Inflation and Prices: Food and Energy

[BigBallinStalin]

This bears repeating because Juan still have failed in this area (which is mainly what I've been wanting to talk about):

The best thing to do, is to buy American, and to buy in season. The plant will taste better, it will be more likely to be natural, and it'll help out Americans.

Here's you advocating that if everyone bought local, it would be best for everyone else:

Buying local, or primarily local, may not be what's best for everyone else--no matter how much you extrapolate your personal experiences onto everyone else's.

It would be best for everyone else, if everyone did it. That seems obvious. All your argument so far involves is cost to the individual consumer, while I'm genuinely talking about the cost to the nation, which will effect the cost to the individual. You're only talking about the illusion of the cost to the nation.

My primary point:
You could cite all kinds of personally observed and wikipedia-based "facts" that still fail to show the long-term economic impact of your stance of "buying local" (which is unknowable; otherwise, any organization with the funds (like the government, or large corporations) would be able to make near perfect decisions and would be incapable of many mistakes). Therefore, organizations and decision-makers like you and me must act on estimates, guesses, and even unknown information.

When you dictate that everyone must do as you say, you still lack the wisdom (experience, knowledge, and judgment) necessary to know that your decision is best for everyone. And since you lack a sufficient level of these attributes (we all do), you are prone to making mistakes (i.e. unintended consequences) like costing poor American households an extra $200 per month.*

ThereforeYou do not possess the knowledge, judgment, and experience necessary to dictate that all Americans must purchase all-American goods because you simply do not know what is best for everyone (in fact, no one does until we develop a supercomputer like HAL^1000). And, you can not presume that your protectionist policy would overall be the best choice.



*The unintended consequences, unseen benefits and costs are numerous, but they are largely unknown or partly known. In addition to that, that information is known to various groups of people at various levels, so not one possesses enough and not one group posses enough. (If anyone that's reading this can determine how to figure that out, they'll win a Nobel Prize).)


So, the case lies with you to prove that you have the sufficient knowledge, judgment, and experience to support your belief that all Americans must purchase American goods because "it'll help out Americans."

And/or to prove that:

Buying local, or primarily local, may not be what's best for everyone else--no matter how much you extrapolate your personal experiences onto everyone else's.

It would be best for everyone else, if everyone did it. That seems obvious. All your argument so far involves is cost to the individual consumer, while I'm genuinely talking about the cost to the nation, which will effect the cost to the individual. You're only talking about the illusion of the cost to the nation.

It seems obvious, but that's only your opinion. You throw down some environmental effects which weren't quantified, but hey even if they were, you're still missing other economics-related information to support your position (underlined). Your position spans the ENTIRE "American" economy, so how can you think some general facts (without numbers) and some facts with numbers, that are limited ONLY to the field of agriculture, is a suitable enough defense? It works for you because you conveniently ignore the benefits of international trade, and inconveniently ignore certain costs of import tariffs, you conveniently ignore how buying all American products can reduce peoples' real income. This shit just ain't fucking logical.jpg.

My arguments involve individual costs, because an economy is made of individuals (how can you not understanding that?). You can take my examples and multiply them by whatever number of the population I was talking about (...). If you don't understand basic incentives and basic costs associated with your policies, then how can I reasonably expect that you are not overlooking other significant factors?

Until you can prove what I'm asking you to prove (or until you concede that what you were/are advocating is not correct), then I'll respond to your upcoming monster of a post.

[PLAYER57832]

Perhaps, there's a way of someone innovative to overcome this problem. Have you thought about that? People are very innovative at adapting to changes and creating better solutions. When you demand that everyone should buy local, then you deny many options towards other, better solutions.

It's been about 15 years now. No changes have taken place.

Been a lot longer than 15 years... but carry on

See, BBS, the innovation gets stifled. It gets stifled directly when patents are bought up, but more importantly it gets stifled indirectly, from grade school on up when kids are shown films, given free material put out by the agribusiness corporations. Even if you escape all that (and even the best teachers are tempted to take the nice-looking ready made material when faced with budget cuts and tight curricula requirements), then research that doesn't benefit the companies is "strangely" not funded as well as research that goes in directions the big guys want.

Oh, yeah.. and juan, you missed the outright collusion in everything from zoning rules to disposal rules, etc. I mean, it makes sense that suburbs cannot have cows and horses perhaps, but sheep, chickens? If maintained properly, they are not a risk. But, those things get ruled "nuisances" while big companies can come in with smelly smokestacks, etc without any problem. (as long as the wind doesn't blow it over the wealthy areas, anyway).

Juan states unsubstantiated claim.

PLAYER runs with it.

Except... try talking to some teachers, particularly in heavy agriculture states. Try tracking the funding of research.

See, what you dismiss is actually true.

and no number of internet opinion articles will refute those facts. But, obviously, you are going to keep trying.

[BigBallinStalin]

Perhaps, there's a way of someone innovative to overcome this problem. Have you thought about that? People are very innovative at adapting to changes and creating better solutions. When you demand that everyone should buy local, then you deny many options towards other, better solutions.

It's been about 15 years now. No changes have taken place.

Been a lot longer than 15 years... but carry on

See, BBS, the innovation gets stifled. It gets stifled directly when patents are bought up, but more importantly it gets stifled indirectly, from grade school on up when kids are shown films, given free material put out by the agribusiness corporations. Even if you escape all that (and even the best teachers are tempted to take the nice-looking ready made material when faced with budget cuts and tight curricula requirements), then research that doesn't benefit the companies is "strangely" not funded as well as research that goes in directions the big guys want.

Oh, yeah.. and juan, you missed the outright collusion in everything from zoning rules to disposal rules, etc. I mean, it makes sense that suburbs cannot have cows and horses perhaps, but sheep, chickens? If maintained properly, they are not a risk. But, those things get ruled "nuisances" while big companies can come in with smelly smokestacks, etc without any problem. (as long as the wind doesn't blow it over the wealthy areas, anyway).

Juan states unsubstantiated claim.

PLAYER runs with it.

Except... try talking to some teachers, particularly in heavy agriculture states. Try tracking the funding of research.

See, what you dismiss is actually true.

and no number of internet opinion articles will refute those facts. But, obviously, you are going to keep trying.

Like your old professors?

Who's names you can't be bothered to recollect?






Look up the word "unsubstantiated" then explain to me how saying "It's been about 15 years now. No changes have taken place (regarding innovation in response to that E.Coli problem)" without providing any support is not unsubstantiated.

Hey, even you didn't provide any support. You ended at "it's true, ask professors." It's not my responsibility to defend "facts" that someone else brings up.

[Timminz]

Thanks all. My scrolling finger hasn't had such a good workout in a long time.

[BigBallinStalin]

Thanks all. My scrolling finger hasn't had such a good workout in a long time.

You've got the right idea.

[PLAYER57832]

Perhaps, there's a way of someone innovative to overcome this problem. Have you thought about that? People are very innovative at adapting to changes and creating better solutions. When you demand that everyone should buy local, then you deny many options towards other, better solutions.

It's been about 15 years now. No changes have taken place.

Been a lot longer than 15 years... but carry on

[/quote][/quote]EDIT insert --- the report 15 years ago was hardly the first incident... ergo my comment... and the following response to the whole situation, not just that one little bit. There are many, many problems.

See, BBS, the innovation gets stifled. It gets stifled directly when patents are bought up, but more importantly it gets stifled indirectly, from grade school on up when kids are shown films, given free material put out by the agribusiness corporations. Even if you escape all that (and even the best teachers are tempted to take the nice-looking ready made material when faced with budget cuts and tight curricula requirements), then research that doesn't benefit the companies is "strangely" not funded as well as research that goes in directions the big guys want.

Oh, yeah.. and juan, you missed the outright collusion in everything from zoning rules to disposal rules, etc. I mean, it makes sense that suburbs cannot have cows and horses perhaps, but sheep, chickens? If maintained properly, they are not a risk. But, those things get ruled "nuisances" while big companies can come in with smelly smokestacks, etc without any problem. (as long as the wind doesn't blow it over the wealthy areas, anyway).

Juan states unsubstantiated claim.

PLAYER runs with it.

Except... try talking to some teachers, particularly in heavy agriculture states. Try tracking the funding of research.

See, what you dismiss is actually true.

and no number of internet opinion articles will refute those facts. But, obviously, you are going to keep trying.

Like your old professors?

Who's names you can't be bothered to recollect?

Either you think I was taught by PhDs in elementary and high school or you cannot/ did not read what I wrote.

And not wanting to reveal is not the same as "cannot recollect"... but do go on.

Look up the word "unsubstantiated" then explain to me how saying "It's been about 15 years now. No changes have taken place (regarding innovation in response to that E.Coli problem)" without providing any support is not unsubstantiated.

Well, when something has been blasted all over every major news outlet for years...
But I guess I forgot you probably weren't even alive when the first well-known reports were blasted all over the news.

So, you can either google it or trust that those of us who were alive are not lying. See, in court, that would be considered valid, whereas the latest internet blogs would not.

Hey, even you didn't provide any support. You ended at "it's true, ask professors." It's not my responsibility to defend "facts" that someone else brings up.

Nope, I said ask teachers... and look into the funding sources for grants, if you were so inclined. See, I already gave you a lot of data you outright ignored. When you start calling people liars and idiots, its no longer their word in question, its whether YOU know of what you speak.. so, yes, that does require your verification.

But obviously, you cannot be bothered. Much easier to just pretend you know it all already. Were to you to bother verifying, you might actually have to admit you did not know of what you spoke.

[BigBallinStalin]

Perhaps, there's a way of someone innovative to overcome this problem. Have you thought about that? People are very innovative at adapting to changes and creating better solutions. When you demand that everyone should buy local, then you deny many options towards other, better solutions.

It's been about 15 years now. No changes have taken place.

Been a lot longer than 15 years... but carry on

EDIT insert --- the report 15 years ago was hardly the first incident... ergo my comment... and the following response to the whole situation, not just that one little bit. There are many, many problems.

See, BBS, the innovation gets stifled. It gets stifled directly when patents are bought up, but more importantly it gets stifled indirectly, from grade school on up when kids are shown films, given free material put out by the agribusiness corporations. Even if you escape all that (and even the best teachers are tempted to take the nice-looking ready made material when faced with budget cuts and tight curricula requirements), then research that doesn't benefit the companies is "strangely" not funded as well as research that goes in directions the big guys want.

Oh, yeah.. and juan, you missed the outright collusion in everything from zoning rules to disposal rules, etc. I mean, it makes sense that suburbs cannot have cows and horses perhaps, but sheep, chickens? If maintained properly, they are not a risk. But, those things get ruled "nuisances" while big companies can come in with smelly smokestacks, etc without any problem. (as long as the wind doesn't blow it over the wealthy areas, anyway).

Juan states unsubstantiated claim.

PLAYER runs with it.

Except... try talking to some teachers, particularly in heavy agriculture states. Try tracking the funding of research.

See, what you dismiss is actually true.

and no number of internet opinion articles will refute those facts. But, obviously, you are going to keep trying.

Like your old professors?

Who's names you can't be bothered to recollect?

Either you think I was taught by PhDs in elementary and high school or you cannot/ did not read what I wrote.

And not wanting to reveal is not the same as "cannot recollect"... but do go on.

Look up the word "unsubstantiated" then explain to me how saying "It's been about 15 years now. No changes have taken place (regarding innovation in response to that E.Coli problem)" without providing any support is not unsubstantiated.

Well, when something has been blasted all over every major news outlet for years...
But I guess I forgot you probably weren't even alive when the first well-known reports were blasted all over the news.

So, you can either google it or trust that those of us who were alive are not lying. See, in court, that would be considered valid, whereas the latest internet blogs would not.

Hey, even you didn't provide any support. You ended at "it's true, ask professors." It's not my responsibility to defend "facts" that someone else brings up.

Nope, I said ask teachers... and look into the funding sources for grants, if you were so inclined. See, I already gave you a lot of data you outright ignored. When you start calling people liars and idiots, its no longer their word in question, its whether YOU know of what you speak.. so, yes, that does require your verification.

But obviously, you cannot be bothered. Much easier to just pretend you know it all already. Were to you to bother verifying, you might actually have to admit you did not know of what you spoke.[/quote]
[/quote]

Sorry, player, but you have failed to provide any credible information which states that there have been no changes (regarding innovation in response to that E.Coli problem) for the past 15 years.

[BigBallinStalin]

I will concede that you are the queen of quote killing.

[Juan_Bottom]

I have yet to encounter data which states that international trade has lead to a steady decline in wages. Perhaps you could provide a source? You only mention the negatives of the expansion of international trade, so why not I mention the positives:

Try using google. Literally typing "NAFTA destroyed industry" will hit hundreds of articles. Rule #1 is "Never ask a question in a debate if you don't already know the answer."

Big Businesses benefit most from NAFTA. What they've done is start setting up shop in Mexico along the border so they can manufacture things using legal and cheap Mexican labor and then just ship it North to the States.

In addition, it benefits agribusiness because they flood Mexico with farm products and Mexican farmers just can't compete with the low prices and are forced out of the Market.

It gives US citizens cheap stuff and Mexicans cheap stuff, but the result is less jobs in the States (but they would have went to Asia anyway) and hard conditions for Mexicans who used to be farm workers. These Mexicans move North to find jobs in the factories or cross into the US illegally.

*Edit*

Mexico suggested NAFTA, so don't blame the US.

2) external competition. If you want to limit the power of monopolies, you have to enable competition; otherwise, your dreaded Mansato corporation--which you inadvertently support through supporting tariffs and discouraging international trade--retains a huge market share and control over the production of certain goods. Foreign competitors can reduce Mansato's grip on the market, thus enabling more options for consumers to purchase certain goods. However, there's also regulations involved by the government, which further complicates the issue (in other words, it's not as simple as you think).

If you want to limited the power of Monopolies: TEDDY MOTHERFUCKING ROOSEVELT! Tariffs aren't the problem. The problem is that consumers don't care where their goods come from, and the government is run by Agri-Business board members and lawyers. Monsanto has reached a point where it has money to burn on lobbying and suing.

A decrease in real wages (over whichever time you want to specify) are not only due to international trade, which you just stated.

No I didn't. In fact when I said "And if everyone bought locally, instead of from these same 10 corporations" I was talking about the American meat production monopolies.

It has, but other factors have also led to this like minimum wage, unions lobbying for higher wages, high corporate taxes (US is #1 in the world, maybe #2 currently), an unstable political and/or economic environment, et cetera. The problem that you're not understanding is that this is a very complex issue. It's not as simple as you declare it to be.

So? It's only as complex as you want it to be. The problem at the heart of it is this: NAFTA closed down many American production and service businesses/industries. So the answer is to stop doing it...
So it really is simple. We don't need to spend the next 11 hours analyzing every facet. It has a negative impact so we stop it.

Besides, one long-term benefit of shifting American production and service jobs to overseas is that it frees up labor for more valued uses. In the long-term, Juan. The problem with your focus on the short-term is that you overlook future benefits and ignore unintended consequences. Nevertheless, with freed up labor for higher valued uses, this enables people in college to see which fields are profitable and which are on the decline. It enables people to understand which sector will become more profitable, which areas businesses will grow, and which ones will decline.

Riiiiight.... that does not pass the smell test. 4.9 million Americans need to be out of work and on the Dole right now in order for college kids to better choose which career choice will make them the most amount of money, in the future at an undisclosed date. Until then they can be out of work too. And it also helps all these 4.9 million Americans out because they could go to work at any time....

Judging from your above response, you only mentioned negatives about international trade (well, actually, only one, which was overly simplistic by ignoring other factors). From your limited view on international trade (since you view intl. trade as a zero-sum game), you erroneously conclude that it's bad. It's not always bad, and it varies. There are many benefits and many costs, but you only focus on one or two particular negatives, while completely ignoring the benefits.

No. It's bad when it costs Americans jobs and wages. And when it leads to health risks or environmental concerns. The same as the Agri-Business monopolies. I'm simply speaking in generalities, but that is the zero-sum game. I cannot for the life of me understand the logic behind "freeing up the labor force" by sending all of our jobs overseas or over borders. You're simply hoping that a new industry will gobble up the idle workforce. You have no plan whatsoever. I don't care how complex you feel that it is, A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush.

The point is that buying immediately local doesn't necessarily support even your national economy. By purchasing from an immediate/local business "A", you don't purchase from some other American company that is considered to be as "local" as business A. For example, your hardware store (can't recall the name something & something's) is a "local" business in that it has operations over several regions of the US (predominantly the Midwest). When you purchase from there, you don't purchase from other "local" business, which means that by buying locally, you aren't necessarily supporting the national economy. That's all I'm pointing out (and it's in relation to your "buy American, it helps Americans" stance).

That doesn't make any sense. I can't buy from every local business in the history of America. The two businesses in your scenario are equal, so it doesn't matter where I spend that money. I don't have to buy from both of them. & I don't see how the need to support the national economy has grown from that issue.

If you understand that business A example, then you can understand that there are unintended consequences with your actions. By purchasing from American local business A, another local American business doesn't make the sale, thus hurting their performance (to a minor degree). (This is a point I've been stressing but you seem to ignore because you never concede on anything; you just forget, which is unfortunate.)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131709&start=135#p3148520 (in reference to the underlined)

But again, if they are completely identical, then it doesn't matter whatsoever. I wouldn't say that it is an unintended consequence, because I am fully aware that spending my money at one place will help it's performance over it's competitors. That's why I shop American in the first place.

Good for you, sir. It's hard to tell when you shift your stance from this one:

As I said I buy locally and expand that outward. And I also said that I always try to buy American first.

The best thing to do, is to buy American, and to buy in season. The plant will taste better, it will be more likely to be natural, and it'll help out Americans.

There is absolutely no shift at all. How do you say that?

Thank you, JB, for limiting your earlier argument that "buying locally DOES guarantee that the money will be spent within the local market" to your current one, which admits that "where they go from there is out of my control."

Just because you don't follow me, does not make me a liar. My earlier statement was just as limited. Here they are side by side, to show how remarkably similar they are. All I did differently the second time was finish my train of thought for you, to make sure we had an understanding. THis shouldn't even be an issue.

No it doesn't. But it does guarantee that my money is spent in my community. Which is why I do it.

I don't think that you follow me. If I spend my dollars in my community; well then I just spent them in my community. I'm guaranteeing that they are spent there. Yes, Where they go from there is out of my control.... So that was my argument.

"Can you find a better rule?" implies that what you stated was your rule to live by. You forgot that you held two contradictory stances at the same time, which is why it is important to concede on certain issues, JB, instead of digging in your heels.

I have dug in my heels, but I haven't held contradictory stances. No one else believes that I have. You've been trying to peg my beliefs as being ignorant for a while, but I haven't had a problem arguing a point over one of yours yet. Yours are too broad and general to handle the specifics of this debate, I think. You've expanded the debate from being one about eating healthy, locally grown food products VS eating the agri-business monopolies foods into one about supporting international trade.
And as far as I'm concerned, you didn't find a better rule.

My contention in this response is this: Exchange (i.e. trade) is not a zero-sum game. People mutually benefit ex ante with each exchange; otherwise, they would not trade. You posit that international trade is bad for the US economy, and you focus on the negatives, but your conclusion overlooks the benefits (as I've mentioned above). Can you reasonably presume that your standpoint is correct if you are unaware of the most of the benefits of international trade?

Are you open to expanding your mind with a book (or some good internet articles) that explain my position in more detail?

While I agree that international free trade has it's benefits to industry, and to the individual, I do not agree that it has been wholly positive for the country. I do not believe that the positives of free trade outweigh the negatives. And not just for people, but for the planet as well. I'm not saying that we should have to buy American products at an outrageous price, but rather we should be protecting our businesses and industry.

Here was your nationalist stance:

I don't care if you call me a nationalist. I feel that the very fact that you can call me a nationalist while debating with me shows that maybe there are some freedoms in this country that I can be proud of. If you were born in North Korea (purely by chance) your views would entirely different - they'd be ideological and nationalist. So yeah, I don't mind being called a nationalist anymore than a North Korean does, but for a different reason.

The reason why American companies are more reasonable than your view is that they are open to buying foreign goods in order to conduct their business more efficiently at a lower cost. If they can decrease their costs by increasing their productivity and/or efficiency (thus increasing their profits), then they can remain in the US and pay their workers a decent wage.

I pretty much completely disagree with this. I showed you how it's a myth that a company whose profits increase will share it with it's employees. American productivity has been on the rise for 40 years, but our wages have not.

[In reference to the underline]: You aren't necessarily helping support American workers by buying only "American" final goods.

Yes I am. I know that at least one American worker was involved in the final assembly, right? That was what the part that you underlined was about.

If "Japanese" cars are manufactured in the USA and support American workers, then what harm have you caused by purchasing a "foreign" car?

Because in the end, my money supports the Japanese economy.

One thing: there's room for competitors if they're savvy enough to capture a market share which dislikes Tyson and Purdue products enough to buy locally produced products.

They may "suffocate the market," but their standardized strategies leave gaps in the market. Differentiated strategies which customize their products to suit certain customers' needs can close these gaps. My point is that there still can be room for competition.

That role is filled by the few local farmers who still sell their foodstuffs at farmers markets. There is no other gaps, which is what I've been complaining about. They control everything from the farmer who raises the animals, to the farmer who produces feed, to the slaughterhouses.

Perhaps, you meant "cartel."

No I meant Monopoly.

instead of reading cherry-picked wikipedia facts that [do]offer much evidence.

You very specifically asked for them.

My point, JB, is that if you do not possess the economic information (which can include environmental impact) of the standpoint which you advocated:

"The best thing to do, is to buy American, and to buy in season. The plant will taste better, it will be more likely to be natural, and it'll help out Americans."


Then you can not reasonably infer that you know what is best for everyone. Because without economic information, you can't assess which sectors of the economy are affected (which in turn means which people are affected). Your data said that "antibiotics are bad" and "E.Coli causes harm" but most of them didn't leave any quantifiable data, which is why a professor of the agricultural field would give you a funny. Some of the data indicated that it's bad to purchase from certain corporations, but that doesn't rule out that other large corporations are bad. The data didn't support your point that "we should buy American because buying American helps" either. I'm interesting in reading more factual articles and books that pertain to these issues, instead of reading cherry-picked wikipedia facts that don't offer much evidence.

Anyway though, I don't know for certain that I have a photographic memory, but I do know that you don't. You've taken my words out of context. Clearly I allow for other people's personal data to be input into my statement. Here is the original context that you've forgotten:

If people really want a specific product, and no substitute good will do, of course they should buy the import (as long as the price is at or below their willingness to pay).

Well that goes without saying.
But don't listen to BBS because he works for Monsanto. Or Tyson. I don't know yet. But either way, please don't sue me for encouraging people not to eat your products or to contribute to your control of 90% or 80% of your food industry. Depending on if you are Monsanto or Tyson's boy.

The best thing to do, is to buy American, and to buy in season. The plant will taste better, it will be more likely to be natural, and it'll help out Americans.

Ignore the strikethrough part. I just didn't want to hear anyone crying foul. Anyway though, I was right. Once again, I was speaking in generalities.

If everyone did it, then you harm other sectors of the economy that rely on foreign trade. You make people lose jobs, Juan. How can you call yourself a caring American by advocating such a stance?

The question is does the job growth equal or surpass the jobs lost. It's obvious that the growth would equal or surpass the jobs lost. Instead of sending X amount of dollars overseas you send most of it back into our economy.

And when you say something like "It would be best for everyone else, if everyone did it," you presume that based on your limited knowledge, judgment, and wisdom, that you still know what is best for everyone else. And I already explained how that isn't a good idea, yet you still advocate that it should be done... [facepalm.jpg]

And I've explained how it so obviously is.
Despite paying higher prices (which I would say is an obvious outcome to many) if every American bought only American products then those American businesses that sell and/or create those products would have to hire workers. American workers. So instead of having that 4.9 million unemployed, the number would be cut down drastically. And that is exactly what I'm saying would be best for America. Your system of letting the individual do what is best only for the individual has lead to a shift in manufacturing/production and servicing jobs overseas at a faster rate than we can replace them. You're not truly diminishing your own income when you are simultaneously ensuring a healthy job market and economy.
I could swear that there was a famous mathematician or economics teacher who proved that free trade isn't the best system. The best system is when everyone works together to make sure that they all get a bigger piece. I couldn't find it on Google but I will.
That's what I'm talking about when I say "It would be best for everyone else, if everyone did it."

You're a dishonest debater. You intentionally removed the remainder to my point. That's why it's important to not interrupt so frequently because you miss the point:

I removed it because it had nothing to do with my point that you quoted. I don't feel a need to debate every little quibble and expand this until each response is 10 pages long.

Why won't you concede on even some basic points I raise? Instead, you just ignore them, no matter how reasonable they are. To me that's called being intellectually dishonest. If you continue to pull these tactics, then I won't have much to gain from this discussion, because you are not genuinely interested in being open-minded to differing views.

I ignore points for one of three reasons.

It has nothing to do with my points that you disagree with
I've already covered it (be it indirectly or directly)
Or I agree and there's no conflict.

In this case it's the second one.

You didn't counter that. You sidestepped with "You know who else they used to price out of a job? Illegal Immigrants." And minimum wage, according to you, prices illegal immigrants out of a job, then I say, "Darn those unintended consequences at the expense of nationalist sentiments!" (Your nationalist sentiments describe your implied joy in having illegal immigrants priced out of job).

Minimum wage didn't price the immigrants out; it was the Unions forcing them out. If you look at slaughterhouses today (for example) what once were good-paying union jobs for Americans have become dangerous, low paying jobs for illegals. Because while you're arguing free trade for the masses, to me the heart of the issue is Agri-business.

Quoting out of context is stupid.

Did I not answer your questions? Irregardless of how I quoted you, I answered what you were trying to ask. So duh!

"Productivity has been on the rise for quite a while while wages have been on the decline."

Your empirically support statement doesn't show how "The upper bound is increased through one's labor productivity, which is from one's own labor, and from technological advances in increased productivity per laborer." is a myth.

You wasted all that time, and then act all macho about failing to explain what I was saying earlier was a myth.

Yes it does. It shows that no matter how hard we work or how much we produce our wages have a cap. I was thinking about this today and figured that this was the argument to be lobbed back at me. But clearly you can't work harder and learn more and keep earning more money. Sooner or later you have to flat line. Instead of sharing, business keeps the additional profits from your work for itself. There can be no other explanation for American productivity to rise since 1975 but for our wages to stay the same. You may be talking about "real income" again because we produce more now than in '75, so everything's a bit cheaper. But our wages haven't increased.
Then again, isn't '75 when Union power nationwide peaked?

Here's a fun read about Unions:

You keep telling me to prove this and that, yet whoever wrote that article did not show their work, and are at odds with most historians. That's too much contradiction to take at their word. American history, particularly from the years of 1770 through 1920 is something of a hobby for me.
Their article also flys in the face of everything that has happened to American business since 1950, when both unions and protectionists laws began eroding. For instance they say that Capitalism, not unions was what lead to a safer work environment. But that is the dumbest point you have ever made. Over and over again we have seen businesses cut corners with safety in order to increase profits. In fact, in this very thread I have repeatedly brought up how the unions made slaughterhouses safer for their workers, only for the job to once again become one of the most dangerous in America... because of the loss of the unions and government protection.
I think that any amateur historian could go through that with a pair of scissors. I would myself because I love the history of this time period, but there's too much to cover in your post.

How much childish can you get, Juan? Your own reasoning doesn't support the information you presented, and you claim that you are right? It's not as simple as you think it is; therefore, (as I was originally stating) you can't use your one case to justify that you know what is best for everyone when you say things like:

But in my original context, I was right. You expanded the argument into a direction that I originally had no intention of taking it. I very clearly wasn't telling everyone in the world to do exactly as I do, I was speaking in generalities based on common sense.

JB, I'm asking about how that study was conducted because it's important to understand how statistics are calculated. Apparently, you can't answer my questions because you don't understand how they obtained those numbers; therefore, it is pointless for me to ask you about something you don't fully understand.

It seemed rhetorical to me.

How can I be wrong about something I didn't state contradictory evidence to?

I didn't say that you did. I just said that you said that I was twice as right.

I'll continue to buy locally until there's no where left to buy from.

You're still dictating what's best for others.

What are you, slow or something? I said "I'll do this" not "I'll make everyone do this."

Oh but you did. You just forget or you're a liar.

dude what? how? If you're going to call someone a liar, at least have the common decency to quote their lies instead of something random.

He died. Got anything else? Just kidding.

Radio talk shows are great, but they have limited depth compared to books (which may explain how you construct your arguments, how you defend your points, and how you feel no need to present data on economics (which can include environmental information) in order to support your stance that:

What it comes down to is this. I don't see any point in trading books in order to win a casual debate in an internet forum on a game site. And I also think that to suggest so is both elitist and retarded at the same time. Besides this, I'm too busy reading the thesaurus now.

I'm not saying the effects of E.Coli are isolated. It is foolish to suggest one case (or even a few), which don't mention any economics (hardly any have any numbers at all), support your opinions, and then say, "this is best for the economy. DERP."

And once again, you're being intellectually dishonest:

AHHHHhhhhhhhhh, no. You're forgetting that I was also arguing the health benefits of not eating meat from the big ten. So obviously I was not arguing about the economy (though the subjects touch). I was arguing the health benefit's of not eating poisoned meat. Be careful when you throw out phrases like "intellectually dishonest" because to me, the debate is an art form. Everything has a place and everything is in it's place. That's why I speak in generalities so you can pin me to many specifically applied ideals.

Your environmental impact assessment largely lacks quantifiable data and has hardly any (if at all) data related to the economics of decided to follow your advice (namely expressed in your two standpoints:

Which? I've only mentioned environmental impacts in passing, except for when you asked. So I haven't talked about that.
Now if you mean the release of E.Coli and Salmonella into the wild, that's different. I don't know how either has effected nature on the whole but I do know that the Salmonella can contaminate spinach, onions, lettuce,... and it has. And it's sickened American consumers that way. And that's the meat industry's fault. But the E.Coli would be almost negligible if you eat grass-fed beef.

But besides that point, what kind of sick world are we living in when a man will take the opinion that he needs to know how free trade economics are effected before he can asses whether the resulting damage to nature is acceptable? That reminds me of those asshole loggers that want the right to cut down 500+ year-old trees.

I looked at the bits you summarized and they don't mention enough information for me to jump on your "buy American" or "if everyone bought American, then it would best" because there's hardly information that relates to the economic impact (you know, the economy, and how everyone is affected by it?).

Well we know what happened when we shifted our jobs overseas and became a consumer economy. Seems to me that you can make reasonable assumptions with the either half of the data.

As I said earlier, you have no empirical data listed. It's just broad statements. And in spirit of this discussion, if you don't have empirical data

Ah, you smugly asked for a list of environmental concerns. I gave you the list, and then you said that using wiki wasn't good enough. ECT, and you ended with this statement which is so far removed from the reality of the conversation.... It just doesn't make sense. There's no need to be a smug jerkwad because wiki isn't empirical or something.

[Thanks for answering my question on globalization, but you forgot something]

I thought that I did. Obviously I covered the Monsanto tariffs bit, and at some point I thought you believed the cheap grain to India and China canceled out the fact that it also put many poor farmers/sharecroppers out of business.

All of their farms? All of them? Oh jeez, I would love to read about how all of Mexico's farms were killed by removing import tariffs. (Only import tariffs, right, Juan? Because that's what you're positing). I'll patiently await this information.

I love how you latch onto a single idea or phrase that makes you believe you have found a major hole in my argument. You're unintentionally turning the argument into one about my use of the English language.
What I said was:
"No, there I was talking about how free trade (NAFTA) abolished the protection tariffs that Mexico had and killed all their farms. It must have hurt Canadian farms too, I'm certain."
AND killed all their farms
not
and that killed all of their farms

NAFTA’s Disastrous Results

The results of NAFTA have made things even worse for the people of Mexico. From 1994-2004 (according to World Bank figures), 6 million campesinos, or one-quarter of the rural population, was ruined and had to leave the countryside to try to survive. In Mexico, only one third of new job seekers entering the employment market will find a job. Emigration increased exponentially and has reached the level of 600,000 people per year who risk their lives to cross the border into the U.S. Every year more people die. Last year, 562 people died in the desert, or in other ways, crossing the border.

As Mexican President Felipe Calderón dined with foreign dignitaries on traditional Mexican country delicacies like pumpkin-flower soup, he trumpeted the “benefits” of NAFTA. Despite what he called “inconveniences,” the U.S. and Canada now buy five times more from Mexican agribusiness than they bought in 1994.

NAFTA intensified the competitive disadvantages facing Mexican farmers. It mandated that the Mexican government drastically cut farm subsidies to small farmers, while U.S. producers receive the equivalent of $10 billion in subsidies per year. And, on top of all this, the Mexican government pays subsidies to U.S. agribusiness giant Cargill for the transportation and distribution of corn.

In addition to ruining farmers, these changes have imposed more hunger on the Mexican people. Since NAFTA went into effect, Mexico has had to import the majority of its food. Speculation in corn prices has led to a rise in tortilla prices of 730%. In a concentrated expression of the oppressor/oppressed relationship between the U.S. and Mexico, the amount spent on food imports by Mexicans since NAFTA went into effect is about the same amount as what is sent back to Mexico as remittances by former campesinos who have been forced to the U.S. to be superexploited as undocumented immigrants ($100 billion).

While the radical transformations of Mexican agriculture have injected profit into U.S. imperialism and its Mexican junior partners, they have been a disaster for the people. And the new rules that went into effect at the beginning of 2008 will be worse. According to the National Association of Rural Producers (Asociación Nacional de Empresas Comercializadoras del Campo), the imports of corn and beans without any restrictions will cause “an economic and social catastrophe for the majority of producers, insecurity in the food supply, and vulnerability for the security and governability” of the country.

A good portion of these people came over the boarder looking for work. Monford and IBP (& More) have been known to advertise in Mexico for workers to come work in their meat packaging and slaughterhouses.
And still some other farmers switched to cactus farming, though the profits seem to have been less lucrative.

Don't you see the unintended consequences of import tariffs?

I just don't understand why over and over again you think that you're being smart. I answered the question about Monsanto and import tariffs before you even asked it. I know that there is a lot here, but it's your conversation as well as mine, and I'm doing fine following it.

[Juan_Bottom]

Been a lot longer than 15 years... but carry on

Yeah,... you're right. Looks like 1982 was the first outbreak. Am I the only one who's deeply disturbed that people have been dying since 1982 and nothing has been done to stop it?

Juan states unsubstantiated claim.

PLAYER runs with it.

All you had to do was google E.Coli outbreaks in the US. I always do a quick google search about whatever I don't know about before I comment on it. Or I don't comment on it. Obviously player and I are talking about this like it's common knowledge for a reason. That should have been a clue.

I did because I educate myself beyond this field which you seem to think I have limited myself to. You should do the same, but you have this self-defense mechanism which prevents you from opening your mind to different, reasonable views.

See above.

This bears repeating because Juan still have failed in this area (which is mainly what I've been wanting to talk about):

No I didn't. You just lost the context in your memory. Or you never had it. But either way, you're using it in a way other than how I intended it. And you're hinging most of what you want to discuss on it.

[BigBallinStalin]

For the sake of clarity, state which standpoint describes your own (if you wish to speak in generalities, then say something like "generally," "usually," "tends to," etc.). If you wish to modify any of your statements, then feel free to do so.

The best thing to do, is to buy American, and to buy in season. The plant will taste better, it will be more likely to be natural, and it'll help out Americans.

Buying local, or primarily local, may not be what's best for everyone else--no matter how much you extrapolate your personal experiences onto everyone else's.

It would be best for everyone else, if everyone did it.

As I said I buy locally and expand that outward. And I also said that I always try to buy American first.

[BigBallinStalin]

Been a lot longer than 15 years... but carry on

Yeah,... you're right. Looks like 1982 was the first outbreak. Am I the only one who's deeply disturbed that people have been dying since 1982 and nothing has been done to stop it?

Juan states unsubstantiated claim.

PLAYER runs with it.

All you had to do was google E.Coli outbreaks in the US. I always do a quick google search about whatever I don't know about before I comment on it. Or I don't comment on it. Obviously player and I are talking about this like it's common knowledge for a reason. That should have been a clue.

I did because I educate myself beyond this field which you seem to think I have limited myself to. You should do the same, but you have this self-defense mechanism which prevents you from opening your mind to different, reasonable views.

See above.

This bears repeating because Juan still have failed in this area (which is mainly what I've been wanting to talk about):

No I didn't. You just lost the context in your memory. Or you never had it. But either way, you're using it in a way other than how I intended it. And you're hinging most of what you want to discuss on it.

Blame goes in multiple directions--not just externally. Partly, this is my fault for not explaining myself clear enough, so that you two would not misinterpret what I was talking about.

This is the original context:

Is this risk in beef real? Was it corrected? Should consumers really be concerned since the problem is over? How can local businesses somehow be immune from such errors and similar ones if larger businesses aren't immune to such errors?

As far as I know; It was never "corrected." So long as corn-fed cattle shit, there is going to be the chance of another E.Coli outbreak.
Small farmers can feed their cattle on grass.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131709&start=150#p3149053

To which I responded:

Perhaps, there's a way of someone innovative to overcome this problem. Have you thought about that? People are very innovative at adapting to changes and creating better solutions. When you demand that everyone should buy local, then you deny many options towards other, better solutions.

It's been about 15 years now. No changes have taken place.

Been a lot longer than 15 years... but carry on

[/quote]

What I don't understand is this: if no changes have taken place over the past 15 years (or 15 to whatever amount Player wants to later change it), then how come there aren't more people dying/suffering from E. Coli outbreaks?

To say that, "no changes have taken place" means that "nothing was changed (in relation to this major E. Coli outbreak)." If nothing was changed, then why hasn't there been major E. Coli outbreaks every year? Or every 6 months?

[pimpdave]

I have yet to encounter data which states that international trade has lead to a steady decline in wages. Perhaps you could provide a source? You only mention the negatives of the expansion of international trade, so why not I mention the positives:

Try using google. Literally typing "NAFTA destroyed industry" will hit hundreds of articles. Rule #1 is "Never ask a question in a debate if you don't already know the answer."

Big Businesses benefit most from NAFTA. What they've done is start setting up shop in Mexico along the border so they can manufacture things using legal and cheap Mexican labor and then just ship it North to the States.

In addition, it benefits agribusiness because they flood Mexico with farm products and Mexican farmers just can't compete with the low prices and are forced out of the Market.

It gives US citizens cheap stuff and Mexicans cheap stuff, but the result is less jobs in the States (but they would have went to Asia anyway) and hard conditions for Mexicans who used to be farm workers. These Mexicans move North to find jobs in the factories or cross into the US illegally.

*Edit*

Mexico suggested NAFTA, so don't blame the US.

2) external competition. If you want to limit the power of monopolies, you have to enable competition; otherwise, your dreaded Mansato corporation--which you inadvertently support through supporting tariffs and discouraging international trade--retains a huge market share and control over the production of certain goods. Foreign competitors can reduce Mansato's grip on the market, thus enabling more options for consumers to purchase certain goods. However, there's also regulations involved by the government, which further complicates the issue (in other words, it's not as simple as you think).

If you want to limited the power of Monopolies: TEDDY MOTHERFUCKING ROOSEVELT! Tariffs aren't the problem. The problem is that consumers don't care where their goods come from, and the government is run by Agri-Business board members and lawyers. Monsanto has reached a point where it has money to burn on lobbying and suing.

A decrease in real wages (over whichever time you want to specify) are not only due to international trade, which you just stated.

No I didn't. In fact when I said "And if everyone bought locally, instead of from these same 10 corporations" I was talking about the American meat production monopolies.

It has, but other factors have also led to this like minimum wage, unions lobbying for higher wages, high corporate taxes (US is #1 in the world, maybe #2 currently), an unstable political and/or economic environment, et cetera. The problem that you're not understanding is that this is a very complex issue. It's not as simple as you declare it to be.

So? It's only as complex as you want it to be. The problem at the heart of it is this: NAFTA closed down many American production and service businesses/industries. So the answer is to stop doing it...
So it really is simple. We don't need to spend the next 11 hours analyzing every facet. It has a negative impact so we stop it.

Besides, one long-term benefit of shifting American production and service jobs to overseas is that it frees up labor for more valued uses. In the long-term, Juan. The problem with your focus on the short-term is that you overlook future benefits and ignore unintended consequences. Nevertheless, with freed up labor for higher valued uses, this enables people in college to see which fields are profitable and which are on the decline. It enables people to understand which sector will become more profitable, which areas businesses will grow, and which ones will decline.

Riiiiight.... that does not pass the smell test. 4.9 million Americans need to be out of work and on the Dole right now in order for college kids to better choose which career choice will make them the most amount of money, in the future at an undisclosed date. Until then they can be out of work too. And it also helps all these 4.9 million Americans out because they could go to work at any time....

Judging from your above response, you only mentioned negatives about international trade (well, actually, only one, which was overly simplistic by ignoring other factors). From your limited view on international trade (since you view intl. trade as a zero-sum game), you erroneously conclude that it's bad. It's not always bad, and it varies. There are many benefits and many costs, but you only focus on one or two particular negatives, while completely ignoring the benefits.

No. It's bad when it costs Americans jobs and wages. And when it leads to health risks or environmental concerns. The same as the Agri-Business monopolies. I'm simply speaking in generalities, but that is the zero-sum game. I cannot for the life of me understand the logic behind "freeing up the labor force" by sending all of our jobs overseas or over borders. You're simply hoping that a new industry will gobble up the idle workforce. You have no plan whatsoever. I don't care how complex you feel that it is, A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush.

The point is that buying immediately local doesn't necessarily support even your national economy. By purchasing from an immediate/local business "A", you don't purchase from some other American company that is considered to be as "local" as business A. For example, your hardware store (can't recall the name something & something's) is a "local" business in that it has operations over several regions of the US (predominantly the Midwest). When you purchase from there, you don't purchase from other "local" business, which means that by buying locally, you aren't necessarily supporting the national economy. That's all I'm pointing out (and it's in relation to your "buy American, it helps Americans" stance).

That doesn't make any sense. I can't buy from every local business in the history of America. The two businesses in your scenario are equal, so it doesn't matter where I spend that money. I don't have to buy from both of them. & I don't see how the need to support the national economy has grown from that issue.

If you understand that business A example, then you can understand that there are unintended consequences with your actions. By purchasing from American local business A, another local American business doesn't make the sale, thus hurting their performance (to a minor degree). (This is a point I've been stressing but you seem to ignore because you never concede on anything; you just forget, which is unfortunate.)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131709&start=135#p3148520 (in reference to the underlined)

But again, if they are completely identical, then it doesn't matter whatsoever. I wouldn't say that it is an unintended consequence, because I am fully aware that spending my money at one place will help it's performance over it's competitors. That's why I shop American in the first place.

Good for you, sir. It's hard to tell when you shift your stance from this one:

As I said I buy locally and expand that outward. And I also said that I always try to buy American first.

The best thing to do, is to buy American, and to buy in season. The plant will taste better, it will be more likely to be natural, and it'll help out Americans.

There is absolutely no shift at all. How do you say that?

Thank you, JB, for limiting your earlier argument that "buying locally DOES guarantee that the money will be spent within the local market" to your current one, which admits that "where they go from there is out of my control."

Just because you don't follow me, does not make me a liar. My earlier statement was just as limited. Here they are side by side, to show how remarkably similar they are. All I did differently the second time was finish my train of thought for you, to make sure we had an understanding. THis shouldn't even be an issue.

No it doesn't. But it does guarantee that my money is spent in my community. Which is why I do it.

I don't think that you follow me. If I spend my dollars in my community; well then I just spent them in my community. I'm guaranteeing that they are spent there. Yes, Where they go from there is out of my control.... So that was my argument.

"Can you find a better rule?" implies that what you stated was your rule to live by. You forgot that you held two contradictory stances at the same time, which is why it is important to concede on certain issues, JB, instead of digging in your heels.

I have dug in my heels, but I haven't held contradictory stances. No one else believes that I have. You've been trying to peg my beliefs as being ignorant for a while, but I haven't had a problem arguing a point over one of yours yet. Yours are too broad and general to handle the specifics of this debate, I think. You've expanded the debate from being one about eating healthy, locally grown food products VS eating the agri-business monopolies foods into one about supporting international trade.
And as far as I'm concerned, you didn't find a better rule.

My contention in this response is this: Exchange (i.e. trade) is not a zero-sum game. People mutually benefit ex ante with each exchange; otherwise, they would not trade. You posit that international trade is bad for the US economy, and you focus on the negatives, but your conclusion overlooks the benefits (as I've mentioned above). Can you reasonably presume that your standpoint is correct if you are unaware of the most of the benefits of international trade?

Are you open to expanding your mind with a book (or some good internet articles) that explain my position in more detail?

While I agree that international free trade has it's benefits to industry, and to the individual, I do not agree that it has been wholly positive for the country. I do not believe that the positives of free trade outweigh the negatives. And not just for people, but for the planet as well. I'm not saying that we should have to buy American products at an outrageous price, but rather we should be protecting our businesses and industry.

Here was your nationalist stance:

I don't care if you call me a nationalist. I feel that the very fact that you can call me a nationalist while debating with me shows that maybe there are some freedoms in this country that I can be proud of. If you were born in North Korea (purely by chance) your views would entirely different - they'd be ideological and nationalist. So yeah, I don't mind being called a nationalist anymore than a North Korean does, but for a different reason.

The reason why American companies are more reasonable than your view is that they are open to buying foreign goods in order to conduct their business more efficiently at a lower cost. If they can decrease their costs by increasing their productivity and/or efficiency (thus increasing their profits), then they can remain in the US and pay their workers a decent wage.

I pretty much completely disagree with this. I showed you how it's a myth that a company whose profits increase will share it with it's employees. American productivity has been on the rise for 40 years, but our wages have not.

[In reference to the underline]: You aren't necessarily helping support American workers by buying only "American" final goods.

Yes I am. I know that at least one American worker was involved in the final assembly, right? That was what the part that you underlined was about.

If "Japanese" cars are manufactured in the USA and support American workers, then what harm have you caused by purchasing a "foreign" car?

Because in the end, my money supports the Japanese economy.

One thing: there's room for competitors if they're savvy enough to capture a market share which dislikes Tyson and Purdue products enough to buy locally produced products.

They may "suffocate the market," but their standardized strategies leave gaps in the market. Differentiated strategies which customize their products to suit certain customers' needs can close these gaps. My point is that there still can be room for competition.

That role is filled by the few local farmers who still sell their foodstuffs at farmers markets. There is no other gaps, which is what I've been complaining about. They control everything from the farmer who raises the animals, to the farmer who produces feed, to the slaughterhouses.

Perhaps, you meant "cartel."

No I meant Monopoly.

instead of reading cherry-picked wikipedia facts that [do]offer much evidence.

You very specifically asked for them.

My point, JB, is that if you do not possess the economic information (which can include environmental impact) of the standpoint which you advocated:

"The best thing to do, is to buy American, and to buy in season. The plant will taste better, it will be more likely to be natural, and it'll help out Americans."


Then you can not reasonably infer that you know what is best for everyone. Because without economic information, you can't assess which sectors of the economy are affected (which in turn means which people are affected). Your data said that "antibiotics are bad" and "E.Coli causes harm" but most of them didn't leave any quantifiable data, which is why a professor of the agricultural field would give you a funny. Some of the data indicated that it's bad to purchase from certain corporations, but that doesn't rule out that other large corporations are bad. The data didn't support your point that "we should buy American because buying American helps" either. I'm interesting in reading more factual articles and books that pertain to these issues, instead of reading cherry-picked wikipedia facts that don't offer much evidence.

Anyway though, I don't know for certain that I have a photographic memory, but I do know that you don't. You've taken my words out of context. Clearly I allow for other people's personal data to be input into my statement. Here is the original context that you've forgotten:

If people really want a specific product, and no substitute good will do, of course they should buy the import (as long as the price is at or below their willingness to pay).

Well that goes without saying.
But don't listen to BBS because he works for Monsanto. Or Tyson. I don't know yet. But either way, please don't sue me for encouraging people not to eat your products or to contribute to your control of 90% or 80% of your food industry. Depending on if you are Monsanto or Tyson's boy.

The best thing to do, is to buy American, and to buy in season. The plant will taste better, it will be more likely to be natural, and it'll help out Americans.

Ignore the strikethrough part. I just didn't want to hear anyone crying foul. Anyway though, I was right. Once again, I was speaking in generalities.

If everyone did it, then you harm other sectors of the economy that rely on foreign trade. You make people lose jobs, Juan. How can you call yourself a caring American by advocating such a stance?

The question is does the job growth equal or surpass the jobs lost. It's obvious that the growth would equal or surpass the jobs lost. Instead of sending X amount of dollars overseas you send most of it back into our economy.

And when you say something like "It would be best for everyone else, if everyone did it," you presume that based on your limited knowledge, judgment, and wisdom, that you still know what is best for everyone else. And I already explained how that isn't a good idea, yet you still advocate that it should be done... [facepalm.jpg]

And I've explained how it so obviously is.
Despite paying higher prices (which I would say is an obvious outcome to many) if every American bought only American products then those American businesses that sell and/or create those products would have to hire workers. American workers. So instead of having that 4.9 million unemployed, the number would be cut down drastically. And that is exactly what I'm saying would be best for America. Your system of letting the individual do what is best only for the individual has lead to a shift in manufacturing/production and servicing jobs overseas at a faster rate than we can replace them. You're not truly diminishing your own income when you are simultaneously ensuring a healthy job market and economy.
I could swear that there was a famous mathematician or economics teacher who proved that free trade isn't the best system. The best system is when everyone works together to make sure that they all get a bigger piece. I couldn't find it on Google but I will.
That's what I'm talking about when I say "It would be best for everyone else, if everyone did it."

You're a dishonest debater. You intentionally removed the remainder to my point. That's why it's important to not interrupt so frequently because you miss the point:

I removed it because it had nothing to do with my point that you quoted. I don't feel a need to debate every little quibble and expand this until each response is 10 pages long.

Why won't you concede on even some basic points I raise? Instead, you just ignore them, no matter how reasonable they are. To me that's called being intellectually dishonest. If you continue to pull these tactics, then I won't have much to gain from this discussion, because you are not genuinely interested in being open-minded to differing views.

I ignore points for one of three reasons.

It has nothing to do with my points that you disagree with
I've already covered it (be it indirectly or directly)
Or I agree and there's no conflict.

In this case it's the second one.

You didn't counter that. You sidestepped with "You know who else they used to price out of a job? Illegal Immigrants." And minimum wage, according to you, prices illegal immigrants out of a job, then I say, "Darn those unintended consequences at the expense of nationalist sentiments!" (Your nationalist sentiments describe your implied joy in having illegal immigrants priced out of job).

Minimum wage didn't price the immigrants out; it was the Unions forcing them out. If you look at slaughterhouses today (for example) what once were good-paying union jobs for Americans have become dangerous, low paying jobs for illegals. Because while you're arguing free trade for the masses, to me the heart of the issue is Agri-business.

Quoting out of context is stupid.

Did I not answer your questions? Irregardless of how I quoted you, I answered what you were trying to ask. So duh!

"Productivity has been on the rise for quite a while while wages have been on the decline."

Your empirically support statement doesn't show how "The upper bound is increased through one's labor productivity, which is from one's own labor, and from technological advances in increased productivity per laborer." is a myth.

You wasted all that time, and then act all macho about failing to explain what I was saying earlier was a myth.

Yes it does. It shows that no matter how hard we work or how much we produce our wages have a cap. I was thinking about this today and figured that this was the argument to be lobbed back at me. But clearly you can't work harder and learn more and keep earning more money. Sooner or later you have to flat line. Instead of sharing, business keeps the additional profits from your work for itself. There can be no other explanation for American productivity to rise since 1975 but for our wages to stay the same. You may be talking about "real income" again because we produce more now than in '75, so everything's a bit cheaper. But our wages haven't increased.
Then again, isn't '75 when Union power nationwide peaked?

Here's a fun read about Unions:

You keep telling me to prove this and that, yet whoever wrote that article did not show their work, and are at odds with most historians. That's too much contradiction to take at their word. American history, particularly from the years of 1770 through 1920 is something of a hobby for me.
Their article also flys in the face of everything that has happened to American business since 1950, when both unions and protectionists laws began eroding. For instance they say that Capitalism, not unions was what lead to a safer work environment. But that is the dumbest point you have ever made. Over and over again we have seen businesses cut corners with safety in order to increase profits. In fact, in this very thread I have repeatedly brought up how the unions made slaughterhouses safer for their workers, only for the job to once again become one of the most dangerous in America... because of the loss of the unions and government protection.
I think that any amateur historian could go through that with a pair of scissors. I would myself because I love the history of this time period, but there's too much to cover in your post.

How much childish can you get, Juan? Your own reasoning doesn't support the information you presented, and you claim that you are right? It's not as simple as you think it is; therefore, (as I was originally stating) you can't use your one case to justify that you know what is best for everyone when you say things like:

But in my original context, I was right. You expanded the argument into a direction that I originally had no intention of taking it. I very clearly wasn't telling everyone in the world to do exactly as I do, I was speaking in generalities based on common sense.

JB, I'm asking about how that study was conducted because it's important to understand how statistics are calculated. Apparently, you can't answer my questions because you don't understand how they obtained those numbers; therefore, it is pointless for me to ask you about something you don't fully understand.

It seemed rhetorical to me.

How can I be wrong about something I didn't state contradictory evidence to?

I didn't say that you did. I just said that you said that I was twice as right.

I'll continue to buy locally until there's no where left to buy from.

You're still dictating what's best for others.

What are you, slow or something? I said "I'll do this" not "I'll make everyone do this."

Oh but you did. You just forget or you're a liar.

dude what? how? If you're going to call someone a liar, at least have the common decency to quote their lies instead of something random.

He died. Got anything else? Just kidding.

Radio talk shows are great, but they have limited depth compared to books (which may explain how you construct your arguments, how you defend your points, and how you feel no need to present data on economics (which can include environmental information) in order to support your stance that:

What it comes down to is this. I don't see any point in trading books in order to win a casual debate in an internet forum on a game site. And I also think that to suggest so is both elitist and retarded at the same time. Besides this, I'm too busy reading the thesaurus now.

I'm not saying the effects of E.Coli are isolated. It is foolish to suggest one case (or even a few), which don't mention any economics (hardly any have any numbers at all), support your opinions, and then say, "this is best for the economy. DERP."

And once again, you're being intellectually dishonest:

AHHHHhhhhhhhhh, no. You're forgetting that I was also arguing the health benefits of not eating meat from the big ten. So obviously I was not arguing about the economy (though the subjects touch). I was arguing the health benefit's of not eating poisoned meat. Be careful when you throw out phrases like "intellectually dishonest" because to me, the debate is an art form. Everything has a place and everything is in it's place. That's why I speak in generalities so you can pin me to many specifically applied ideals.

Your environmental impact assessment largely lacks quantifiable data and has hardly any (if at all) data related to the economics of decided to follow your advice (namely expressed in your two standpoints:

Which? I've only mentioned environmental impacts in passing, except for when you asked. So I haven't talked about that.
Now if you mean the release of E.Coli and Salmonella into the wild, that's different. I don't know how either has effected nature on the whole but I do know that the Salmonella can contaminate spinach, onions, lettuce,... and it has. And it's sickened American consumers that way. And that's the meat industry's fault. But the E.Coli would be almost negligible if you eat grass-fed beef.

But besides that point, what kind of sick world are we living in when a man will take the opinion that he needs to know how free trade economics are effected before he can asses whether the resulting damage to nature is acceptable? That reminds me of those asshole loggers that want the right to cut down 500+ year-old trees.

I looked at the bits you summarized and they don't mention enough information for me to jump on your "buy American" or "if everyone bought American, then it would best" because there's hardly information that relates to the economic impact (you know, the economy, and how everyone is affected by it?).

Well we know what happened when we shifted our jobs overseas and became a consumer economy. Seems to me that you can make reasonable assumptions with the either half of the data.

As I said earlier, you have no empirical data listed. It's just broad statements. And in spirit of this discussion, if you don't have empirical data

Ah, you smugly asked for a list of environmental concerns. I gave you the list, and then you said that using wiki wasn't good enough. ECT, and you ended with this statement which is so far removed from the reality of the conversation.... It just doesn't make sense. There's no need to be a smug jerkwad because wiki isn't empirical or something.

[Thanks for answering my question on globalization, but you forgot something]

I thought that I did. Obviously I covered the Monsanto tariffs bit, and at some point I thought you believed the cheap grain to India and China canceled out the fact that it also put many poor farmers/sharecroppers out of business.

All of their farms? All of them? Oh jeez, I would love to read about how all of Mexico's farms were killed by removing import tariffs. (Only import tariffs, right, Juan? Because that's what you're positing). I'll patiently await this information.

I love how you latch onto a single idea or phrase that makes you believe you have found a major hole in my argument. You're unintentionally turning the argument into one about my use of the English language.
What I said was:
"No, there I was talking about how free trade (NAFTA) abolished the protection tariffs that Mexico had and killed all their farms. It must have hurt Canadian farms too, I'm certain."
AND killed all their farms
not
and that killed all of their farms

NAFTA’s Disastrous Results

The results of NAFTA have made things even worse for the people of Mexico. From 1994-2004 (according to World Bank figures), 6 million campesinos, or one-quarter of the rural population, was ruined and had to leave the countryside to try to survive. In Mexico, only one third of new job seekers entering the employment market will find a job. Emigration increased exponentially and has reached the level of 600,000 people per year who risk their lives to cross the border into the U.S. Every year more people die. Last year, 562 people died in the desert, or in other ways, crossing the border.

As Mexican President Felipe Calderón dined with foreign dignitaries on traditional Mexican country delicacies like pumpkin-flower soup, he trumpeted the “benefits” of NAFTA. Despite what he called “inconveniences,” the U.S. and Canada now buy five times more from Mexican agribusiness than they bought in 1994.

NAFTA intensified the competitive disadvantages facing Mexican farmers. It mandated that the Mexican government drastically cut farm subsidies to small farmers, while U.S. producers receive the equivalent of $10 billion in subsidies per year. And, on top of all this, the Mexican government pays subsidies to U.S. agribusiness giant Cargill for the transportation and distribution of corn.

In addition to ruining farmers, these changes have imposed more hunger on the Mexican people. Since NAFTA went into effect, Mexico has had to import the majority of its food. Speculation in corn prices has led to a rise in tortilla prices of 730%. In a concentrated expression of the oppressor/oppressed relationship between the U.S. and Mexico, the amount spent on food imports by Mexicans since NAFTA went into effect is about the same amount as what is sent back to Mexico as remittances by former campesinos who have been forced to the U.S. to be superexploited as undocumented immigrants ($100 billion).

While the radical transformations of Mexican agriculture have injected profit into U.S. imperialism and its Mexican junior partners, they have been a disaster for the people. And the new rules that went into effect at the beginning of 2008 will be worse. According to the National Association of Rural Producers (Asociación Nacional de Empresas Comercializadoras del Campo), the imports of corn and beans without any restrictions will cause “an economic and social catastrophe for the majority of producers, insecurity in the food supply, and vulnerability for the security and governability” of the country.

A good portion of these people came over the boarder looking for work. Monford and IBP (& More) have been known to advertise in Mexico for workers to come work in their meat packaging and slaughterhouses.
And still some other farmers switched to cactus farming, though the profits seem to have been less lucrative.

Don't you see the unintended consequences of import tariffs?

I just don't understand why over and over again you think that you're being smart. I answered the question about Monsanto and import tariffs before you even asked it. I know that there is a lot here, but it's your conversation as well as mine, and I'm doing fine following it.

WAT

[BigBallinStalin]

[Feel that scroll finger muscle buuurrrnnn.]

[GreecePwns]

I was going to participate in this debate until scrolling through the last 3 pages. You couldn't pay me to read this thread.

[spurgistan]

I am willing to be paid to read this thread.

[BigBallinStalin]

I was going to participate in this debate until scrolling through the last 3 pages. You couldn't pay me to read this thread.

To catch you up to speed, JB switches back and forth from each of these standpoints below. I'm trying to get him to understand that what he advocates isn't really the best thing for Americans, but this has proved difficult because like I said he simply switches among each one whenever it's convenient for him to make his case for any particular point.




[@Juan_Bottom]
For the sake of clarity, state which standpoint describes your own (if you wish to speak in generalities, then say something like "generally," "usually," "tends to," etc.). If you wish to modify any of your statements, then feel free to do so.

The best thing to do, is to buy American, and to buy in season. The plant will taste better, it will be more likely to be natural, and it'll help out Americans.

Buying local, or primarily local, may not be what's best for everyone else--no matter how much you extrapolate your personal experiences onto everyone else's.

It would be best for everyone else, if everyone did it.

As I said I buy locally and expand that outward. And I also said that I always try to buy American first.

[PLAYER57832]

Sorry, player, but you have failed to provide any credible information which states that there have been no changes (regarding innovation in response to that E.Coli problem) for the past 15 years.

Defining anything you don't like as "not credible" doesn't make it true. You can claim I lie all you like, but either verify or know you are only fooling yourself.

and... I am old enough to have seen all this, plus still connected enough to agriculture to have paid very close attention.

[PLAYER57832]

I was going to participate in this debate until scrolling through the last 3 pages. You couldn't pay me to read this thread.

To catch you up to speed, JB switches back and forth from each of these standpoints below. I'm trying to get him to understand that what he advocates isn't really the best thing for Americans, but this has proved difficult because like I said he simply switches among each one whenever it's convenient for him to make his case for any particular point.

LOL

Actually, if you are interested, GreecePwns just read Juan's first really big post where he talks about local agriculture. That sums up the giist. (You could read mine, too, but juan covers roughly the same territory with more specific data) The rest is BBS, once again, ignoring data, disputing (but not offering real responses) to information he doesn't like and just generally descending into insults instead of any real debate.

[@Juan_Bottom]
For the sake of clarity, state which standpoint describes your own (if you wish to speak in generalities, then say something like "generally," "usually," "tends to," etc.). If you wish to modify any of your statements, then feel free to do so.

The best thing to do, is to buy American, and to buy in season. The plant will taste better, it will be more likely to be natural, and it'll help out Americans.

Buying local, or primarily local, may not be what's best for everyone else--no matter how much you extrapolate your personal experiences onto everyone else's.

It would be best for everyone else, if everyone did it.

As I said I buy locally and expand that outward. And I also said that I always try to buy American first.

[/quote]
Ironically, those examples are not contradictory, particularlly when taken in context.
See, saying buying local or primarily local would be best and saying that "I buy locally and expand outward" both mean that you buy as much local as possible and then go out from there. You buy from your immediate vacinity, then the region, then the bigger region up to the country, then the world.

But do go on BBS, you keep digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole.

[BigBallinStalin]

Sorry, player, but you have failed to provide any credible information which states that there have been no changes (regarding innovation in response to that E.Coli problem) for the past 15 years.

Defining anything you don't like as "not credible" doesn't make it true. You can claim I lie all you like, but either verify or know you are only fooling yourself.

and... I am old enough to have seen all this, plus still connected enough to agriculture to have paid very close attention.

This post explains what you have taken from context.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131709&view=unread#p3152663

Before posting piecemeal to that link, you should answer the questions at the bottom after fully understanding my response. That way, I wont have to waste time by reposting links to things I have already explained.

[BigBallinStalin]

I was going to participate in this debate until scrolling through the last 3 pages. You couldn't pay me to read this thread.

To catch you up to speed, JB switches back and forth from each of these standpoints below. I'm trying to get him to understand that what he advocates isn't really the best thing for Americans, but this has proved difficult because like I said he simply switches among each one whenever it's convenient for him to make his case for any particular point.

LOL

Actually, if you are interested, GreecePwns just read Juan's first really big post where he talks about local agriculture. That sums up the giist. (You could read mine, too, but juan covers roughly the same territory with more specific data) The rest is BBS, once again, ignoring data, disputing (but not offering real responses) to information he doesn't like and just generally descending into insults instead of any real debate.

[@Juan_Bottom]
For the sake of clarity, state which standpoint describes your own (if you wish to speak in generalities, then say something like "generally," "usually," "tends to," etc.). If you wish to modify any of your statements, then feel free to do so.

The best thing to do, is to buy American, and to buy in season. The plant will taste better, it will be more likely to be natural, and it'll help out Americans.

Buying local, or primarily local, may not be what's best for everyone else--no matter how much you extrapolate your personal experiences onto everyone else's.

It would be best for everyone else, if everyone did it.

As I said I buy locally and expand that outward. And I also said that I always try to buy American first.

Ironically, those examples are not contradictory, particularlly when taken in context.
See, saying buying local or primarily local would be best and saying that "I buy locally and expand outward" both mean that you buy as much local as possible and then go out from there. You buy from your immediate vacinity, then the region, then the bigger region up to the country, then the world.

But do go on BBS, you keep digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole.

[/quote]





[waiting for Juan's reply to his own posts]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131709&view=unread#p3152619

[PLAYER57832]

I was going to participate in this debate until scrolling through the last 3 pages. You couldn't pay me to read this thread.

To catch you up to speed, JB switches back and forth from each of these standpoints below. I'm trying to get him to understand that what he advocates isn't really the best thing for Americans, but this has proved difficult because like I said he simply switches among each one whenever it's convenient for him to make his case for any particular point.

LOL

Actually, if you are interested, GreecePwns just read Juan's first really big post where he talks about local agriculture. That sums up the giist. (You could read mine, too, but juan covers roughly the same territory with more specific data) The rest is BBS, once again, ignoring data, disputing (but not offering real responses) to information he doesn't like and just generally descending into insults instead of any real debate.

[@Juan_Bottom]
For the sake of clarity, state which standpoint describes your own (if you wish to speak in generalities, then say something like "generally," "usually," "tends to," etc.). If you wish to modify any of your statements, then feel free to do so.

The best thing to do, is to buy American, and to buy in season. The plant will taste better, it will be more likely to be natural, and it'll help out Americans.

Buying local, or primarily local, may not be what's best for everyone else--no matter how much you extrapolate your personal experiences onto everyone else's.

It would be best for everyone else, if everyone did it.

As I said I buy locally and expand that outward. And I also said that I always try to buy American first.

Ironically, those examples are not contradictory, particularlly when taken in context.
See, saying buying local or primarily local would be best and saying that "I buy locally and expand outward" both mean that you buy as much local as possible and then go out from there. You buy from your immediate vacinity, then the region, then the bigger region up to the country, then the world.

But do go on BBS, you keep digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole.

[waiting for Juan's reply to his own posts][/quote]
Thank yo for once again proving my points.

Too bad, really. You did once have some interesting ideas.

[spurgistan]

Combo breaker.

In order to reduce price inflation we need to reduce demand. The fact that there's a shitton of speculation in commodities kinda got exposed again today, if you read the papers. Bunch of commodity bubbles popped. Seems pretty clear to me that we got to be doing more to keep limit the damage speculation does to the markets.

[BigBallinStalin]

Combo breaker.

In order to reduce price inflation we need to reduce demand. The fact that there's a shitton of speculation in commodities kinda got exposed again today, if you read the papers. Bunch of commodity bubbles popped. Seems pretty clear to me that we got to be doing more to keep limit the damage speculation does to the markets.

I've got a few questions for this, but would you mind starting a new thread about it?

[PLAYER57832]

Combo breaker.

In order to reduce price inflation we need to reduce demand. The fact that there's a shitton of speculation in commodities kinda got exposed again today, if you read the papers. Bunch of commodity bubbles popped. Seems pretty clear to me that we got to be doing more to keep limit the damage speculation does to the markets.

Reducing demand for food is rather difficult. The shift to ethanol fuels, etc is increasing demand for food. However, this is just one classic example of why food is not quite like other types of products. We can shift demand from one product to another, but that often requires huge cultural shifts. Most communities are already adapted to use the best local food supplies.. or have been historically. That is getting highly distorted now.

Put it another way.. we can, push come to shove (huge disaster, etc.), do without every last thing made by factories. We cannot, ever do without food and materials for clothing, shelter. Even doing without timber (bamboo in some climates) is pretty difficult, since it is among the more efficient products for shelter in wooded regions. (rock works, but is harder to come by).