GMO conspiracy theories

[Grieves]

The desire to make a profit is what drives trade. Do you really need a lesson in economics?

Is the desire for mutual benefit non-existent? Economics is a false science that by no means defines all human interaction, no matter how much it's proponents like to claim it does. I think it's you who perhaps needs a lesson, as 'a desire to make a profit' is not the economic principle of profit motive. Profit motive doesn't stop at a desire to make a profit, it goes on to suggest profit is and even should be the sole motivation of business, and is the primary drive behind the fiduciary responsibility corporations have to turn a constant profit... meaning that even if Monsanto wanted to take a hit in the wallet in order to help out and raise up a suffering community, they couldn't. That's why corporations as they exist now 'taking the reigns' in the race against starvation isn't likely to end in anything but more starvation. Scarcity of a product leads to profit, and corporations are required to turn perpetual profits.

The price is NOT set by the exchange- the price is set by the "market"- by the buyers and sellers...The exchange is merely the clearing house for the trades.

Are you saying the price of wheat on the global market doesn't stem from the numbers posted by the Minneapolis Grain Exchange? Undoubtedly they aren't just rolling a lottery-barrel, reaching in, and pulling out the price of the day... but the stats they post are the stats which find their way onto wall-street next to 'wheat', are they not?

Spring wheat is not the "major determining factor in most all food prices"- thats simply false.

A. Not the. A.

Perhaps you could explain how the price of a bushel of wheat in MPLS is the determining factor in the price of a bushel of rice in China?

In precisely the same way that the strength of the American dollar can be a determining factor in the strength of the Yuan.

Or of millet in Africa? Or of corn in Mexico.

Bread is not common in many cultures. There is a simple reason for it, it is hard to bake. Bread requires the use of a bread oven, and the work cooking it. It is more common in more urban areas. Even in medieval Europe, few folks baked their own bread. Bread was either baked in communal ovens or by bakers.

You're missing the point. This isn't about making bread. It's about the developing way in which the global financial market treats food. Yes, not everybody eats bread/makes bread. Not everybody has/uses American dollars, either... but that doesn't change the effect the American dollar has on the global financial market.

 

[Cairenn]

I still want to know why capitalism is getting the blame for famines, when they have happened without it in many. It is capitalism that provides a Surplus of food that can be moved into areas effected by droughts.

Much of the food grown in the 3rd world doesn't survive until times of need, because of insects, rodents and mold/mildew. Add to that local corruption and you don't need capitalism to cause famines.

 

[David Fraser]

I still want to know why capitalism is getting the blame for famines, when they have happened without it in many. It is capitalism that provides a Surplus of food that can be moved into areas effected by droughts.

Much of the food grown in the 3rd world doesn't survive until times of need, because of insects, rodents and mold/mildew. Add to that local corruption and you don't need capitalism to cause famines.

To be fair capitalism and self interest have caused famines in the past. Just take the Irish Potato Famine.

 

[Cairenn]

Companies were NOT involved there, English land owners were. The famine was caused by too MUCH reliance on a crop that grew there. When it became diseased, then the famine resulted. To me that makes more of a case from globalization of food, rather than less.

Name another one, try one in the last 100 years.

 

[Grieves]

The famine was caused by too MUCH reliance on a crop that grew there. When it became diseased, then the famine resulted. To me that makes more of a case from globalization of food, rather than less.

It's a very rosy view of history that portrays An Gòrta Mòr as an unfortunate confluence of a mono-culture crop and an infectious mold. It's not as if the Irish just loved their taters, (we do, but that's besides the point) their dependence on potatoes as a staple food was inflicted on them by British landlords who saw almost all their wheat, barley and greens exported for profit. After what was literally a century or so of this, along comes an insidious mold to take away the only real option left to the Irish. Exports of wheat, barley and greens continued in spite of this. Colonialism, the system through which Britain exploited the Irish and many other cultures/societies much further abroad and far before then, is sort of an early vision of Globalization at its potential worst. The situation in Tanzania is not at all dissimilar, and can very accurately be described as having its roots in colonialism as well. That's why most Tanzanians are English-speaking.

 

[Cairenn]

It was not CROPS being raised but SHEEP. The demand for their wool was why the English drove the Irish off their land. That and a type of racism. The Irish were not equal. I would say that both colonialism and religion were more important than capitalism. One does need to remember that the English were invited in by some of the Irish tribes, generations before that.


Now come up with a famine caused by capitalism in the last 100 years.

 

[someGuy]

In 1991 Goldman Sachs has created a market index on raw materials (Goldman Sachs Commodity Index,GSCI) that has destabilized the system. And after the 2008 crisis, investors have turned to this sector, thus contributing to the formation of a "food bubble"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/goldman-sachs-food-prices_n_2525571.html

The question is more "when will capitalism trigger a global famine ?", IMO...
Because, if all the world's seven billion people consume as much as the average American, it would require the resources of over five planet Earths to sustainably support all of us. So either the rest-of-the-world eats less to allow Americans to eat more or we are stuck
But it's not just how much we eat, but what we eat...






This post is not about US bashing
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-...d-social-unrest-and-bailed-out-credit-junkies


​

 

[Cairenn]

From your link

However, there is evidence that rising food prices may not be Wall Street's fault. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, for one, disagrees with claims that speculators are at fault for higher food prices; he has pointed to global harvest failures and the growing middle class in emerging countries as causes of spikes in food prices. Krugman also has claimed that investing in commodity futures doesn't fuel new demand for commodities.

Global food prices have doubled since 2003, according to the FAO Food Price Index. And the global price of wheat and rice has doubled since 2005, while the global price of corn has tripled, according to The Independent.

Meanwhile, the number of undernourished people around the world has declined only moderately. There are 868 million undernourished people around the world, down from 1 billion undernourished people in 1992, according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization.

How much has the corn price been influenced by the ethanol demand ?

Prices are up, but starvation is down. Sort of blows a hole in that theory doesn't it? Maybe increased prices encourage MORE production. It may be more profitable for folks in Africa to grow expensive perishable items for the European market and to import grain from the countries where it grows well.

 

[someGuy]

Prices are up, but starvation is down. Sort of blows a hole in that theory doesn't it? Maybe increased prices encourage MORE production. It may be more profitable for folks in Africa to grow expensive perishable items for the European market and to import grain from the countries where it grows well.

Prices are up, but starvation is down...
Depends where you live
Food shortage is what triggered civil unrest in Egypt for example...

Capitalism, as it is today, with 7 billion people on Earth, is not sustainable, that's a fact

So, for now, everything seems fine, from our point of view (westerners)
Super markets are still there, food is cheap and there's no short supply, yet
But that won't last for ever, IMO, we have to divide our comsumption by something like 7 for americans and 5 for europeans...
And make sure in the process that no other nation becomes a new US or Europe...
Quite impossible if you ask me, people are not going to comply easily

There's is an alternative, as usual
But hu...
It requires to kill people, massively

 

[Cairenn]

Well that is how the Chinese got a handle on their population.

Capitalism NEEDS folks to sell things to, they do not want folks to die of starvation or to have to spend so much on food that they can't buy cars and cell phones and TVs and such.

The problems in Egypt and some other countries are that the government sets the food prices. They tend to subsidize the prices to keep their folks happy. It is not a free market there. When they have to raise the price folks get upset.

I see that you are 'small worlder'. They have been saying that for most of my life. The had forecasted major famines that should have happened years ago. They didn't happen because capitalism increased yields developed new varieties.

Governments didn't do that, companies did.

 

[Cairenn]

For many years 'peak oil' has been forecast. It hasn't happened, because the oil industry has found more deposits, and improved methods of production. In all but one country with state owned oil companies, production is going down, new deposits are not being found. The exception is Norway, where they encourage the oil companies to do that. The state owned companies are working with outdated equipment and such.

 

[someGuy]

Well that is how the Chinese got a handle on their population.

They already do their part (One child policy) since 1979
We don't, Africans don't, for example

Capitalism NEEDS folks to sell things to, they do not want folks to die of starvation or to have to spend so much on food that they can't buy cars and cell phones and TVs and such.

That's true, in theory
In practice, there's not enough resources to let one third of the Earth population live like the average american or european, besides, capitalism don't need 3 billion of technical salesman
So yeah, capitalism do not want 5 billion of people to have to spend so much on food that they can't buy cars and cell phones and TVs and such.
They have to disappear in order to allow capitalism to remain sustainable
The alternative is to replace capitalism by something else
I tend to think that the first option is more doable, unfortunately

The problems in Egypt and some other countries are that the government sets the food prices. They tend to subsidize the prices to keep their folks happy. It is not a free market there. When they have to raise the price folks get upset.

Yeah, that's what saved their asses for years
Btw, there's no more "free market" everything is rigged, see this post for details
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/40190

I see that you are 'small worlder'. They have been saying that for most of my life. The had forecasted major famines that should have happened years ago. They didn't happen because capitalism increased yields developed new varieties.
Governments didn't do that, companies did.

I don't know what a small worlder is, all I know is that we live on a sphere with limited resources, we are more than 7 billion, and there's no way even half of us could access to western standards of living without ruining the entire planet in a couple of decades
Problem, every1 want to live like westerners, at all cost, what do we do?



Btw, I don't think the trend will be reversed anytime soon

 

[Cairenn]

We live in a solar system full of resources. We have the ability to create and to develop new technology.

So you want government to control the production and distribution of food ? I am correct on that? If they decide that I should eat tofu and beans, then that is what I will get to eat, even if I am allergic to legumes.

I am asking again for a famine caused by capitalism in the modern world. I have noticed that you have declined to answer that question.

The USSR has vast food production areas, but while production was increasing in the US and Canada and other free market countries, folks were starving in the USSR, even after Stalin, there was not a lot of food choices available.

Please explain how capitalism caused that.

A 2002 study[9] by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization predicts that world food production will be in excess of the needs of the human population by the year 2030; however, that source also states that hundreds of millions will remain hungry (presumably due to economic realities and political issues).

 

[Tazmanian]

Now come up with a famine caused by capitalism in the last 100 years.

Famine in Somalia
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws92/famine37.html

 

[someGuy]

We live in a solar system full of resources. We have the ability to create and to develop new technology.

Yes, but we still rely on rocket fuel...
It's the stone age of space travel...
Besides, you do realize what's the cost to go fetch resources on an asteroïd on an industrial scale ?
Not to mention that cows will have a hard time producing milk on the moon

So you want government to control the production and distribution of food ? I am correct on that? If they decide that I should eat tofu and beans, then that is what I will get to eat, even if I am allergic to legumes.

All I know is that if we go on forever like this we'll wake up one day in a full mad max scenario
And I definitely don't want to see that

I am asking again for a famine caused by capitalism in the modern world. I have noticed that you have declined to answer that question.

Nice try
You asked Grieves, not me
IMO, if nothing change drastically in our way of consuming resources, a massive famine will happen, or worse, it's just a matter of time
As I've stated before, it would require the resources of over five planet Earths to sustainably support all of us (western style), we're fucked

The USSR has vast food production areas, but while production was increasing in the US and Canada and other free market countries, folks were starving in the USSR, even after Stalin, there was not a lot of food choices available.
Please explain how capitalism caused that.

Maybe if soviets had not spent all their resources in the fight against the West, it could have been avoided
And maybe if The Bretton Woods system did not established the dollar as the world currency, soviet could have win this fight

A 2002 study[9] by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization predicts that world food production will be in excess of the needs of the human population by the year 2030; however, that source also states that hundreds of millions will remain hungry (presumably due to economic realities and political issues).

Yes, world food production will be in excess
Does it demonstrate we are over exploiting our planet ?
Over poluting it ?
Does it demonstrate that those so called "economic realities" if solved, wouldn't result in an increase of resources consumption ?
The food don't travel on its own
What about the water supplies ?

 

[Cairenn]

It was not the 'fight against the West' that interfered with food production in the USSR. Remember we were arming against them also, it was the failure of a state supported agricultural system.

I expect to see over all meat consumption to decrease for a variety of reasons. In the west, because of health concerns. Many developing countries have never developed our demand for large amounts of meat. Beef will most likely become more of a luxury item. There are many other sources of meat, that many overlook. Two that could be raised in cities are pigeons and rabbits.

I do not expect the developing world to make the mistakes that we did.

I am more concerned about water, unless we decrease the cost of desalination. We do need to make changes, like why are they raising shrimp in southern Arizona? We need to move the production of many vegetables to areas where they can be grown with less water. We need to encourage more native plantings in cities. Even here we are seeing movements like city chickens and bee hives, in addition to gardening. Many cities could produce a sizable amount of their own food. That is very true of many of the US's post WW II cities.

You seem to see a dismal future for mankind, I see one full of promise. There will be problems, off course, but with intellect that man has, I expect we will conquer those.

BTW. I think that we will eventually see a lot of heavy industry moved off planet. I had hoped to live to see that, but I doubt I will.

 

[someGuy]

It was not the 'fight against the West' that interfered with food production in the USSR. Remember we were arming against them also, it was the failure of a state supported agricultural system.

Well, like my geography teacher used to say, it's easy to be smart when you're powerful
The Bretton Woods system equals to infinite financial power lol
But I agree, food for the people was not Staline's top priority obviously, soviets failed on many levels

Have you read Tazmanian post on Somalia's famine ?
Interesting read

I expect to see over all meat consumption to decrease for a variety of reasons. In the west, because of health concerns. Many developing countries have never developed our demand for large amounts of meat. Beef will most likely become more of a luxury item. There are many other sources of meat, that many overlook. Two that could be raised in cities are pigeons and rabbits.

Or insects
Seriously, insect protein is the best you can find

You seem to see a dismal future for mankind, I see one full of promise. There will be problems, off course, but with intellect that man has, I expect we will conquer those.

Well, when I take a look at recent history, it's not pretty
Not to mention remote historical times
Man use his brain power mostly to conquer and enslave/take advantage of other men, it's a constant

BTW. I think that we will eventually see a lot of heavy industry moved off planet. I had hoped to live to see that, but I doubt I will.

Problem is the time left before chances of success drop to zero
The situation is degrading at an alarming rate

 

[Grieves]

Now come up with a famine caused by capitalism in the last 100 years.

Famine has been having its way with Tanzania for some time now. The country has the natural resources, even during its periods of drought, to feed its own people. A capitalist system that highly encourages local businesses to sell their products abroad at far better prices than they could achieve locally to corporate interests in Europe contributes considerably to the inability of the average Tanzanian to find an affordable meal. That's why I brought it up, essentially.

 

[Grieves]

We live in a solar system full of resources. We have the ability to create and to develop new technology.

Limited by the resources available to us on our planet. Most sources of fuel for our planet have their roots in a vast abundance of ancient vegetation, something so far as we can tell no other planet in our solar system can begin to boast. We're already feeling the squeeze on some elements, such as Helium... something that could directly complicate our dreams of interplanetary travel, as any 'stasis' possibilities we've yet hypothesized about have been likely to involve it. That's all speculation though. Until some wondrous new technologies develop, Earth is our very best bet. All that aside, we know for a fact that we have the current global food production to feed everybody on the planet, all 7 billion or so, quite comfortably. Blind faith in capitalism and the profit motive somehow working it all out in the end through the 'invisible hand' of market forces is, to me, one of the major barriers preventing us from actually buckling down and getting to the task.

I am more concerned about water, unless we decrease the cost of desalination.

Water should be a massive concern for everybody. It's another reason why I find all the tar-sand and fracking projects so foolish and shortsighted. The truly massive amounts of water being wasted on the processes themselves aside, many of the near lake-sized pools of the often highly toxic refuse from these processes is left on the banks of rivers, all of which typically find their way back to the great lakes. Our treatment of the great lakes as sewer, landfill and repository of industrial waste has been shortsighted in the extreme. Worse, many are eying the increasing scarcity of fresh water and salivating at the potential. In some countries corporate entities have already made bold efforts to privatize fresh water, such as in Bolivia, where after receiving tremendous pressure from the World Bank to auction it off, American, French and Spanish corporations teamed up, purchased the rights to Cochabamba's municipal water utility SEMPA, then had a law enacted which gave this consortium a monopoly on most all water resources. The people, quite thankfully, would not tolerate it, staged massive demonstrations, clashed with police, were shot at and in one instance shot dead, but eventually got their government to cave and repatriate their water utility company.

You seem to see a dismal future for mankind, I see one full of promise. There will be problems, off course, but with intellect that man has, I expect we will conquer those.

The future is a question mark. It's now that concerns me. If things don't start changing for the better now, any bright future is in jeopardy, or will cost far too much to be worth it.

 

[Jazzy]

How exactly do you prevent drought?

By covering ALL exposed earth with vegetation. It doesn't matter what, exactly, but pioneering plants would be a good start.

What happens then is a chain of precipitation/evaporation events down the wind direction. This is a self-sustaining process which damps hotspots. Water has a high specific heat.

Another beneficial effect of this is albedo change. Vegetation is darker and cooler than ground, but normally paler from evaporative transpiration processes forming mists and clouds above them. This helps the earth reflect more sunlight into space, prevent its turning into infrared by back reflection from earth.

Droughts don't exist over time on a natural earth, except where larger processes like high plateaus, mountain ranges above the tree line and the earth's atmospheric circulations rule.

Cor, nearly forgot to mention MAN as a "larger process". What was I thinking? The stabbing analogy, I think, in a geological timeframe.

"You can solve all the world's problems in a garden" - Geoff Lawton

 

[Jazzy]

it was the failure of a state supported agricultural system

It was based on articles of faith and not the scientific process. That's the one where you use trials and observe the results before committing your mistakes.

I expect to see over all meat consumption to decrease for a variety of reasons. In the west, because of health concerns. Many developing countries have never developed our demand for large amounts of meat. Beef will most likely become more of a luxury item. There are many other sources of meat, that many overlook. Two that could be raised in cities are pigeons and rabbits.

Ugh. What's wrong with guinea pigs?

I do not expect the developing world to make the mistakes that we did.

They look hell bent to me.

I am more concerned about water, unless we decrease the cost of desalination.

You need catchment, retention in smaller scale ways. Dams and desalination are energy-intense. The whole trick is to slow the movement of water over land. This requires not so much an improvement in technology as an improvement in thinking.

Why are they raising shrimp in southern Arizona?

Because shrimp are tasty.

We need to move the production of many vegetables to areas where they can be grown with less water. We need to encourage more native plantings in cities. Even here we are seeing movements like city chickens and bee hives, in addition to gardening. Many cities could produce a sizable amount of their own food. That is very true of many of the US's post WW II cities.

A back garden food forest can be the most intensive because of its separate levels.

You seem to see a dismal future for mankind, I see one full of promise. There will be problems, off course, but with intellect that man has, I expect we will conquer those.

Nope.

BTW. I think that we will eventually see a lot of heavy industry moved off planet. I had hoped to live to see that, but I doubt I will.

Not at ten thousand bucks a pound, it won't.

 

[Cairenn]

Using the Great Lakes as a waste dump was mentioned. There was also a lot of waste dumped into the oceans and not far offshore. Everything from chemicals to radioactive materials to mustard gas.

We don't do that now. The USSR did sink nuke subs complete with their power plants in the 80s I believe. There may have been some illegal dumping by the mob, but it is no longer allowed here. We realized that it was not a suitable way to dispose of waste.

Oil companies are reducing the amount of potable water that they use in fracking. They are using more and more brine water and recycling.

I mentioned heavy industry off planet, we won't be lifting the supplies for it, they will be mined there. My big concern was and still is, is if we have delayed too long in this. We need to be looking at it now (well 30 years ago). We were distracted by other things, from important, like a response to terrorism to silly, like a Presidential 'blow job'.

 

[Grieves]

I'm pretty convinced that the only way interplanetary travel is going to become anything more than a neat idea is when we conclusively discover another planet with life. Given the massive distances involved, the only way, besides some as yet non-existent 'warp-drive' (I'd heard something about a guy theorizing how an artificial bubble of 'dark-matter' could be used in space travel in a way akin to how an artificial bubble of air at the nose of modern submarines allows them to achieve extreme speeds) I can imagine us ever colonizing another life-bearing world is if we designed compact, space-faring robotic units with incredibly long-lasting power sources capable of keeping a fertilized human embryo/s in stasis for hundreds if not thousands of years, landing intact on a distant planet surface, artificially gestating that/those embryo/s, artificially birthing a child, and effectively raising and educating that child into young adulthood. That would all take one fuck of a robot, and technologies that we can't yet dream of... but it wouldn't take half of the crazy theoretical crap required for us to actually hop in a ship and expect to arrive somewhere green in our own lifetime.

 

[Cairenn]

WE don't need interplanetary travel, just the asteroids. It is doable with technology we have today. The WILL to do it is the problem. I don't really see any government doing it. China might. It will be done by private companies.

 

[someGuy]

Is Asteroid Mining Possible? Study Says Yes, for $2.6 Billion
http://www.space.com/15405-asteroid-mining-feasibility-study.html


Ok, it's not pretty, but that's actualy what "we" think is doable
Looks primitive but, well that's the plan

"The Asteroid Capture and Return mission — the central focus of the KISS study — blueprints the technological know-how to moving an asteroid weighing about 1.1 million-pound (500,000 kilograms) to a high lunar orbit by the year 2025. The mission's cost is expected to be $2.6 billion."

See article for details

 

[Critical Thinker]

By covering ALL exposed earth with vegetation. It doesn't matter what, exactly, but pioneering plants would be a good start.

What happens then is a chain of precipitation/evaporation events down the wind direction. This is a self-sustaining process which damps hotspots. Water has a high specific heat.

Another beneficial effect of this is albedo change. Vegetation is darker and cooler than ground, but normally paler from evaporative transpiration processes forming mists and clouds above them. This helps the earth reflect more sunlight into space, prevent its turning into infrared by back reflection from earth.

Droughts don't exist over time on a natural earth, except where larger processes like high plateaus, mountain ranges above the tree line and the earth's atmospheric circulations rule.

Cor, nearly forgot to mention MAN as a "larger process". What was I thinking? The stabbing analogy, I think, in a geological timeframe.

"You can solve all the world's problems in a garden" - Geoff Lawton

Just an interesting article about an Indian man that single-handedly planted a 1360 acre forest.


http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wi...man-single-handedly-plants-a-1360-acre-forest

"A little more than 30 years ago, a teenager named Jadav "Molai" Payeng began burying seeds along a barren sandbar near his birthplace in northern India's Assam region to grow a refuge for wildlife. Not long after, he decided to dedicate his life to this endeavor, so he moved to the site where he could work full-time creating a lush new forest ecosystem. Incredibly, the spot today hosts a sprawling 1,360 acres of jungle that Payeng planted — single-handedly."

 

[SR1419]

Actually, wheat- more specifically 'hard red spring' as it's known, is the high-protein wheat-grain used in the production of bread who's prices are set by the Minneapolis Grain Exchange[/URL], the price of which informs the cost of most all bread on the planet. From the standpoint of global markets, the price of hard red spring is a major determining factor in most all food prices.

I can't let this bunk go unaddressed- It's true that hard red spring wheat is an important bread wheat in the U.S., but more hard red winter wheat is used for bread in the U.S. because it s more plentiful and cheaper than spring wheat. The U.S. is a declining factor in the world wheat market. This year the U.S. is the 4th larger wheat producer in the world. It is the largest wheat exporter only by a slim margin, accounting for only about 20% of world trade, a share that has been declining steadily. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange Group's CBOT wheat futures are far more influential than the very small Minneapolis Grain Exchange market which now only trades electronically, and has little influence outside its limited area. If you're looking for the most influential factor in world wheat prices, arguably it is Russian and Ukrainian wheat exported from the Black Sea. Low priced Black Sea wheat tends to be the the world price leader.

Are you saying the price of wheat on the global market doesn't stem from the numbers posted by the Minneapolis Grain Exchange? Undoubtedly they aren't just rolling a lottery-barrel, reaching in, and pulling out the price of the day... but the stats they post are the stats which find their way onto wall-street next to 'wheat', are they not?

Yes, I am saying that the price of wheat on the global market doesn't stem from the numbers posted by the Minneapolis Grain Exchange.

You are missing the point....where the numbers are posted is irrelevant. The price is set in the market place by the buyers and sellers.

Is the desire for mutual benefit non-existent? Economics is a false science that by no means defines all human interaction, no matter how much it's proponents like to claim it does. I think it's you who perhaps needs a lesson, as 'a desire to make a profit' is not the economic principle of profit motive. Profit motive doesn't stop at a desire to make a profit, it goes on to suggest profit is and even should be the sole motivation of business, and is the primary drive behind the fiduciary responsibility corporations have to turn a constant profit... meaning that even if Monsanto wanted to take a hit in the wallet in order to help out and raise up a suffering community, they couldn't. That's why corporations as they exist now 'taking the reigns' in the race against starvation isn't likely to end in anything but more starvation. Scarcity of a product leads to profit, and corporations are required to turn perpetual profits.

Economics is not a "false" science...it is a social science and thus subject to the vagaries of irrational humans. Nor does the field of economics claim to define ALL human interaction. Its most fundamental definition is that of the study of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

Our definitions of profit motive are the same- You just expanded it to the obvious.

Indeed, the economic principle of profit motive "is an economic concept which posits that the ultimate goal of a business is to make money. Stated differently, the reason for a business's existence is to turn a profit. The profit motive functions on the rational choice theory, or the theory that individuals tend to pursue what is in their own best interests. Accordingly, businesses seek to benefit themselves and/or their shareholders by maximizing profits."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_motive


...and you are correct Monsanto will not lose money to feed the world. They will not exist if they lose money so, it would be a lose/lose. They could and some companies DO earn less profit for a perceived societal benefit but most do not. Indeed, mutual benefit is the essence of capitalism. Economic actors exchange goods and services in a mutually beneficial win/win.

Capitalism is not perfect...but it is the MOST efficient and effective method for the distribution and allocation of scarce resources that the World has ever seen.

Perhaps you can suggest a better method?

 

[Cairenn]

I just stumbled over this article.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...k-at-3-myths-about-genetically-modified-crops


I agree, while capitalism isn't perfect it has shown that it has more benefits than drawbacks. After all it is a tool. You can warm your self with fire, cook your food, use it to make tools, or you can use it to burn your 'enemies' fields and cities. Careless use of it, can result in injuries to you and your property. Over all it's benefits out weighs it's draw backs.

 

[Jazzy]

Just an interesting article about an Indian man that single-handedly planted a 1360 acre forest.

Thanks. That man became a permaculturalist just as soon as he realized that animal and plants co-operate with each other and together. Not only them, of course, but also fungi and bacteria. Mustn't be speciesist with these little self-replicating nano warriors.
If you want a high river valley to have a fish lake, raise beavers, etc. Even elephants have their uses without having to die.
If we have to help the landscape, it is we that should retreat from nature rather than overwhelm it, allowing it a network of land route connections without much friction.
At the same time our cities are too arid and need a greener coating. But it will come as oil gets more expensive. Think Cuba.

 

[Grieves]

mutual benefit is the essence of capitalism.

Capitalists are enamored with the notion that mutual benefit is the natural result of the profit motive. That the most personally beneficial choice is always the best choice, and if all businesses operate with the most personally beneficial course in mind, then the result is bound to be the most equitable. I think this idea is rather demonstrably false.

Yes, I am saying that the price of wheat on the global market doesn't stem from the numbers posted by the Minneapolis Grain Exchange.

Here's the definition of the Minneapolis Grain Exchange as taken from Investor Words.com, an online dictionary of common terms in the world of investment.

Exchange located in Minneapolis, Minnesota that specializes in the trading of wheat, oats, and corn grown in the Midwest of North America. The exchange operates as a centralized cash marketand non-profit membership organization. MGEX was founded in 1881 as Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, and adopted its current name in 1947. MGEX is considered to be one of the largest cash grain markets in the world. Producers and consumers both use the exchange for guidance in volatilecommodities markets.

Read more: http://www.investorwords.com/8089/Minneapolis_Grain_Exchange_MGEX.html#ixzz2S5DnEYx2

Here's an article from AgCanada on the 'real price of wheat'
http://www.agcanada.com/countryguidewest/2011/04/12/the-real-price-of-wheat/

"The DHC is based on prevailing market values for the particular grade of wheat that the customer wants," Thompson says. "It's a price that's guided by the overall world price, particularly the values on the Minneapolis Grain Exchange. It also reflects a basis for time and location, depending on where and when the buyer wants to take delivery of the product. It has to be a competitive North American price because millers are under no obligation to buy from the CWB. They can source their raw materials from any origin."

So...? What now? You said:

The Chicago Mercantile Exchange Group's CBOT wheat futures are far more influential than the very small Minneapolis Grain Exchange market which now only trades electronically, and has little influence outside its limited area.

Care to recant?

Just an interesting article about an Indian man that single-handedly planted a 1360 acre forest.

That's a damn cool story. Reminds me of Dune.. particularly Liet-Kynes, and his 'crazy' plan to transform a desert-planet with grass.

Because of the one-pointed Time awareness in which the conventional mind remains immersed, humans tend to think of everything in a sequential, word-oriented framework. This mental trap produces very short-term concepts of effectiveness and consequences, a condition of constant, unplanned response to crises.

 

[SR1419]

Capitalists are enamored with the notion that mutual benefit is the natural result of the profit motive. That the most personally beneficial choice is always the best choice, and if all businesses operate with the most personally beneficial course in mind, then the result is bound to be the most equitable. I think this idea is rather demonstrably false.

Mutual benefit IS the natural result of an exchange of goods and services. When you buy a carton of milk and hand the clerk your money - is that not mutually beneficial? That you agree to the transaction suggest that you are ok with the level of equity in the transaction- otherwise you would not enter into it.

Capitalism DOES provide the basic mechanism for the most mutually beneficial exchanges.

Again- can you suggest an alternative that would be more efficient and mutually beneficial?

Care to recant?

Not in the LEAST.

Indeed the Mpls GE IS a large cash grain market....however, the vast majority of global wheat is traded via futures contracts of which the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) is the leader. The amount of transactions that takes place at MXE is miniscule compared to the CBOT. Cash transactions are for immediate delivery.

That the Canadian Wheat Board sets its price for domestic consumers "guided by the overall world price, particularly the values on the Minneapolis Grain Exchange" - does NOT mean that MXE sets the global grain price in any way, shape or form. CWB focuses on MXE due to its proximity to the prairie wheat producers and thus is a useful guide for transportation costs to elevators and millers.

Your definition of the MXE failed to mention that the overall level of transactions at MXE has been declining over the last few decades and the exchange stopped operations on its trading floor and now runs all transactions through the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

The "benchmark" price for the global wheat trade is set in via the CBOT:

The spring wheat MGEX trades follows a similar growing season and has similar characteristics as the Canadian harvest, unlike winter wheats traded in Chicago and Kansas City.

CME Group's CBOT may not trade the same kind of wheat, but as the world's wheat price benchmark it offers unmatched liquidity.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ed-out-as-cme-expands-to-match-ice-hours.html

from 1997:

Minneapolis is the smallest of the three grain exchanges, but the city has the world's largest cash grain exchange. One million bushels of wheat, barley, rye, sunflower seeds, corn and soybeans are bought and sold on an average day, based on small test samples delivered to the exchange.

The futures market is where the action is as farmers and food processors attempt to insure themselves against wide swings in grain prices caused by weather, supply and demand, and even wars halfway around the world.

from Oct 2012:

In the wake of Wednesday's deal for Chicago rival CME Group (CME.O) to buy the Kansas City Board of Trade, the so-called MGEX is now the last independently owned agricultural exchange in the United States, home to a niche spring wheat contract as well as more esoteric products including agricultural index contracts and apple juice futures.

Although trading volume in MGEX wheat is only a third as much as Kansas City's wheat contract and equivalent to just 5 percent of the benchmark Chicago Board of Trade contract, it may prove to be a better fit for ICE.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/18/us-exchanges-cme-mgex-idUSBRE89H06520121018


The global price of wheat is set by a mutually agreed upon price between the buyer and seller...

 

[Grieves]

Actually, wheat- more specifically 'hard red spring' as it's known, is the high-protein wheat-grain used in the production of bread who's prices are set by the Minneapolis Grain Exchange[/URL], the price of which informs the cost of most all bread on the planet.

You're dancing around the semantics of the word 'set' while entirely failing to acknowledge you've made flat-out false statements.

I didn't say hard red spring was the best-seller, I said it was the traditional standard. I didn't say the Minneapolis Grain Exchange was the biggest name in the wheat-trade, I simply said they were traditionally and remain a measure/global standard against which prices are assessed, entire nations using their prices as a guide. Quite obviously the Minneapolis grain exchange doesn't, as you stated, have 'little influence outside its limited area'. Can you at the very least admit you were wrong about that?

 

[Grieves]

Mutual benefit IS the natural result of an exchange of goods and services.

Like, trading away your territory for trinkets? Is that mutually beneficial? Trading sexual degradation for rent-money? Trading 18 hour shifts for pennies? All mutually beneficial, right?

When you buy a carton of milk and hand the clerk your money - is that not mutually beneficial?

Depends on how much you're paying for it, and how much you have to spend, wouldn't you say?

That you agree to the transaction suggest that you are ok with the level of equity in the transaction- otherwise you would not enter into it.

Right. Because no one has ever had to purchase food at an unreasonable price. It's not like there's any sort of necessity in that regard. :/

Again- can you suggest an alternative that would be more efficient and mutually beneficial?

I have a few Utopian fantasies. I'd be somewhat embarrassed to detail them. I'm sure there are bolder thinkers than I more willing to promote radical changes to the world whom you can look up on youtube and have yourself a laugh at. Maybe the Zeitgeist guy, I can agree with a fair bit of his rhetoric on fantasy-futures. Again, the future is a question mark. I'm worried about what's happening now, and at the moment it seems like capitalism is out of control. Maybe we don't have to drag it to the alley and shoot it, but we're going to at least have to find a way to leash it, or people are going to keep on getting bit. The doctrine of 'let it run wild, and everything will be fine' doesn't seem to be working out.

 

[someGuy]

and at the moment it seems like capitalism is out of control.

CORKER: So I think that, you know, I don't think there's any question that you would be the biggest dove, if you will, since World War II. I think it's something you're rather proud of.... Just wondering if you -- if ya'll talk at all in your meetings about the degrading effect that's having on our society.

BERNANKE: You called me a dove. Well, maybe in some respects I am, but on the other hand, my inflation record is the best of any Federal Reserve Chairman in the post-war period, or at least one of the best, about two percent average inflation.
​

[url]http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-02-27/bernankes-inflation-record


[/URL]

 

[MikeC]

Trading territory for trinkets WAS seen as beneficial by both parties at the time. And if all you have to trade to stay alive is sex then there is at least an argument that trading it for money is beneficial - and for some people it is positively advantageous.

These may not be the sort of trades most people would be willing to make - and arguably in the first case there was a massive difference in perception. But that your argument seems to involve value judgement, and sometimes people have different values.

There are billions of transactions carried out every day where there is no significant question as to the mutual benefits - ther are always extremes for any system you can think of, and arguing that they condemn the whole system is a slipery slope.

 

[SR1419]

Like, trading away your territory for trinkets? Is that mutually beneficial? Trading sexual degradation for rent-money? Trading 18 hour shifts for pennies? All mutually beneficial, right? Depends on how much you're paying for it, and how much you have to spend, wouldn't you say? Right. Because no one has ever had to purchase food at an unreasonable price. It's not like there's any sort of necessity in that regard.

Yes- all mutually beneficial as perceived by those engaged in the transaction. You are placing value judgements on these transaction that are particular to you.

Can you suggest another method for both parties to achieve what they want?

You're dancing around the semantics of the word 'set' while entirely failing to acknowledge you've made flat-out false statements.

I didn't say hard red spring was the best-seller, I said it was the traditional standard. I didn't say the Minneapolis Grain Exchange was the biggest name in the wheat-trade, I simply said they were traditionally and remain a measure/global standard against which prices are assessed, entire nations using their prices as a guide. Quite obviously the Minneapolis grain exchange doesn't, as you stated, have 'little influence outside its limited area'. Can you at the very least admit you were wrong about that?

Wrong? not in the least.

Please point put the false statements.

The benchmark price for the global wheat trade is set in Chicago.

Noting that a regional government crop board (that ended its monopoly in 2012) looked to MPLS as a potential guide does not change that.

Lets refresh- you said

From the standpoint of global markets, the price of hard red spring is a major determining factor in most all food prices.

Nothing you have said or copied from others has demonstrated that in the least. Care to recant?

 

[someGuy]

Are we we still in capitalism or somesort of biased version ?

Peter Schiff And The Coming Housing Collapse: The Fed, Instead Of Lehman, Owns The Mortgage Market
http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontev...d-instead-of-lehman-owns-the-mortgage-market/

Corporatism: A System Of Control Designed By The Monopoly Men Of The Global Elite

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-10/guest-post-corporatism-state-controlled-capitalism

I think both of you are right, it's just that you're not really talking about the same thing, IMO
Capitalism has changed over time, to become the mess it is today

It's like comparing ads from the 50's, which were simply product display, and the latest ones which are literally brainwashing campaigns

 

[Jazzy]

It's like comparing ads from the 50's, which were simply product display, and the latest ones which are literally brainwashing campaigns

Actually they were quite brainwashing. Soap Operas spring to mind. You weren't a victim.

 

[Cairenn]

Folks seem to forget the 'product placement' back then also. Actors, hosts and even newscasters would light up their Lucky Strike or swig their Coke.

 

[someGuy]

Actually they were quite brainwashing. Soap Operas spring to mind. You weren't a victim.

Yeah, it was probably biased, but brainwashing is more what we have today

Besides the fact that psychological manipulation technics are way more efficient now, and movies/images way more powerful, you just can't be unaware of the latest crap (film, telephone, car, cookies...), once it's out, the subway is full of giant posters, sometimes all the same on both sides, streets also are massively invaded by advertising, and when you reach home, it's the same on TV, and once you get on the internet... It literally jumps at your face on news sites, youtube, blogs...
Even in google search...
It's just everywhere


Not to mention how kids are clubbed
Pretty much like ants by an orbital canon

There's also all the tracking going on, for a better marketing...

I mean, it's like comparing computers now and 30 years ago



There's a huge difference
Capitalism evolved also, and today, it's definitely not what it used to be
Remember glass steagal act to prevent a 1929 scenario ?
It was a good idea right ?
Well, it's gone
O_O'
Is this "progress" ?
To me it's more a mutation...And not a good one