Re: POLITICS -- economy and tractors and real food

[Guest guest]

Judith,

> When I say " crash the economy " I mean look at the billions of dollars that

> go to the major drug companies. Think what it would mean to the economy if

> that money, or a major portion of it stopped.

Bad companies going out of business is fantastic for the economy. Then the

resources can be redirected into something more worthwhile.

> Same way with heart disease. Few drugs needed, no more surgeries, no more

> doctor visits.

Right-- we'd free up resources from wasteful investment to put into useful

investment. That's great economics.

> Any one of those three happening would have a major effect on the economy.

> Factories shut down, jobs lost, etc.

Good. Lost jobs is one of the best things for the economy, because it means,

or can mean, new, better jobs gained.

> I do agree with you that sustainable farming could feed the world, and in a

> much healthier way than they are fed now. If worse came to worse we could go

> back to horses.

Or better, we could develop cleaner technology that improves on what we

already have.

> The idea of running tractors on vegetable oils sounds great. And they

> wouldn't have to be used oils. That's a far better use for the stuff than

> feeding it to people.

So there's a use for soy beans after all! :-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Good. Lost jobs is one of the best things for the economy, because it means,

>or can mean, new, better jobs gained.

Except, of course, when it means heightened unemployment, decreased

consumption, economic downturns, and hard times for most.

> > The idea of running tractors on vegetable oils sounds great. And they

> > wouldn't have to be used oils. That's a far better use for the stuff than

> > feeding it to people.

>

>So there's a use for soy beans after all! :-)

The idea of reaping fuel from farmland is ludicrous. First, it already

takes a large net _input_ of fossil fuels into farmland, both directly in

the form of fertilizer and indirectly in the form of energy use, to produce

biomass. Second, biomass production is falling overall even in the face of

increasing fossil fuel inputs because so much soil has been eroded and so

much fertility has been destroyed. Third, though the soil can be rebuilt,

there's apparently not ever going to be enough of it to feed the country

adequate good foods without a significant decrease in population, but our

population is instead expanding rapidly (though that may change soon).

Farmland and agricultural production capacity are not infinite

resources. You can't magically get something out of nothing.

-

[Guest guest]

At 01:13 PM 1/29/2004, you wrote:

>>So there's a use for soy beans after all! :-)

>

>The idea of reaping fuel from farmland is ludicrous

Yeah, but you can reap fuel from garbage ...

you have to get rid of the garbage anyway.

Esp. all those mad cows and hormone-affected

cows and virus infected chickens ... I say

we start some anything-into-oil plants ...

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>Yeah, but you can reap fuel from garbage ...

>you have to get rid of the garbage anyway.

>Esp. all those mad cows and hormone-affected

>cows and virus infected chickens ... I say

>we start some anything-into-oil plants ...

What, though, constitutes " garbage " ? I'd like to see mass composting of

agricultural waste and manures. Turning soil into biomass into oil and

then burning it will just dig us a hole and ultimately bury us in

it. Where's the replacement soil supposed to come from?

-

[Guest guest]

>What, though, constitutes " garbage " ? I'd like to see mass composting of

>agricultural waste and manures. Turning soil into biomass into oil and

>then burning it will just dig us a hole and ultimately bury us in

>it. Where's the replacement soil supposed to come from?

>

> -

Well, I'm with you on composting. But a lot of stuff doesn't

compost ... plastics would be FIRST on my list to turn back into

oil. Sewage too ... it composts, but it has toxins in it that you

don't want back on the land (the AIO technology separates

out the heavy metals for re-use). And any organics that people

are " afraid " to compost (you can compost a BSE cow, but

people won't want to, I think). Paper (it has heavy metals in it)

would be good, esp. the stuff that isn't easily recyclable (like

when it is soiled or has metals). In Seattle it is going to be a rule

that you HAVE to take out the recycles from your garbage, so

whatever is in the garbage won't be recyclable with the current

technology ... so why not break it down back into metals,

carbon, and oil? That garbage is never going to be biomass,

it's too contaminated. Breaking it down would get rid of junk

like PCBs and dioxin etc. too.

I think, given the overflow of garbage at most landfills,

that we won't run out of non-biomass garbage for awhile.

Actually I suspect if we went back to a high-meat agriculture

you could have acres and acres of grassland that would

build it's own topsoil again. Just run herds of buffalo

or longhorn like they used to. Aren't the main ingredients to

create biomass water, sunshine and some

trace minerals? -- the nitrogen and carbon

are grabbed by the plants from the air (except you

need nitrogen fixers to grab the nitrogen).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

In Europe and Canada there are multifuel woodstoves people use to heat their

homes. They run on more than a dozen fuels. U.S. doesn't allow them and I

doubt pollution is the reasoning. One fuel is corn. Thought that a great

use for genetically engineered corn. There's a guy locally who was trying to

get a biofuel plant going. It's tied up in licensing fees and permits at

outrageous prices so only corporations can afford it. Hampshire College

nearby has all their farm tractors on old cooking oil. Friend who has an oil

operated car told me he can only use his local sources now as the plant he

could buy from otherwise was told the local Air Force base needed it. Not

good business to explore if you don't want roadblocks. Have thought of

getting methane from our pond in an emergency.

> Yeah, but you can reap fuel from garbage ...

> you have to get rid of the garbage anyway.

> Esp. all those mad cows and hormone-affected

> cows and virus infected chickens ... I say

> we start some anything-into-oil plants ...

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>

>Heidi,

>

>In Europe and Canada there are multifuel woodstoves people use to heat their

>homes. They run on more than a dozen fuels. U.S. doesn't allow them and I

>doubt pollution is the reasoning. One fuel is corn. Thought that a great

>use for genetically engineered corn. There's a guy locally who was trying to

>get a biofuel plant going. It's tied up in licensing fees and permits at

>outrageous prices so only corporations can afford it. Hampshire College

>nearby has all their farm tractors on old cooking oil. Friend who has an oil

>operated car told me he can only use his local sources now as the plant he

>could buy from otherwise was told the local Air Force base needed it. Not

>good business to explore if you don't want roadblocks. Have thought of

>getting methane from our pond in an emergency.

Some folks around here are using cooking oil in cars. As far as houses,

we have lots of alders and we could burn them for fuel, but when

they built our house, they insulated it so well and placed

the windows in such a way that it doesn't need heating. Really.

The sad thing is, that made the house difficult to sell on the market,

because it doesn't have " central heat " . So it's not must regulations

you have to fight, it is people's perceptions.

Methane is pretty easy to produce, though a little hard to handle.

The L.A. sewage plant used to run (I'm not sure now) mainly

on the methane produced by sewage ... they didn't use electricity

from the grid. They only used a portion of the methane to run

the plant and sold the rest. But most of the sewage at the time

was never processed that far, just pumped out into the ocean.

When they fully processed the sewage (mostly by letting it

sit in tanks to ferment) they got methane, clear usable water,

and a thick sludge that they made into building bricks. Hmm.

That was 25 years ago, you'd think they would be even better

at it by now ... but a lot of sewage is still just dumped in the ocean.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

--- Heidi this sounds like the way to go. We'll have to get the soil

foodweb corrected in places where the toxic

fertilizers,herbicides,and pesticides applied have mostly destroyed

it. Dennis

In , Heidi

> Actually I suspect if we went back to a high-meat agriculture

> you could have acres and acres of grassland that would

> build it's own topsoil again. Just run herds of buffalo

> or longhorn like they used to. Aren't the main ingredients to

> create biomass water, sunshine and some

> trace minerals? -- the nitrogen and carbon

> are grabbed by the plants from the air (except you

> need nitrogen fixers to grab the nitrogen).

>

> -- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>

> >--- Heidi this sounds like the way to go. We'll have to get the

soil

> >foodweb corrected in places where the toxic

> >fertilizers,herbicides,and pesticides applied have mostly

destroyed

> >it. Dennis

>

> Thanks. Yeah, grass is amazing stuff. One couple was experimenting

> with using plants to " detox " superfund sites.

>

> The dirt in our area was scoured ... not by plows, but by glaciers.

Just

> letting grass grow will rebuild the soil. Grass seems to live in

sybiosis

> with ruminants though, and birds ... so yeah, lets put up some

fences,

> kick back, do email, and harvest a steer once in awhile ... shoot,

maybe

> harvest some grasshoppers while we are at it (why kill bugs? They

> are such a good source of protein ..).

>

> -- Heidi

<><><<>>><><><>Grinning here. I have not gotten the stomach and mind

adjusted yet to try grasshopppers!!!!!!

[Guest guest]

>--- Heidi this sounds like the way to go. We'll have to get the soil

>foodweb corrected in places where the toxic

>fertilizers,herbicides,and pesticides applied have mostly destroyed

>it. Dennis

Thanks. Yeah, grass is amazing stuff. One couple was experimenting

with using plants to " detox " superfund sites.

The dirt in our area was scoured ... not by plows, but by glaciers. Just

letting grass grow will rebuild the soil. Grass seems to live in sybiosis

with ruminants though, and birds ... so yeah, lets put up some fences,

kick back, do email, and harvest a steer once in awhile ... shoot, maybe

harvest some grasshoppers while we are at it (why kill bugs? They

are such a good source of protein ..).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

..

Methane is volatile. Didn't realize L.A. puts sewerage into ocean too.

Boston's system is so antiquated running street drains with sewer drains

that one inch of rain means everything gets diverted into Boston Harbor.

Grosses me out. Pond here is decaying plant matter only. Even get whiffs of

decay in winter with the ice burping at the stream it drains into.

> Methane is pretty easy to produce, though a little hard to handle.

> The L.A. sewage plant used to run (I'm not sure now) mainly

> on the methane produced by sewage ... they didn't use electricity

> from the grid. They only used a portion of the methane to run

> the plant and sold the rest. But most of the sewage at the time

> was never processed that far, just pumped out into the ocean.

> When they fully processed the sewage (mostly by letting it

> sit in tanks to ferment) they got methane, clear usable water,

> and a thick sludge that they made into building bricks. Hmm.

> That was 25 years ago, you'd think they would be even better

> at it by now ... but a lot of sewage is still just dumped in the ocean.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/29/04 11:08:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Except, of course, when it means heightened unemployment, decreased

> consumption, economic downturns, and hard times for most.

All that's true except decreased consumption, which would mean increased

production through saving. If industry fluctuations actually made any of those

occur, then you might consider them " bad, " but since they don't, the point is

moot.

> Farmland and agricultural production capacity are not infinite

> resources. You can't magically get something out of nothing.

No, but the earth's crust isn't going anywhere. Why don't we farm soil? A

few biotech experts and some ingenuity and someone should be able to figure out

how to use lithotrophic organisms to make more soil.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/30/04 9:39:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Technically sure, but in general, where consumption goes, production

> follows. If people aren't consuming things, producers aren't going to keep

> producing them indefinitely.

If people are consuming less and saving more, that doesn't mean nothing will

produced, it means that capital goods industries will benefit rather than

consumer goods industries. That would hardly lead to a downturn. The problem

is

when a boom happens from false signals sent by inflationary credit policies,

that mimic the signals of savings, that cause malinvestment in the form of

overinvestment in capital goods industries, which leads to a downturn to deflate

and correct the investments.

> International corporations (which have no fealty to any given country) are

> in general solely interested in maximizing their profits. They're not

> going to wait for an economic downturn in the US to move jobs

> (manufacturing, software engineering, paralegal research, whatever) to

> other countries, they'll do it as soon as conditions in other countries

> appear to allow them to get similar work done for less money. (I say

> " appear " because often enough they save less than they think, and sometimes

> they even lose money in the final analysis.)

That unemployment is a " lagging indicator " doesn't mean that corporations

wait for a downturn to lay people off, it means that unemployment rates

consistently rise *after* the downturn begins, while other indicators precede

it. This

is pretty much universally accepted, afaik, even by Keynesians. And it would

seem to indicate that unemployment does *not* cause downturns.

> When done on a mass scale, this eviscerates the ability of the American

> public to either save OR consume, because more and more of them lose their

> jobs and either stay unemployed or get new jobs which pay inferior

> wages. This isn't rocket science. Both the importation of cheap products

> (e.g. via Walmart) and the exporting of jobs harm the saving and purchasing

> power of the American public and therefore harm the US economy.

Lower prices means a boost in the purchasing power of consumers, not the

reverse, because the same money goes farther. Granted, the prices would lower

much more effectively without inflationary monetary policy.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> > Except, of course, when it means heightened unemployment, decreased

> > consumption, economic downturns, and hard times for most.

>

>All that's true except decreased consumption, which would mean increased

>production through saving. If industry fluctuations actually made any of

>those

>occur, then you might consider them " bad, " but since they don't, the point is

>moot.

We were talking about job losses, not " industry fluctuations " , whatever

that means -- unless you mean nothing more than job losses. If you're

actually suggesting that mass layoffs DON'T lead to increased unemployment,

decreased consumption, economic downturns, and hard times for most, or even

one of the above, then I have some present-day reality to acquaint you

with. Jobs are being offshored by the tens of thousands in many

sectors. The mass loss of jobs we're currently enjoying (and regardless of

actual blame, Bush is going to be the first president since Hoover to enjoy

a net loss of jobs during his term in office) hasn't magically sparked the

creation of abundant great new jobs to replace them, consumption is down,

the economy is at best experiencing a so-called jobless recovery, and more

and more people ARE going through hard times.

-

[Guest guest]

Quoting Idol <Idol@...>:

> We were talking about job losses, not " industry fluctuations " , whatever

> that means -- unless you mean nothing more than job losses. If you're

> actually suggesting that mass layoffs DON'T lead to increased

> unemployment,

> decreased consumption, economic downturns, and hard times for most, or

> even

> one of the above, then I have some present-day reality to acquaint you

> with.

Suppose, hypothetically, that someone were to develop a computer program

capable of developing any other program automatically and flawlessly. This

would completely destroy the software industry, putting millions of people

out of jobs. Obviously this would, in the short term, lead to an increase

in umemployment, but do you really think that economic downturn would

follow?

By the way, there's nothing wrong with decreased consumption in and of

itself. It's decreased production that's the real problem.

> Jobs are being offshored by the tens of thousands in many

> sectors. The mass loss of jobs we're currently enjoying (and regardless

> of

> actual blame, Bush is going to be the first president since Hoover to

> enjoy

> a net loss of jobs during his term in office) hasn't magically sparked

> the

> creation of abundant great new jobs to replace them, consumption is down,

> the economy is at best experiencing a so-called jobless recovery, and

> more

> and more people ARE going through hard times.

You're reversing cause and effect, though. What makes you think that the job

loss is causing the economic downturn, rather than the other way around?,

especially when unemployment is a lagging indicator (that is, it tends to

rise after the economy heads south)?

For the record, I don't think that this is really a jobless recovery,

because I don't think that it's a recovery.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

-

>Obviously this would, in the short term, lead to an increase

>in umemployment, but do you really think that economic downturn would

>follow?

Very likely, but it would depend in part on how many software (and

software-related) people were put out of work. Considering how many people

and kinds of jobs are involved, I wouldn't be surprised if millions of

people would lose their jobs overnight in such a scenario. How's the

economy supposed to absorb that without a downturn?

>By the way, there's nothing wrong with decreased consumption in and of

>itself. It's decreased production that's the real problem.

Technically sure, but in general, where consumption goes, production

follows. If people aren't consuming things, producers aren't going to keep

producing them indefinitely.

>You're reversing cause and effect, though. What makes you think that the job

>loss is causing the economic downturn, rather than the other way around?,

>especially when unemployment is a lagging indicator (that is, it tends to

>rise after the economy heads south)?

International corporations (which have no fealty to any given country) are

in general solely interested in maximizing their profits. They're not

going to wait for an economic downturn in the US to move jobs

(manufacturing, software engineering, paralegal research, whatever) to

other countries, they'll do it as soon as conditions in other countries

appear to allow them to get similar work done for less money. (I say

" appear " because often enough they save less than they think, and sometimes

they even lose money in the final analysis.)

When done on a mass scale, this eviscerates the ability of the American

public to either save OR consume, because more and more of them lose their

jobs and either stay unemployed or get new jobs which pay inferior

wages. This isn't rocket science. Both the importation of cheap products

(e.g. via Walmart) and the exporting of jobs harm the saving and purchasing

power of the American public and therefore harm the US economy.

>For the record, I don't think that this is really a jobless recovery,

>because I don't think that it's a recovery.

I agree. Note that I said that calling it a jobless recovery is the best

thing you could call it, not an accurate description.

-

[Guest guest]

>>Obviously this would, in the short term, lead to an increase

>>in umemployment, but do you really think that economic downturn would

>>follow?

>

>Very likely, but it would depend in part on how many software (and

>software-related) people were put out of work. Considering how many people

>and kinds of jobs are involved, I wouldn't be surprised if millions of

>people would lose their jobs overnight in such a scenario. How's the

>economy supposed to absorb that without a downturn?

and :

Also, if you take it to it's logical extreme (as Neal son

did in " Diamond Age " ) eventually you have a situation where

material goods can all be produced by machine, machines

can replace many service jobs, and machines can make

machines. Which is kind of the situation we are getting

to (with the added caveat that " cheap foreign labor " is

replacing people also).

Which is all well and good .. but now you have a model

where there are lots of goods and zero " real jobs " . THAT

is kind of like living in the South Seas islands pre-Cook --

everything you need is right there without working for it.

Except that in our current model, all the goods will be

there but no one can afford them, because the only way

to GET the goods is to have a job, but machines (and cheap

foreign labor) have all the jobs.

That process has been going on steadily for the last 200

years or so ... used to be, everyone was a hunter or

farmer. We automated farming, and the labor shifted

to the cities in manufacturing. Then we automated

manufacturing, and the labor shifted to service and professional.

Now we are automating service and professional ...

the only " job " that really pays is investing and being

rich.

I'm not against automation, mind you, but I think it

is going to " crack " the current economic system,

eventually. We'll have to come up with a different

model.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

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

From: " Idol " <Idol@...>

> -

> >Obviously this would, in the short term, lead to an increase

> >in umemployment, but do you really think that economic downturn would

> >follow?

>

> Very likely, but it would depend in part on how many software (and

> software-related) people were put out of work. Considering how many

people

> and kinds of jobs are involved, I wouldn't be surprised if millions of

> people would lose their jobs overnight in such a scenario. How's the

> economy supposed to absorb that without a downturn?

Absorb what? It would hurt for those employed by the software companies,

and businesses disproportionately patronized by us, but it would be a

great boon for everyone else. Think about it: You'd still be getting the

full benefit of the productive output of hundreds of thousands of

programmers, but it would be free. Every dollar that we lose in wages is

a dollar saved by the rest of you, so at this point it's a total wash

for the economy overall (actually, it's a net gain; we get all that

extra leisure time, so our loss is less than your gain). The economy

clearly comes out ahead when we start to get new jobs, because then you

have not only the software that we would have produced anyway, but also

everything that we produce in our new jobs. It's like we're all doing

the work of two men. This sort of labor-saving innovation has happened

on a smaller scale countless times over the past few centuries, but the

economy just keeps on growing.

Let's look at it another way. Suppose that there are a million people in

the software industry, making an average of $100,000 per year, and that

there are 250 million people in the US. Now, suppose that that we all

pool our salaries together and send a check for $400 to every man,

woman, and child in the US. Would that cause an economic downturn? If

not, how does it differ from the other scenario?

> >By the way, there's nothing wrong with decreased consumption in and

of

> >itself. It's decreased production that's the real problem.

>

> Technically sure, but in general, where consumption goes, production

> follows. If people aren't consuming things, producers aren't going to

keep

> producing them indefinitely.

You have it backwards again. It is consumption that is a function of

production, not the other way around. Remember Say's Law: Aggregate

demand must equal aggregate supply. Think about it this way: Suppose

that an EGCP (Evil Greedy Capitalist Pig) finds a way to double

productivity. Like all EGCPs, he's the product of the fevered

imagination of a leftist, so he does the illogical thing and fires half

of his employees, making sure to include all the ones with sick

children. What can he do with the savings? As I see it, he has three

options:

1. He can spend it on donuts. Exploitatin' is hungry work.

2. He can invest it in another EGCP's company.

3. He can stuff it in his mattress.

You already seem convinced that the first, consumption spending, is good

for the economy (I disagree). The second, investment, is better for the

economy. Money that's invested is spent to purchase new capital goods,

so in that sense, it's really not that much different from consumption

spending (although it is different in the sense that it promotes growth

by increasing productivity). The third option is rare, because most

people, especially EGCPs, prefer to earn interest on their savings. That

said, it's economically neutral. When people increase cash holdings,

this drives up the value of money, which drives prices down, which tends

to encourage both consumption and investment spending on the part of

those who aren't banking in their beds.

People tend to look at supply and demand as distinct, which is true at

the microeconomic level, but at the macroeconomic level, everybody and

everything is on both sides. It's not a matter of some people selling

and some people buying--it's a matter of everybody trading everything

for everything else, with money acting as an intermediate. You can have

glut in a particular sector, but the idea of general overproduction or

underconsumption is nonsensical.

I can't emphasize this point strongly enough. The notion that

consumption drives the economy indicates a horribly flawed understanding

of how economies work, and until we agree on the fundamentals, there's

no point in debating the more complex policy issues that depend on them.

> >For the record, I don't think that this is really a jobless recovery,

> >because I don't think that it's a recovery.

>

> I agree. Note that I said that calling it a jobless recovery is the

best

> thing you could call it, not an accurate description.

Non-recovery? Pit stop?