Society without property?

I don't think I owe any apology. I kept referring to capacity and you kept referring to the actually rate of production. That's not what capacity is. Look through my posts again. Provide me with a quote that says my school is teaching that communism is the best way to live.This is why I lost my patience in my last post. You kept twisting my words.

I twisted your words, oh piss off! I specifically said I couldn't find anything on the US food production capacity, so I presented data on US grain production and how to meet the world's need for grain would mean that the US would have to grow 30 times as much grain as they currently do. I even conceded that it might be possible. Your original post said you were taught that the US could produce enough food to feed the planet several times over and I thought that was overstating what is actually realistically possible. Several times over with several being, let's say 6, would be an increase of 18000% over current levels of grain production.You're the one who then carps on about "capacity" without providing any information. So put up or shutup! Provide information about US food generating capacity being able to feed the world serveral times over or just keep quiet!This message has been edited by kjsimons, 04-25-2005 12:58 PMThis message has been edited by kjsimons, 04-25-2005 02:16 PM

Well now, I must admit I was being hostile but you just exceeded me by several times there. I think I will shut up intead of continuing on with this. Have a good day.

Terribly sorry we didn't get to this sooner.There are forum guidelines for how debates are to be conducted, and this is very far outside of them. The whole tenor of this thread needs to change, or it will close or suspensions will be issued (depending on whether everyone or just one or two persist in this vein).

To try and bring this back to a discussion that will be supported by the admins, let me just say this, as some one who works as a professional biologist in support of agricultural production in this country, particularly in the 'grain basket'.If it wasn't for all the distorted subsidies provided by the USDA and other government agencies, wheat production (or even cotton production) wouldn't even be economically viable in this country.If we really wanted to follow conservative ideals and let the free market reign, we'd buy most of our wheat from Canada and other countries where production costs are MUCH lower.If it wasn't for the fact that the midwestern agricultural states comprise low-density population regions that are relatively cheap votes to buy for the right-wing interests, we wouldn't see such illogical, anti-free market pandering to agricultural interests.

I'm no expert in grain production, not even a biologist, though I thought about going into biology before I went into Computer Engineering. What in your opinion makes the Canadian product cheaper? Is it the lower value of their currency, better yields, lower labor rates, cheap water,... ?I think part of the reason we subsudise the growing of grains is that we as a country don't want to lose the ability to grow our own food. Obviously politics (pandering to the farmers is good business in the grain belt) plays a major role but is not the only reason.

You have put your finger on exactly the *original* justification for Ag-subsidies.
Not just in the US, but everywhere in the developed world.
Self-sufficiency in food production.Unfortunately, it has gone way beyond that.
In the industrialized world, we have succeeded so eminently in food production that we are no longer subsidizing production for our *consumers*, but rather for our *producers* so they can chase export markets.This drives down the price of commodities worldwide and diminishes the ability of subsistence farmers in poor countries (that can't afford subsidies) to get a fair price for their crops. That's a good question, and not being an economist I am not sure I have the full answer.
The wheat farmers in Montana will tell you that Canadian wheat is more heavily subsidized than theirs is
...but that depends how you define a 'subsidy'.American wheat has a lot of indirect subsidies too, but a lot of what you mention factors in as well.
A favorable currency exchange rate, probably some lower costs of production, but it would be a very complicated calculation to figure out all the factors and how they add up to the final price.

I saw a news report about some Carribean Island nation (might have been Jamaica) where the locals can no longer afford to produce their own milk or chickens because the US has such a large oversupply of milk and the dark meat of chickens that we sell it to them at below what it would cost them to produce. The net effect is that the locals are poorer than ever and their country gets into ever deeper debt with foreign banks.

That kind of story is reiterated all over the world.It is the same with cotton production in Africa,
something that could raise the standard of living for more than 100 million farmers in sub-Saharan regions.(American farmers received almost $ 5 billion in subsidies in 2003 !)The best form of foreign aid we can provide the developing world is not welfare food aid, but fair prices for their own local products.

I agree, but unfortunately, for the developing world, US farmers/food producers have the power to vote so the politicians pander to them.

They are also considered very 'cheap' votes by demographers because agricultural areas typically have low population density.
You have a lot fewer votes to 'buy' to win a seat.But the real 'tragedy of the commons' is this.Everyone (internationally) agrees that Ag. subsidies are bad, but no one is willing to do anything about them.This is because the first country to phase them out is going to disadvantage their own farmers relative to everyone else.The only way to prevent this would be for all countries to do the same thing all at once. And what would you think the chance of that is, when they the WTO can't even arrive at a universally accepted definition of what a subsidy is ?

correct me if im wrong bu twouldn't this be an arguement against America feeding the world?"the locals can no longer afford to produce their own milk or chickens because the US has such a large oversupply of milk and the dark meat of chickens that we sell it to them at below what it would cost them to produce. The net effect is that the locals are poorer than ever and their country gets into ever deeper debt with foreign banks."could we sell them food for any cheaper than giving them food for free?

No, not really. The biggest problem with the US feeding the world, is that the part of the world that needs to be feed doesn't have enough money to buy the food and our farmers don't want to give it away because they need money from their crops to keep farming.The problem in this case is that this country doesn't have much industry, but they did have a functioning dairy and poultry industry. When they went to borrow money from the something or other monetary fund, one of the stipulations is that they had to remove trade barriers to get the money for economic development. So they got the money but then destroyed the industries that they had when the US dumped it's suppluses into their market.

There is an old Vietnamese proverb: It is better to give them free food than to motivate them to compete with your bussiness.

Pretty much. I am anything BUT right wing but I would still concede that simple welfare programs beget increased dependence on welfare.The supposedly humanitarian goal of providing 'food' to impoverished countries is superficially gratifying to donors, but economically and socially misguided in the larger analysis, *unless* it is linked to stratagies for population control in these regions.We need to be providing 'self-sufficiency' for people through sustainable agriculture and sensible family planning programs, not simply a meal for today.Religious charities don't help matters because they NEVER counsel for reproductive restraint, which is a critical factor when societies need to stabilize population growth in collapsing ecosystems.Religious groups tend to bask in the publicity of charitable efforts that are bandaid solutions and actually contribute to exacerbating the problem in the larger picture.(expanded somewhat on the edit- EZ)This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-12-2005 10:38 PM