25/04 9:08:37 AM Eastern Standard Time,

jzbozzi@... writes:

> If one person forces by law his idea of what a " free market " in beef

> should look like, that is totalitarianism, not free. Free markets

> only arise when 300 million Americans are allowed to make their own

> decisions every single second of every single day about what they

> think is right with zero interference from anyone. That is a

> powerful thing and over time always works out the best solutions to

> problems, even if at the present moment the solution is no

> immediately apparent to all of us (it takes some faith).

I think it takes less faith than science. Economic theory is very rich, and

unfortuantely most people know little about it (myself included). But the

more I do learn, the clearer it becomes that free markets produce the best

results, not based on faith, but based on economic science.

If the > entrenched laws, regulations, and subsidies of the USDA and

> politicians destroyed the beef industry, do you really think more

> laws, regulations, and subsidies are going to fix it?

Exactly. If Dean wants a " free market " for the beef industry, all he has to

do is get rid of the subsidies, regulations, and price controls. American

agriculture gets a full 20% of its income from the government-- there's no way

you could possibly maintain that and claim to have a " free market. "

Chris

[Guest guest]

Wanita,

> Laws don't create free markets. Freedom to choose does.

Exactly.

> Want it clear this is not USDA or any other government subsidies.

Thus, it's a free market (with those assumptions).

Its big

> beef industry corporate subsidy contracts between themselves and some beef

> ranchers.

In other words, it's private citizens forming voluntary contracts between

themselves-- the very definition of a free market.

> No one can compete with that even with other subsidies

> because not only do they have to set up their farm they have to buy

> livestock and raise them. Same done with poultry. Not sure about pork.

A " free market " has nothing to do with the guarantee of ability to compete.

I don't have any beef cows at all, thus I don't have any chance of competing.

Does that mean that the market isn't " free " for me? Of course not. Just the

same, if an independent farmer can't compete with a farmer contracting to a

corporate distributor, that's no indication the market isn't " free. "

A free market means that any individual or corporation or cooperative or any

other entity, individual or collective, engages in voluntary exchange and

voluntary contracts of any sort they choose, and are fully responsible for any

liabilities they incur. You might not want this situation, but that's what a

free market is.

<<<<Economic science needs agriculture more than agriculture ever needed

economic science. Economics is a product of state, government and global

market trade. Has little to do with the true farmer or agriculturist, not

monoculturist who survives today even on the common sense of how nature and

the community work along with a big dose of faith.>>>>

This just indicates to me that you have very limited familiarity with

economic science. All humans make rational choices to act in such a way as to

maximize their happiness or minimize their discomfort. This is the foundation

of

economic science, and it is no less true of a smal farmer than it is of a person

investing in a global corporation. All economic science proceeds from this

concept.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/25/04 2:44:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Once again you addressed the ethics for the libertarian's right, not all

> farmer's nature or ethics, which is justified in the premise that it is

> everyone's nature " to be " or " be made " competitive. You might be interested

> in reading Darwinian Politics: The Evolutionary Origin of Freedom by H.

> Rubin, a Libertarian who found while writing this book how rigid his ideals

> were.

No, Wanita, I didn't. I didn't address anyone's " right " to anything. I

addressed the -definition- of " free market. " Again, I'd said:

>You might not want this situation, but that's what a free market is.

In other words, independent of any value judgment whatever, the defnition of

a " free market " is such. I wasn't arguing for or against a free market, I was

stating what one is.

Second, I didn't claim that competitiveness is a farmer's nature.

Competition is, of course, an inherent *part* of human nature, and every human

engages

in it in some way or another. For example, you and I are essentially engaging

in a competition right now, of which a debate is a type. We might not have as

a conscious goal to " win " or to be " better " than the other; however, we are

each presenting each other with conflicting views, and, in doing so, are

stimulated to provide the best arguments we can use to support our views (given

our

resources, including willingness to spend time), which is the fundamental

dynamic of competition in any sphere.

But aside from that, what I said was not that it is in a famer's nature to be

" competitive, " and, in fact, I don't believe I used the word " competition " at

all. What I said was that it is in the nature of all humans to engage in

action with the intent of removing some uneasiness or bringing about some

hapiness.

This is dependent on the indivudal's values. Economics does not assume that

maximizing monetary profit necessarily maximizes happiness. Economics assumes

that every indidual has her own set of values that inform her own actions.

One person might value giving up the pursuit of earthly goods to attain divine

knowledge. Economics assumes that she will act to maximize her happiness or

minimize her uneasiness as much as the person who values pursuing material

goods to maximize her acquisition of material wealth, and that each will make

rational choices to pursue each goal.

And finally, the basic laws of supply and demand apply to any farmer who

participates in a market, regardless of the size of any operation. The farmer

who

does *not* value increasing her standard of living by trading her goods in

voluntary exchange will *not* engage in interactions subject to these laws.

This person, could, for example, live in a commune. Economics allows for these

personal decisions and does not assume that the laws that govern markets would

govern such interactions. However, IF the farmer trades in voluntary exchange

and owns property, all interactions are subject to the economic laws of

markets. For example, there is currently a shortage of supply of pasture-raised

organic lard relative to demand, thus, MHOF's lard rose from $6/qt to $8.50/qt.

this year, and she still ran out of a year's supply in three months. Thus,

economics would predict that either more suppliers will sell lard, or the price

will go up again next year. MHOF is a small family farm with WAPF-compatible

values.

So, in sum, humans do not engage in interactions that are exempt from the

principles and laws of economics. Humans DO engage in non-market interactions,

which are therefore exempt from the laws of markets. Perhaps you are confusing

the two; I'm not sure.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Understand you, Joe. Laws don't create free markets. Freedom to choose does.

Want it clear this is not USDA or any other government subsidies. Its big

beef industry corporate subsidy contracts between themselves and some beef

ranchers. Covers the cost of acquiring the beef, raising, processing, how

its to be done and what goes to market when. Contract corporation owns the

beef not the rancher. No one can compete with that even with other subsidies

because not only do they have to set up their farm they have to buy

livestock and raise them. Same done with poultry. Not sure about pork.

Wanita

From: " Joe " <jzbozzi@...>

> If one person forces by law his idea of what a " free market " in beef

> should look like, that is totalitarianism, not free. Free markets

> only arise when 300 million Americans are allowed to make their own

> decisions every single second of every single day about what they

> think is right with zero interference from anyone. That is a

> powerful thing and over time always works out the best solutions to

> problems, even if at the present moment the solution is no

> immediately apparent to all of us (it takes some faith). If the

> entrenched laws, regulations, and subsidies of the USDA and

> politicians destroyed the beef industry, do you really think more

> laws, regulations, and subsidies are going to fix it? I think it's

> just more posturing and phony election year garbage from

> politicians. Several small grass based farmers have told me they

> simply cannot compete with the big guys cause of all the subsidies.

[Guest guest]

Economic science needs agriculture more than agriculture ever needed

economic science. Economics is a product of state, government and global

market trade. Has little to do with the true farmer or agriculturist, not

monoculturist who survives today even on the common sense of how nature and

the community work along with a big dose of faith.

> I think it takes less faith than science. Economic theory is very rich,

and

> unfortuantely most people know little about it (myself included). But the

> more I do learn, the clearer it becomes that free markets produce the best

> results, not based on faith, but based on economic science.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Once again you addressed the ethics for the libertarian's right, not all

farmer's nature or ethics, which is justified in the premise that it is

everyone's nature " to be " or " be made " competitive. You might be interested

in reading Darwinian Politics: The Evolutionary Origin of Freedom by H.

Rubin, a Libertarian who found while writing this book how rigid his ideals

were.

> A " free market " has nothing to do with the guarantee of ability to

compete.

> I don't have any beef cows at all, thus I don't have any chance of

competing.

> Does that mean that the market isn't " free " for me? Of course not. Just

the

> same, if an independent farmer can't compete with a farmer contracting to

a

> corporate distributor, that's no indication the market isn't " free. "

>

> A free market means that any individual or corporation or cooperative or

any

> other entity, individual or collective, engages in voluntary exchange and

> voluntary contracts of any sort they choose, and are fully responsible for

any

> liabilities they incur. You might not want this situation, but that's

what a

> free market is.

> This just indicates to me that you have very limited familiarity with

> economic science. All humans make rational choices to act in such a way

as to

> maximize their happiness or minimize their discomfort. This is the

foundation of

> economic science, and it is no less true of a smal farmer than it is of a

person

> investing in a global corporation. All economic science proceeds from

this

> concept.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/25/04 8:17:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> You don't get it, Chris. You're allowing for personal libertarian

> sovereignty over personal property, a better boundary around it, freer

> people inside the boundary.

I have no idea what you just said.

At the same time free markets are creating more

> competition to the sovereign's quality of life, crossing the boundary back

> in.

A free market doesn't force you to compete with anyone. It *allows* you to

compete. That's the whole point-- with freedom, you can choose to own your own

property, or own property collectively, to participate in capitalism, or to

build your own socialist microcosm with likeminded people providing you use

your own efforts to build it, you are free to interact with other people, or

keep

to yourself.

Will the telemarketing calls increase with this more competitive freer

> market?

If this is a concern to you, you can get an unlisted phone number. Also, if

the market is allowed to progress, I'm positive technology will be offered to

help people avoid this problem, just as technology has been made available--

because someone provided it for a profit-- to block spam on the internet.

Will the junk mail increase with more competing for a piece of the

> pie?

I doubt it, though there are ways to get around this too, such as calling the

senders and asking them to take you off their lists, or just throwing it

away. If the post office were privatized, I wouldn't be surprised if the issue

were made much easier-- such as requesting them to not put commercial mail in

your box, for a fee.

Besides, *you're* the one that's advocating breaking up companies. Obviously

breaking up companies would lead to more companies, not less, which would

mean more, not less, commercial mail.

Do I get to chargeback for my time that the dealing with those

> crossings of my boundary imposed?

What?

In any case, I'm certainly not the one missing the point. I'm not sure how

many times I'm going have to state in this thread that I've been speaking to

the *definition* of " free market, " not making a value judgment. You claimed

government intervention to force companies apart was a " free market. " It isn't.

If you don't like free markets, that's fine. But don't claim a free market

is achieved through government intervention, which is purely Orwellian.

Chris

[Guest guest]

You don't get it, Chris. You're allowing for personal libertarian

sovereignty over personal property, a better boundary around it, freer

people inside the boundary. At the same time free markets are creating more

competition to the sovereign's quality of life, crossing the boundary back

in. Will the telemarketing calls increase with this more competitive freer

market? Will the junk mail increase with more competing for a piece of the

pie? Do I get to chargeback for my time that the dealing with those

crossings of my boundary imposed?

Wanita

[Guest guest]

<<This just indicates to me that you have very limited familiarity with

economic science. All humans make rational choices to act in such a way as to

maximize their happiness or minimize their discomfort. This is the foundation

of economic science, and it is no less true of a smal farmer than it is of a

person investing in a global corporation. All economic science proceeds from

this concept.>>

farmers and agriculture existed and functioned well before 'science' in it's

current western application, was invented.... not all people are rational or

make rational choices OR choices that would meet your specific take on any given

subject... nor is everyone so quick to dismiss others because they offer

different ways of looking at things [or ignore them, as the case might be]...

BTW... you should really have put the FOUNDATION OF ECONOMIC SCIENCE in

parenthesis as it's not a fact of life but rather a book title of one of your

current heroes...

Dedy

[Guest guest]

Quoting Rundle <Dpdg@...>:

> <<This just indicates to me that you have very limited familiarity with

> economic science. All humans make rational choices to act in such a way

> as to maximize their happiness or minimize their discomfort. This is the

> foundation of economic science, and it is no less true of a smal farmer

> than it is of a person investing in a global corporation. All economic

> science proceeds from this concept.>>

>

> farmers and agriculture existed and functioned well before 'science' in

> it's current western application, was invented....

They also engaged in respiration before biology, chemistry, and physics were

invented. That doesn't make them any less valid. The purpose of science is

to model the universe and the way it works, and economic science does

provide a valid model for the way people and animals behave.

> not all people are rational or make rational choices

No comment.

> OR choices that would meet your specific take on any given subject...

What does this have to do with anything?

> nor is everyone so quick to dismiss

> others because they offer different ways of looking at things [or ignore

> them, as the case might be]...

Perhaps people would be more inclined to take you seriously if you would

attempt to present a serious argument rather than speaking in mystical

cliches and Oprahisms and self-righteously flaunting your distaste for

science and reason. What was it you said the last time I responded to one

of your posts? That you don't like to play " not-listening games? " Well, I

don't like to spend my time playing not-thinking games.

> BTW... you should really have put the FOUNDATION OF ECONOMIC SCIENCE in

> parenthesis as it's not a fact of life but rather a book title of one of

> your current heroes...

It wasn't very clever the first time, and it's certainly not very clever the

third time, especially since " parenthesis " is the singular form of

" parentheses, " and since they have not traditionally been used to denote

titles.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

,

You're quoting here, not me, the triple posting happened as my PC was

crashing while trying to send my reply -- Dedy

Quoting Rundle <Dpdg@...>:

> <<This just indicates to me that you have very limited familiarity with

> economic science. All humans make rational choices to act in such a way

> as to maximize their happiness or minimize their discomfort. This is the

> foundation of economic science, and it is no less true of a smal farmer

> than it is of a person investing in a global corporation. All economic

> science proceeds from this concept.>>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/28/04 8:31:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Dpdg@... writes:

> You're quoting here, not me, the triple posting happened as my PC was

> crashing while trying to send my reply -- Dedy

Dedy, he quoted your post right underneath mine, and responded to the points

you made.

Chris

>

> Quoting Rundle <Dpdg@...>:

>

> ><<This just indicates to me that you have very limited familiarity with

> >economic science. All humans make rational choices to act in such a way

> >as to maximize their happiness or minimize their discomfort. This is the

> >foundation of economic science, and it is no less true of a smal farmer

> >than it is of a person investing in a global corporation. All economic

> >science proceeds from this concept.>>

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

> In a message dated 1/28/04 8:31:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> Dpdg@... writes:

>

> > You're quoting here, not me, the triple posting happened as my

PC was

> > crashing while trying to send my reply -- Dedy

>

> Dedy, he quoted your post right underneath mine, and responded to the

points

> you made.

If you want to call them points, then yes, that's pretty much how it

happened. When I reply, I prefix everything with a '>' marker, add an

attribution at the top, and delete whatever doesn't need to be there

anymore (see above). If the person to whom I'm replying can't be

bothered to quote and attribute according to accepted conventions, then

I can't be bothered to make corrections when replying.

[Guest guest]

<<Dedy, he quoted your post right underneath mine, and responded to the points

you made.>>

,

please note that 's post began with --

<< Quoting Rundle <Dpdg@...>:>>

followed immediately by YOUR post and NOT separating it from my response to you

....

Dedy

> ><<This just indicates to me that you have very limited familiarity with

> >economic science. All humans make rational choices to act in such a way

> >as to maximize their happiness or minimize their discomfort. This is the

> >foundation of economic science, and it is no less true of a smal farmer

> >than it is of a person investing in a global corporation. All economic

> >science proceeds from this concept.>>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/29/04 3:50:18 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Dpdg@... writes:

> please note that 's post began with --

>

> <<Quoting Rundle <Dpdg@...>:>>

>

> followed immediately by YOUR post and NOT separating it from my response to

> you ...

No, the text you quoted from me was clearly distinct from your own message by

the " << " and " >> " marks preceeding and following my text, indicating a quote.

Furthermore, it was entirely apparent that he was responding to the

individual lines of your text that he quoted, simply based on what he said.

Surely you

don't think he was confusing my text with yours and responding to me?

Chris