See post #652.Technocratic_Utilitarian said:Fetters also hinder. Regulations are "fetters" or hindrances. Don't be semantic
See post #652.Technocratic_Utilitarian said:Fetters also hinder. Regulations are "fetters" or hindrances. Don't be semantic
Only if you wish to be thought of as "semantic".Technocratic_Utilitarian said:And? It doesn't contradict what I said.
Fantasea said:It serves to indicate that your answer was far afield from my statement.You are free to opine as you wish. However, other than the noble purpose of protecting the health of the populace, all of the other federal actions you cite appear to me to be encouraging the most efficient and economical production of food for domestic consumption and export. Not only do we feed ourselves abundantly, we also feed much of the rest of the world.
To me, that is the opposite of fettering.
However, in the larger sense, it's more important to keep lots of folks in developing countries alive who cannot be fed by the local food producers. Don't you agree?RightatNYU said:Actually, our farm subsidies create massive damage to food producers in small, developing countries. Educate yourself.
Fantasea said:However, in the larger sense, it's more important to keep lots of folks in developing countries alive who cannot be fed by the local food producers. Don't you agree?
First, a little housekeeping. Please exercise more care when you quote me. If you look at your post to which I am responding, you will find the error to which I am referring.RightatNYU said:According to Oxfam, "If developed nations eliminated subsidy programs, the export value of agriculture in lesser developed nations would increase by 24 percent, plus a further 5.5 percent from tariff equilibrium. ... exporters can offer US surpluses for sale at prices around half the cost of production; destroying local agriculture and creating a captive market in the process."
"Consider a farmer in Ghana who used to be able to make a living growing rice. Several years ago, Ghana was able to feed its people and export their surplus. Now, it imports rice. From where? Developed countries. Why? Because it's cheaper. Even if it costs the rice producer in the developed world much more to produce the rice, he doesn't have to make a profit from his crop. The government pays him to grow it, so he can sell it more cheaply to Ghana than the farmer in Ghana can. And that farmer in Ghana? He can't feed his family anymore."(Lyle Vanclief, Canadian Minister of Agriculture)
-wikipedia
It's back to the "give a man a fish....," isn't it?
As with Ghana and many of the former colonies of European nations, the problem was severing the umbilical cord and allowing them to fend for themselves when, as we have seen, they were ill-equipped to do so. A lengthy transitory period during which properly functioning governments would have evolved, together with educational and economic systems would have done much to avoid the misery which is the legacy of most of Africa.Rhadamanthus said:This thread has gone from health care to food production with who knows what in betwean. So, if you would please excuse my ignorance, could you take the information you have posted about Ghana, and tell me how a free market would make this situation better?
Fantasea said:First, a little housekeeping. Please exercise more care when you quote me. If you look at your post to which I am responding, you will find the error to which I am referring.
One of the problems in developing countries is trying to get the locals to move their agricultural methods out of the dark ages and into at least the nineteenth century, if not the twentieth or twenty-first.
Now; Mr. Vanclief's comments notwithstanding, given the following statistics, the folks in Ghana would be hard pressed to survive without whatever benefit accrues from US largesse and could probably use some help from the Canadians, too.
Unemployment rate: 20% (1997 est.)
Population below poverty line: 31.4% (1992 est.)
Inflation rate (consumer prices): 13% (2004 est.)
Agriculture - products: cocoa, rice, coffee, cassava (tapioca), peanuts, corn, shea nuts, bananas; timber
Industries: mining, lumbering, light manufacturing, aluminum smelting, food processing, cement, small commercial ship building
Source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gh.html
When we pay farmers not to grow stuff and still have enough to keep folks in third world countries who can't produce enough food from starving, there's a disconnect somewhere.RightatNYU said:You are woefully unaware of the economic situation in Ghana and the effects of farm subsidies on their people.
Do you want to explain to me how putting much of their population out of work is helping them? Or how wasting TWENTY BILLION dollars a year on our own farms to pay people not to grow things is helping us?
Fantasea said:When we pay farmers not to grow stuff and still have enough to keep folks in third world countries who can't produce enough food from starving, there's a disconnect somewhere.
Perhaps it would be better if we eliminated the subsidies, let our farmers produce all they could, and sell it to the highest bidders who would, in turn, sell it on the world market.
I'm sure you'll tell me what is wrong with that.
RightatNYU said:But mass agribusiness like we have is not "unfettered." There are massive billion dollar farm subsidies. How is that a free market?
fantasea said:However, other than the noble purpose of protecting the health of the populace, all of the other federal actions you cite appear to me to be encouraging the most efficient and economical production of food for domestic consumption and export.
128shot said:As expressed by Hayek in "the road to serfdom" Socialism is Slavery.
Now when kelzie comes to bitch me out about Euro-socialism, my reply will be this.
Its technically social capitalism OK?!
Fantasea said:As with Ghana and many of the former colonies of European nations, the problem was severing the umbilical cord and allowing them to fend for themselves when, as we have seen, they were ill-equipped to do so. A lengthy transitory period during which properly functioning governments would have evolved, together with educational and economic systems would have done much to avoid the misery which is the legacy of most of Africa.
This is not intended to be a discussion of Third World Africa. My only contention is that as far as Ghana is concerned, as bad as things may be, they would be even worse without US imports.
FireUltra 98 said:Hello all. New to the boards, so I'll keep my newbie opinion brief.
IMHO, Capitalism has only pros. Capitalism is the only real and proven vehicle which allows any man or woman to move into a life of prosperity, no other economic or social system can claim that. The two main ingredients for this system are solid laws protecting individual rights and access to free markets.
Prosperity depends on free markets, and not on the kind of command and control in matters of health, energy and the environment that rich, mostly white politicians insist the poor need.
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:Capitalism does not have provisions for rights. It's an economic system. . . .
Capitalism is the way to go as the core system, but it's not the only way to go. The Mechanism of Capitalism is no more intrinsically good or ethical than the mechanism of NS. They can be good or bad, but they shouldn't be worshipped as perfect and moral.
nkgupta80 said:capitalism has cons. I am a supporter of capitalism, but one can point out where our system has inefficiencies.
1. capitalism produces more waste, since competition necessitates that many companies compete for the same demand. thus 4 factories will each produce 1000 cars for 1000 people. so, theoretically 3000 cars would be left.
2. There is never ever equal opporunity, but under capitalism, this inequality can be potentially taken too far. Yes, there is opportunity for a person to move up in the world, but as one moves up, another will move down. Further more, in capitalism you need a gap in society, usually between rich and poor, to fuel competion.
FireUltra 98 said:I didn't say Capitalism provided rights; I said one of the "ingredients" necessary to support capitalism is to protect individual rights. Without that and access to free markets, you cannot have or support a capitalism based economy.
I agree that capitalism is perfect, but it’s the best model for economic success in the world.
FireUltra 98 said:Why are some of you stuck on misunderstanding my position? I did not have sex with that woman . . .wait, wrong post.
FireUltra 98 said:I did not say Capitalism provides rights. I said individual rights are an "ingredient" for capitalism to work. Without such rights, the liquidity, mobility and arbitrage opportunities needed to fuel an economy would be unavailable.
Capitalism is not a social program thankfully; it’s an economic system, and the best one by far in the world. No "socialist", not social, "socialist" system in the world can compete with a capitalist economic model, none. GDP is higher, more jobs are created and more revenue is generated for government income (taxes) under capitalism. Is it perfect, no. Is it better than any realistic, proven economic system created by man, yes.
Let me try to provide an example of my point in order to avoid being misunderstood:
Protection of Individual Rights = key ingredient for a good Capitalist, free market system.
Baking Powder = key ingredient to making a good cake.
Seriously though, thanks for replying to my post. Glad to contribute to this thread.