Real Economic Activity

[Apoi_Viitor]

So here's a brief transcript from an LD debate I had:

Opponent - "If we reduce the consumption of meat then we will inevitably end up eliminating many of the hundreds of thousands of jobs employed in the meat sector."

Me - "As I stated previously, meat production is a highly inefficient process. Hypothetically, if we chose to completely eliminate meat production and consumption, we could feed our entire population with as little as 10% of the employees and workers. The other 90% of the former meat industry's workforce could be free to pursue any job they please - or even still, we could re-allocate all of the money saved from the increased economic efficiency to pay the 90% of the former meat industry's workforce to do literally nothing."

Now, I was marked down because apparently my retort didn't make any sense, although I'm uncertain as to why. I just don't understand why we employ people to do seemingly ridiculous jobs (like China building thousands of empty apartments), and then call it "economic growth". It's like the entire stock market industry - on paper it creates wealth - but I don't see how that creates real wealth, in the same way that a factory worker creates a tangible commodity.

[Ele'ill]

I agree, meat isn't necessary at all.

Were you two talking about current times or in a post revolution setting?

[Apoi_Viitor]

The debate? - it was current times - which was I was unable to clearly phrase my counter-argument, because it only really made sense in reference to a command economy not the current capitalist one...

Anyways, my point was meant to highlight the disconnect I see between economic activity on paper and real economic activity. I remember there was an Austrian economist who wrote that Keynesians would be happy if your entire city caught on fire, because rebuilding it creates 'economic activity'. Of course, my original post shows that even under 'free market' circumstances, this kind of irrational unproductive economic activity occurs too.

Is there a term for what I'm referring to? Are there economists or writers that work with the topic I'm referring to? * I know Noam Chomsky did once, I'll try and pull up that article.

[Skooma Addict]

Me - "As I stated previously, meat production is a highly inefficient process. Hypothetically, if we chose to completely eliminate meat production and consumption, we could feed our entire population with as little as 10% of the employees and workers. The other 90% of the former meat industry's workforce could be free to pursue any job they please - or even still, we could re-allocate all of the money saved from the increased economic efficiency to pay the 90% of the former meat industry's workforce to do literally nothing."

I don't see how meat production is an inefficient process at all. Why would you want to stop supplying meat to the population?

Luckily though this is never going to happen.

[Skooma Addict]

The debate? - it was current times - which was I was unable to clearly phrase my counter-argument, because it only really made sense in reference to a command economy not the current capitalist one...

Anyways, my point was meant to highlight the disconnect I see between economic activity on paper and real economic activity. I remember there was an Austrian economist who wrote that Keynesians would be happy if your entire city caught on fire, because rebuilding it creates 'economic activity'. Of course, my original post shows that even under 'free market' circumstances, this kind of irrational unproductive economic activity occurs too.

Is there a term for what I'm referring to? Are there economists or writers that work with the topic I'm referring to? * I know Noam Chomsky did once, I'll try and pull up that article.

So meat production is not real economic activity?

[Apoi_Viitor]

I don't see how meat production is an inefficient process at all. Why would you want to stop supplying meat to the population?

Luckily though this is never going to happen.

I forgot to mention, I was arguing for a completely vegetarian diet. So my argument was that if we spent the money we do now on our meat filled diet, while switching to a vegetarian diet, we could hypothetically feed our entire population by using 1/10ths of the meat industry's workforce while paying the other 9/10ths their current salaries to do nothing.

[Ele'ill]

Vegan efficiency. :thumbup1:

Why stop at vegetarianism?

[Skooma Addict]

I forgot to mention, I was arguing for a completely vegetarian diet. So my argument was that if we spent the money we do now on our meat filled diet, while switching to a vegetarian diet, we could hypothetically feed our entire population by using 1/10ths of the meat industry's workforce while paying the other 9/10ths their current salaries to do nothing.

It isn't that simple. Besides, the only way you are going to get everyone to go vegetarian is if you force it upon the population.

[Ele'ill]

It isn't that simple. Besides, the only way you are going to get everyone to go vegetarian is if you force it upon the population.

No, it would be brought about in the same way as any movement- through organizing and education.

[Thirsty Crow]

No, it would be brought about in the same way as any movement- through organizing and education.
So, every single historical movement was entirely peaceful and managed to accomplish its goals by means of education?
I don't think so.
However, that is a topic for another thread.
Concerning the term "real economic activity", I think it stands in relation to the sector of finance and speculation (which crates "paper wealth", IMO).
Now, someone should clarify further because I'm not familiar enough with this problem.

[Ele'ill]

So, every single historical movement was entirely peaceful and managed to accomplish its goals by means of education?
I don't think so.

I think certain aspects of society can be changed through education and organizing- it most definitely is the start.

[TC]

It isn't that simple. Besides, the only way you are going to get everyone to go vegetarian is if you force it upon the population.

If you're raised vegan or vegan for long enough, you find animal flesh and secretions disgusting and not at all suitable as food. With a critical mass of vegans, animals will simply no longer be raised for food - it would be regarded socially intolerable, disgusting, and profoundly inhumane...just as it is not socially tolerated to produce pig flesh in many Muslim countries or cow flesh in Hindu areas.

[gorillafuck]

Meat production isn't an inherently inefficient form of economic activity. Why do you think it is?

[Lt. Ferret]

meat is delicious. the number one cause of amazon rainforest destruction at this point is clearing land for soy production. ill stick with the devil i know.

[Thug Lessons]

So here's a brief transcript from an LD debate I had:

Opponent - "If we reduce the consumption of meat then we will inevitably end up eliminating many of the hundreds of thousands of jobs employed in the meat sector."

If vandals don't break windows then we will inevitably end up eliminating many hundreds of thousands of jobs employed in the window repair sector. If people stop smoking cigarettes then we then we will inevitably end up eliminating many hundreds of thousands of jobs employed in the tobacco sector. If people stop raping and murdering then we will inevitably end up eliminating many hundreds of thousands of jobs employed in the criminal justice sector.

[Thug Lessons]

Meat production isn't an inherently inefficient form of economic activity. Why do you think it is?

Because it takes an inordinate resources to keep livestock, (especially cattle), alive long enough to bring them to slaughter. It's not inefficient in the sense of creating jobs or making money, but it is a waste of human and natural resources that could be dedicated to less intensive forms of food production or industrial sectors outside of food production entirely.

[Thug Lessons]

meat is delicious. the number one cause of amazon rainforest destruction at this point is clearing land for soy production. ill stick with the devil i know.

Yeah what else has Rush had to say lately Lt. Ferret

[Apoi_Viitor]

meat is delicious. the number one cause of amazon rainforest destruction at this point is clearing land for soy production. ill stick with the devil i know.

That's just a complete lie. The vast majority of deforestation (something like at least 90%) goes to pasture for raising livestock, and the rest goes to crops to feed that livestock.

[Lt. Ferret]

probably something about how george soros invented nazis.

[Lt. Ferret]

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Financial-Industry/Soy-suppliers-accused-of-rainforest-destruction

k.

[Skooma Addict]

No, it would be brought about in the same way as any movement- through organizing and education.

:laugh:

Yea good luck with that.

[Skooma Addict]

If you're raised vegan or vegan for long enough, you find animal flesh and secretions disgusting and not at all suitable as food. With a critical mass of vegans, animals will simply no longer be raised for food - it would be regarded socially intolerable, disgusting, and profoundly inhumane...just as it is not socially tolerated to produce pig flesh in many Muslim countries or cow flesh in Hindu areas.

Well you aren't going to get the world to raise themselves as vegans, and people won't revert themselves to the primitive beliefs you cite anyways.

[Apoi_Viitor]

It must have been in one of his speeches (I can't seem to find it in any of his articles I have...), but here's a remotely similar quote by Noam Chomsky,

"State actions also broke down the post-war international economic system, the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s. It was dismantled by Richard Nixon, with US and British initiative primarily. The system of regulation of capital flows was dismantled, and that, along with the state-initiated telecommunications revolution led to an enormous explosion of speculative capital flow, which is now well over a trillion dollars a day, and is mostly non-productive. If you go back to around 1970, international capital flows were about 90% related to the real economy, like trade and investment. By now, at most a few percent are related to the real economy. Most have to do with financial manipulations, speculations against currencies, things which are really destructive to the economy."

[Thug Lessons]

Well you aren't going to get the world to raise themselves as vegans, and people won't revert themselves to the primitive beliefs you cite anyways.

That's quite correct. Instead they will adopt vegetarianism, socialism and atheism and all you libertarian will be able to do is sit at your computers and mope while history passes you by.

[Apoi_Viitor]

k.


From the World Bank (http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2004/02/02/000090341_20040202130625/Rendered/PDF/277150PAPER0wbwp0no1022.pdf)


Land-use data on Amazonia demonstrates that the main cause of deforestation in the region is cattle ranching. Expansion of ranching since the early 1970s has been a continuous and inertial process.


This last observation raises the issue about the possible role of soybean as a cause of deforestation in the Amazon (Costa 2000, Becker 1999, Fearnside 2001). The bulk of converted land in the cerrado has been used for cattle ranching and not soybean production. The latter occupies a relatively small area of the anthropic cerrado, and the prospects for expanding into forest areas are limited (Costa, 2000; see also chapter 4).

[Skooma Addict]

That's quite correct. Instead they will adopt vegetarianism, socialism and atheism and all you libertarian will be able to do is sit at your computers and mope while history passes you by.

I am still struggling to understand how exactly all of these people are going to become vegetarians/vegans?

[Ele'ill]

:laugh:

Yea good luck with that.


Wisconsin :laugh:

[psgchisolm]

I am still struggling to understand how exactly all of these people are going to become vegetarians/vegans?
I feel the same way whenever people say there won't be XXX and YYY and ZZZ under communism. Of course

[Thug Lessons]

I am still struggling to understand how exactly all of these people are going to become vegetarians/vegans?

People are already adopting those dietary habits at unprecedented levels so I don't see why you see it's such a mystery to you.

[Skooma Addict]

Wisconsin :laugh:

I don't follow.



People are already adopting those dietary habits at unprecedented levels so I don't see why you see it's such a mystery to you.

At "unprecedented levels," really? So you are banking on everyone just becoming a vegetarian?

[gorillafuck]

That's quite correct. Instead they will adopt vegetarianism, socialism and atheism and all you libertarian will be able to do is sit at your computers and mope while history passes you by.No, here's something I don't like. Vegetarian organizing and socialist organizing are way different, because socialist organizing involves (or should involve) people organizing themselves for better living conditions and greater control of their own lives against the ruling class, whereas vegetarian and atheist organizing.....aren't anything like that at all.

[RGacky3]

Capitalism is inherently inefficient anyway, the world could be fed now many times over anyway, with the current agriculture infestructure. The problem is the profit motive, farmers need to make a profit, which means that farmers are paid to not farm to keep supply lower and profit high, prices are inflated to keep them making profits.

That goes for everything, the stock market for example, a totally pointless industry, but thats how capitalism works, it juts looks for profit any where it can get it, also Capitalism needs about a 3% growth to be healthy, so new markets need to pop up all the time, thats where you get bubbles.

In China you have a property bubble, its happening for juts about the same reasons it happened in the US, the thing is the systemic proplems that WILL happen are an externality, so people will keep throwing money even though they know it will eventually fail.

I'm not becoming any time soon, and theres no reason to.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I forgot to mention, I was arguing for a completely vegetarian diet. So my argument was that if we spent the money we do now on our meat filled diet, while switching to a vegetarian diet, we could hypothetically feed our entire population by using 1/10ths of the meat industry's workforce while paying the other 9/10ths their current salaries to do nothing.We could feed the world's population today if society was organized differently. IMO until the starvation and want created by the global capitalist system is overcome it's a bit out of touch to be designing the diet of the future - not to mention, undemocratic.

There are many ways that food production and all production can be done more efficiently and in the interests of the actual working producers - who, unlike profit-driven capitalists, probably will want to make sure they can produce what they need with as little effort as possible and with the least amount of impact on their environment and own health - but the first thing is to win liberation and put power into all of our hands first.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Jimmie Higgins;2034828]We could feed the world's population today if society was organized differently. IMO until the starvation and want created by the global capitalist system is overcome it's a bit out of touch to be designing the diet of the future - not to mention, undemocratic.

Its not very "undemocratic" at all-- if the majority of people vote to do away with the consumption of mean, that is democracy in action. Its no different than banning smoking in bars ect.
True, it crushes freedom. But democracy and freedom do not hav eto go hand in hand.


There are many ways that food production and all production can be done more efficiently and in the interests of the actual working producers

Why is it more productive to say, farm, for the benefit of the farmers? Why should their interests be what drives farm production? Shouldn't the interest of consumers be driving production?

-
who, unlike profit-driven capitalists, probably will want to make sure they can produce what they need

Again- how is it better when the PRODUCERS decide what THEY need to produce?


with as little effort as possible

It is not clear why capitalists choose to produce with more effort than necessary. Usually the criticism of capitalism is the exact opposite.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why is it more productive to say, farm, for the benefit of the farmers? Why should their interests be what drives farm production? Shouldn't the interest of consumers be driving production?That would be great, too bad capitalist production is done on the basis of profit rather than any consideration for the consumer or producer.

I think if workers, producers, created things in their interest, then there would be unity between the producer and consumer, because why produce something that is not going to be used. It would be in the interests of producers to actually try and figure out what is needed so that, unlike capitalism, they wouldn't spend a lot of time growing grain that gets dumped into the ocean. Oops, well that doesn't quite work as an example since they dump grain while people starve... it's that profit-driven thing again that always gets in the way.


It is not clear why capitalists choose to produce with more effort than necessary. Usually the criticism of capitalism is the exact opposite.Those critics must not work for a living. Any working person can tell you the amount of bullshit busy work that many jobs entail - many jobs are completely useless outside the logic of a profit-drivven system: vendors who try and sell Coke or Pepsi to stores - as if stores have never heard of these products - advertisers - debt-collection - telemarketers and so on.

But also the more labor value that goes into something, the higher the value and therefore the more it can be sold for. If the rate of exloitation is high, a processed good will create huge profits over a raw material. That's why processed food is more profitable and favored by the system. Why else would capitalists make condensed milk in one country and ship it to another country putting their domestic dairy industry out of business when I'm sure consumers and producers would love local dairy products.

[RGacky3]

Its not very "undemocratic" at all-- if the majority of people vote to do away with the consumption of mean, that is democracy in action. Its no different than banning smoking in bars ect.


It is undemocratic because the powers that be do not allow those decisions to BE democratic decisions, Capitalism is a totalitarian system.


True, it crushes freedom. But democracy and freedom do not hav eto go hand in hand.


Capitalism replaces freedom with money, it crushes freedom for 95% of the population.


Again- how is it better when the PRODUCERS decide what THEY need to produce?


Because the PRODUCERS are also the CONSUMERS, we are proposing 1 man one vote, rather than 1 dollar one vote, which means starving people get a say as well.

[Baseball]

That would be great, too bad capitalist production is done on the basis of profit rather than any consideration for the consumer or producer.

Considering that profit can only be accrued by satisfying somebody else's need and want, consideration of the consumer is the main interest of the capitalist.


I think if workers, producers, created things in their interest,

But again, who cares what the producers want to produce? What sense does it make for the consumer to negotiate with the producer over what the producer is willing to produce?


because why produce something that is not going to be used.

None. But why purchase something you are not going to use either? It works both ways.


It would be in the interests of producers to actually try and figure out what is needed

Correct. That is how profits profits are made.



Those critics must not work for a living. Any working person can tell you the amount of bullshit busy work that many jobs entail - many jobs are completely useless outside the logic of a profit-drivven system: vendors who try and sell Coke or Pepsi to stores - as if stores have never heard of these products - advertisers - debt-collection - telemarketers and so on.

Perhaps. But since socialism reduces production, it does not matter that it saves on the costs of telemarketers ect.

I
f the rate of exloitation is high, a processed good will create huge profits over a raw material.

True. How many pounds of iron ore do you routinely need?


That's why processed food is more profitable and favored by the system.

Sure. It lasts longer and can be shipped further. Is it an advantage to have to spend hours, everyday, shopping for food? I don't think so.


Why else would capitalists make condensed milk in one country and ship it to another country putting their domestic dairy industry out of business when I'm sure consumers and producers would love local dairy products.

It is certainly true that the local dairy industry would prefer consumers consume their product over condensed milk from another country. But there would seem to be a reason why local consumers do not agree. Perhaps it has to do with choosing not to buy milk daily and instead doing other things with one's time. Perhaps there are other explanations. But it does seem clear that you have an issue with what people are choosing to consume.

[Delirium]

Meat production isn't an inherently inefficient form of economic activity. Why do you think it is?

It is an inefficient way to feed humans.

When you grow corn and feed it to a cow you getting less calories than if you just ate it in the first place.

Fish and chickens are the most efficient calorie converters that we like to eat.

[Skooma Addict]

It is an inefficient way to feed humans.

When you grow corn and feed it to a cow you getting less calories than if you just ate it in the first place.

Fish and chickens are the most efficient calorie converters that we like to eat.

People like meat. People do not only look at calories when deciding to buy food.

[Delirium]

I like meat. And I'm not arguing that everyone should become a vegetarian.

Meat is wasteful though. That is a fact.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Considering that profit can only be accrued by satisfying somebody else's need and want, consideration of the consumer is the main interest of the capitalist.What consumer? Any consumer? I don't have a house and there are 3 vacant ones that have been empty for a year in my neighborhood. Why won't they lower the price for me? I'm a consumer, I can give them $12,000 for it.

The only need to be satisfied in the reality of capitalism is the need for greater profits. Of course there has to be some overlap - you can't sell what NOBODY wants, but the goal is still PROFIT, not the needs of the consumer, that's secondary at best. If a consumer has a need or want that is unprofitable - like food or homes for example - then it won't be met.

Why would production suddenly go down because of the economic crisis? Did consumers suddenly not want cars or houses or banks? Or was it because of an inability to make profits?


Perhaps. But since socialism reduces production, it does not matter that it saves on the costs of telemarketers ect. Socialism, as in the democratic control of production, would not necessarily reduce production of all things - probably people would decide to put more resources into building better homes or communities, more of the things people want, while no longer producing things that are really only for the benefit of the capitalist system, like prisons, the military machinery, and so on.

If workers (being the vast majority of society) democratically controlled production then the difference between producer and consumer would no longer exist as we know it. People would only want to work so far as it was useful to them and others.

Capitalism - on the other hand - does all sorts of irrational things in the pursuit of profit.


Sure. It lasts longer and can be shipped further. Is it an advantage to have to spend hours, everyday, shopping for food? I don't think so.

It is certainly true that the local dairy industry would prefer consumers consume their product over condensed milk from another country. But there would seem to be a reason why local consumers do not agree. Perhaps it has to do with choosing not to buy milk daily and instead doing other things with one's time. Perhaps there are other explanations. But it does seem clear that you have an issue with what people are choosing to consume.No consumer is asking for this! It is the option they are given because it is more profitable for business to produce in this way - less profitable competitors are driven out of the market - NOT because of a consumer preference, but because it could not keep hold of its place in the market because it was making less profits. This is not Marxist theory, this is basic capitalist theory

If consumers had their choice in the abstract, most would choose mom and pop stores over places like WalMart, most would want a natural apple rather than the really cheap hard and bland ones that are affordable and easy to ship across the country. Most consumers would want homes to live in that they could afford and bank loans that had fair deals rather than being swindled into sub-prime loans.

The idea that capitalism is primarily concerned with meeting the needs of consumers is a less convincing myth than the chupacabra when you consider the amount of inequality and the amount people (consumers) go without in this system.

[Skooma Addict]

I like meat. And I'm not arguing that everyone should become a vegetarian.

Meat is wasteful though. That is a fact.

No it isn't, as people like meat for reasons besides calorie intake.

[Thug Lessons]

No it isn't, as people like meat for reasons besides calorie intake.

That's totally irrelevant and analogous to saying that SUVs aren't wasteful because people like them for reasons other than fuel efficiency. Here's a cool website you can go to where people will take your "marginal utility is the answer to everything" philosophy seriously:

http://mises.org/

[Thug Lessons]

My new ten-ton Hummer H3 (or Triple H as I like to call it, after my favorite pro wrassler :D) isn't inefficient because, get this libtard, I don't give even a single fuck about MPG. I'm a libertarian. I believe in the theory of marginal utility. I'm going to see the Atlas Shrugged movie a dozen times. I'm going to fart and smell my own farts because they smell good to me and I don't care what you think. You laugh at me because I smell different, but I laugh at you because you all smell the same.

Oh, and by the way, for every animal you don't eat, I'm gonna eat three.

[Baseball]

What consumer? Any consumer? I don't have a house and there are 3 vacant ones that have been empty for a year in my neighborhood. Why won't they lower the price for me? I'm a consumer, I can give them $12,000 for it.

Because they will find somebody who will give them more than $12000.


The only need to be satisfied in the reality of capitalism is the need for greater profits. Of course there has to be some overlap - you can't sell what NOBODY wants, but the goal is still PROFIT, not the needs of the consumer, that's secondary at best. If a consumer has a need or want that is unprofitable - like food or homes for example - then it won't be met.

I am skeptical that with $12000 to spend you are living in the street. Someone, at some point, built the apartment building in which you are no doubt residing.
Upon what basis would you claim that house?


Why would production suddenly go down because of the economic crisis? Did consumers suddenly not want cars or houses or banks? Or was it because of an inability to make profits?

People stopped buying cars and homes. Ergo, no profits.

At this point, my usual question is something along the lines if "It remains mysterious why the socialist community would continue to produce cars which people didn't want" or whatever example was being used.


Socialism, as in the democratic control of production, would not necessarily reduce production of all things -

Yes, it would.




If workers (being the vast majority of society) democratically controlled production then the difference between producer and consumer would no longer exist as we know it. People would only want to work so far as it was useful to them and others.

You have a job which apparently does not allow you to take a break. How many customers who pass who pass through doors are more concerned about your working conditions, than with the reason which brings them in?
The differences will always exist because the producer and consumer have different interests at stake. Socialism will not change this- much as it may try.




No consumer is asking for this! It is the option they are given because it is more profitable for business to produce in this way - less profitable competitors are driven out of the market - NOT because of a consumer preference, but because it could not keep hold of its place in the market because it was making less profits.

And its making less profits because there is better product consumers can choose, or a particular firm has figured out a better way, an EASIER way, to produce that item.

I
f consumers had their choice in the abstract, most would choose mom and pop stores over places like WalMart,

Maybe. But perhaps there are consumers who would prefer to go to one store in one shot for their goods as opposed to a half dozen.

m
ost would want a natural apple rather than the really cheap hard and bland ones that are affordable and easy to ship across the country.

Sure. And those people can eat apples a few months out of the year. Meanwhile, someone in the Northeast USA who may wish an apple NOW can easily find one.

[RGacky3]

"It remains mysterious why the socialist community would continue to produce cars which people didn't want"

People stopped buying cars because they were poor and could'nt afford them, not because they did'nt want them.

You don't honestly think that during the crisis people just stopped wanting stuff?


How many customers who pass who pass through doors are more concerned about your working conditions, than with the reason which brings them in?
The differences will always exist because the producer and consumer have different interests at stake. Socialism will not change this- much as it may try.


Yes it would, because workers would have control over the working conditions, whereas everyone would have a say in the overall economic policies.

As far as interests are concerned, people are both producers and consumers, they switch roles yeah, but thats why the economy should be organized as a whole and democratically, so those interests don't cause the crap that happens in Capitalism.


Maybe. But perhaps there are consumers who would prefer to go to one store in one shot for their goods as opposed to a half dozen.

m

So why would we incentivise a system that rewards slave labor? that rewards destroying workers rights?

BTW, its overall NOT better for consumers, but considering they are detached from the processs and have no way other than through their pocket book (which is really really inbalanced) to have a say, they obviously just go for short term ease.

You give people a say in the macro level of economics nad give people a say in actual economic policy you might find some other interests come out.

[Skooma Addict]

That's totally irrelevant and analogous to saying that SUVs aren't wasteful because people like them for reasons other than fuel efficiency. Here's a cool website you can go to where people will take your "marginal utility is the answer to everything" philosophy seriously:

http://mises.org/

This is a terrible analogy. Your analogy would hold if I were arguing supplying meat was efficient regarding calories. That isn't what I am arguing. People eat food for reasons besides calorie intake. Did you know this?

[Baseball]

People stopped buying cars because they were poor and could'nt afford them, not because they did'nt want them.

You don't honestly think that during the crisis people just stopped wanting stuff?

Of course not. But people are always going to have to choose in which order to satisfy their own needs.




As far as interests are concerned, people are both producers and consumers, they switch roles yeah, but thats why the economy should be organized as a whole and democratically, so those interests don't cause the crap that happens in Capitalism.

The "crap" that occurs is a result of those interests. Capitalism doesn't cause it.



So why would we incentivise a system that rewards slave labor? that rewards destroying workers rights?

People who work in a mom and pop store earn less, receive less benefits and basically have no place for advancement.
Where is the slave labor really found?


BTW, its overall NOT better for consumers, but considering they are detached from the processs and have no way other than through their pocket book (which is really really inbalanced) to have a say, they obviously just go for short term ease.

How many people really give a flying f**k the processes involved in building their computer? What possible difference can it make?

[Thug Lessons]

This is a terrible analogy. Your analogy would hold if I were arguing supplying meat was efficient regarding calories. That isn't what I am arguing. People eat food for reasons besides calorie intake. Did you know this?

Actually it is perfectly analogous my lolbertarian friend, because people drive cars for reasons other than fuel efficiency just like they eat foods for reasons other than caloric efficiency. The reason that meat consumption and Hummers are wasteful isn't because they're inefficient at meeting people's desires, but because they're destroying the planet whereas other options for nourishment and transportation would not.

[RGacky3]

But people are always going to have to choose in which order to satisfy their own needs.


.... Yeah, but the point still stands.


The "crap" that occurs is a result of those interests. Capitalism doesn't cause it.


It causes it because Capitalism creates those conflicts of interests. Its like saying its a monarchs interest to kill people that hunt on his ground, yeah, thats his interest, under monarchy.


People who work in a mom and pop store earn less, receive less benefits and basically have no place for advancement.
Where is the slave labor really found?


You got stats on that? Because most mom and pop stores don't really have that many employees.


How many people really give a flying f**k the processes involved in building their computer? What possible difference can it make?

They probably don't .... So how does that justify Capitalism?

[Scary Monster]

If you're raised vegan or vegan for long enough, you find animal flesh and secretions disgusting and not at all suitable as food. With a critical mass of vegans, animals will simply no longer be raised for food - it would be regarded socially intolerable, disgusting, and profoundly inhumane...just as it is not socially tolerated to produce pig flesh in many Muslim countries or cow flesh in Hindu areas.

This doesnt make any sense. First of all, we are meant to eat meat, just like other omnivores and most other animals. Thats why we have incisors. Vegans are all about nature, yet it is pretty natural for humans and other creatures to meat :)

Secondly, if those Muslim countries have a non-secular government or strong religious influence, then of course it would not be socially tolerable to produce pig flesh! Islam forbids consumption of pig flesh (regardless if thats because it causes bad health effects or only because god said so), so of course a Islamic gov would forbid it or at least discourage it.

The first world having the means to live without meat doesnt take away anyones right to eat it. Plus, meat is filling, and just soo damn tastay!!

[Blackscare]

People who work in a mom and pop store earn less, receive less benefits and basically have no place for advancement.
Where is the slave labor really found?

I don't know who posted this, someone else quoted this, but from my personal experience at 5 chain stores and 3 mom-and-pops, this is totally untrue. I've never had an even somewhat dignified job at a chain, be it a joann's fabric, a taco bell, or whatever. They never give you full time, and therefor no benies (even if technically they DO provide it, you're not going to qualify), they pay you the absolute minimum (before taxes, of course), they treat you like a fucking machine and humiliate you.


I don't "support" mom and pop petite bourgeois employers any more than any other employer, but it is usually much better work. I work at a dunkin donuts and a locally owned pizza place, and there is no comparison at all. At the pizza place I have some dignity, under the table min (which is still low, but it's better than taxed min at dunkin), concrete promises for raises in the near future, my boss doesn't take the tip money like at dunkin, I don't have to deal with 9 (yes, nine) cameras covering every little square inch of the tiny ass store, and I don't have to deal with constant phone calls from nameless "managers" in new jersey who constantly watch me through the cameras and harass me over every little thing, trying to squeeze every single little productive second they can out of me.




Chain stores and the like fucking suck. Tell a woman who works three jobs, one at taco bell, one at jimmie john's, and one at burger king, because nobody will give her more than 14 hours a week (I know a few such women), trying to support her kids she never sees because she's always riding her bike from one shitty job to the next (they like to give you shork shifts so they don't have to give you breaks, so in one day you might have to work at two or three places), that she's better off than me at the pizza place. She'll laugh.


I've been working at dunkin donuts for four months now, they still don't consistently give me more than 20 hours a week. Now that winter is ending, I got this other job and he already said I'll be working 40 hours in a few weeks, and in the summer I can get 50-60. I'm definitely switching teams soon.

[Dean]

I am skeptical that with $12000 to spend you are living in the street. Someone, at some point, built the apartment building in which you are no doubt residing.
Upon what basis would you claim that house?
On the basis that the person who built it wasn't properly compensated for his work in building, much like Jimmie is not properly compensated for his labor.


People stopped buying cars and homes. Ergo, no profits.

This goes both ways, notably: improvement of quality or labor compensation accrued fewer profits, so such business models were divested from / eliminated.


You have a job which apparently does not allow you to take a break. How many customers who pass who pass through doors are more concerned about your working conditions, than with the reason which brings them in?
The differences will always exist because the producer and consumer have different interests at stake. Socialism will not change this- much as it may try.

This is only accurate in the mystification of the market. Importantly, if the working class enjoyed the full fruits of its labor, consumption would be commensurate with labor. And there's not enough space here to go over all of the problems this would solve - notably, for one, it would create a very powerful, sustainable consumer demand for mass-production.



And its making less profits because there is better product consumers can choose, or a particular firm has figured out a better way, an EASIER way, to produce that item.
Or the quality was lowered or costs were lowered. Its important not to pretend that capitalism is ideal - the exorbitant investment in financial capital, which accrues very little consumer value compared to its surplus rate, is a testament to the failure of the for-profit model. Cheapening of labor is another good example.


This is a terrible analogy. Your analogy would hold if I were arguing supplying meat was efficient regarding calories. That isn't what I am arguing. People eat food for reasons besides calorie intake. Did you know this?

Not the least of which is that advanced capitalism has created (or perpetuated, failed to diversify) a very narrow food market. This is a result of several functions which don't really need to be investigated here (the influence of extant agricultural firms would be the place to start). Also, consider the value that having a near-universal consumer base accrues - serving the same thing as your competition allows easy market entry and provides a business with latent demand.

But the simple, short answer to the problem is that there is large demand for cost-effective foods which is primarily met through a cheapening of more expensive foodstuffs (meat). Burgers at fast food restaurants routinely include soy products and other vegetables - a testament to the economic preferability to certain non-meats.

The homogeneity of the market makes changes along these lines unlikely - though the market will work in the background to try to achieve cheaper methods.

Your model of STV doesn't really take into consideration the whole production and consumption process, and this is important because so much of the process is shear manipulation and disenfranchisement of the consumer. In the context of controlling Money Trust, merely responding to extant demands provides no input, and certainly no educated input (what we should aspire to) from the consumer class.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Because they will find somebody who will give them more than $12000. Apparently not since, as I said they have gone vacant.

This is what capitalism does all the time, if you can not make a profit - even on something customers want and need, then it goes unbuilt, subsidies are paid to keep fields empty and crop prices high, commercial buildings and homes sit empty. Christ, stick your head out the window, this is what most US cities look like rights now - go talk to a Realtor about how nothing's moving right now and then go talk to people in line for section 8 housing and tell me how well the system meets people's needs and wants.


I am skeptical that with $12000 to spend you are living in the street. Someone, at some point, built the apartment building in which you are no doubt residing.
Upon what basis would you claim that house?I don't have $12,000 dollars, I live paycheck to paycheck, but if there was a nice house for 12,000, I'm sure I could borrow money from friends and family and that's low enough that I'd be able to pay it back. It was a silly example to illustrate that the only drive of capitalism is profits, not the well-being of customers/consumers. Use value in the abstract is not the goal of capitalist production, profits are. Again, this is very basic Smith and Ricardo capitalist economics, you'd think you might want to learn something about the system you apparently worship so much.


People stopped buying cars and homes. Ergo, no profits.

At this point, my usual question is something along the lines if "It remains mysterious why the socialist community would continue to produce cars which people didn't want" or whatever example was being used.You are saying 2 different things here. So people in the US in 2008 suddenly no longer needed or wanted cars? Or is it that the kinds of cars being produced (SUV's have a higher profit margin than compacts) could no longer be sold at a profit? Again, you don't need to be a socialist to recognize this, every CEO in Detroit knows this reality and they know what they are doing - the difference is that socialists don't think what they are doing is the best way to run society.

As to why would workers continue producing cars that no one wanted... well they wouldn't, that's what I've been argueing for: if production was done democratically rather than for profit, the goal would be meeting real demand, not the demand that can make a profit.

The market is terrible at meeting people's real demands (all the starvation while we produce enough food to feed everyone) and it also causes problems of overproduction. So really, why would capitalists continue makeing expensive SUV's and McMansions that people could not afford... why was there a housing bubble, why were people speculating and investing in things that actually weren't useful for consumers? Answer: because it was profitable to invest in these areas during the bubble, it caused a crash, because things were being produced that didn't get used!


Yes, it would.Socialism would just automatically decrease production of everything by what material process? Magic? Your say-so? I made a clear argument that democratically decided production would actually increase production of things that people thought was more useful while decreasing production of things people don't find useful.

In fact, production has slowed in construction and manufacturing in capitalism right now, exposing the fact that the amount that things are produced is based on conditions and the way production is organized.


You have a job which apparently does not allow you to take a break. How many customers who pass who pass through doors are more concerned about your working conditions, than with the reason which brings them in?
The differences will always exist because the producer and consumer have different interests at stake. Socialism will not change this- much as it may try. Do you want to eat lunch prepared by someone without healthcare or sick-days? Do you like going into stores and having the person at the register so demoralized and pissed-off that they huff when you ask a question or they snap at you?

Consumer is an idiotic way to group people because everyone who is human must eat and in capitalism that makes them "consumers". All workers are consumers. But "Consumer" in capitalism is a fake category because it is not based on an abstract and total "consumption" but only on consumption that yields a profit. "Consumer" is a category made up to mystify the real forces at work in our system: mainly the profit motive.


And its making less profits because there is better product consumers can choose, or a particular firm has figured out a better way, an EASIER way, to produce that item. No, because it is more profitable. It would be easier and more efficient to make all electronics open-source and flexible so that when a new operating system comes or some new technology, the old equipment could be easily upgraded. Instead, capitalist production has always gone out of its way to make some things more difficult, less efficient, and often have a planned obsolescence.


Maybe. But perhaps there are consumers who would prefer to go to one store in one shot for their goods as opposed to a half dozen. You mean like most main streets a generation ago? I do like things to be groupd, I think centralization of some things can make things easier - I'd love to see communities where houses are built around a central hub with laundry, entertainment, and food. But WalMart's business model is not about making things easy on anyone, it is about trying to make as much profit as quickly as possible. It has NOTHING to do with what people in general want and EVERYTHING to do with what is most efficient for making profits.

In business, they call profits "the bottom line" - if customer satisfaction was their goal, wouldn't that be their bottom line? It's pretty obvious to everyone capitalist or non-capitalist that the goal of business is profits - usually the pro-capitalists just argue that profits are a virtuous goal.

[Exakt]

This doesnt make any sense. First of all, we are meant to eat meat, just like other omnivores and most other animals. Thats why we have incisors. Vegans are all about nature, yet it is pretty natural for humans and other creatures to meat

I've got a womb. It is therefore natural for me to get pregnant. Therefore, contraceptives and abortion are an impediment to the natural process. Therefore they should be opposed. You don't agree with that do you? Personally, whilst I am morally comfortable eating meat, I find these sorts of 'naturalistic' arguments (really, they are fallacies) pretty ineffective, and your "argument" really boils down to: "Plus, meat is filling, and just soo damn tastay!!"

[Baseball]

T[QUOTE]his is what capitalism does all the time, if you can not make a profit - even on something customers want and need,

A profit occurs when the value of a finished product exceeds that of its component parts.
Why would a socialist community not be interested in production where the value of a finished product is greater than its component parts?




It was a silly example to illustrate that the only drive of capitalism is profits, not the well-being of customers/consumers.

Which is not contrary.


Use value in the abstract is not the goal of capitalist production, profits are.

The "use value" is assigned by the undividual.

nt to learn something about the system you apparently worship so much.


You are saying 2 different things here. So people in the US in 2008 suddenly no longer needed or wanted cars?

No. people simply decided that their "use value" was less than in say 2005.


Or is it that the kinds of cars being produced (SUV's have a higher profit margin than compacts) could no longer be sold at a profit? Again, you don't need to be a socialist to recognize this, every CEO in Detroit knows this reality and they know what they are doing - the difference is that socialists don't think what they are doing is the best way to run society.

So to be clear: car companies generally have made a better profit producing SUV's than subcompact; people stop buying SUV's and the car companies start cutting back production of SUV's.
Given such circumstances, what other decisions would a socialist community make?


As to why would workers continue producing cars that no one wanted... well they wouldn't, that's what I've been argueing for: if production was done democratically rather than for profit, the goal would be meeting real demand, not the demand that can make a profit.

Profit is a way the demand for a product is guaged.


So really, why would capitalists continue makeing expensive SUV's and McMansions that people could not afford...

People were buying them


why was there a housing bubble, why were people speculating and investing in things that actually weren't useful for consumers? Answer: because it was profitable to invest in these areas during the bubble, it caused a crash, because things were being produced that didn't get used!

Yes. That's the nature of a "bubble."


Socialism would just automatically decrease production of everything by what material process? Magic? Your say-so? I made a clear argument that democratically decided production would actually increase production of things that people thought was more useful while decreasing production of things people don't find useful.

"Democratically decided production" simply describes how decisions would be reached. It says nothing about the information used in making those decisions. You have eliminated profit as a source of information in making "democratic" decisions, and replaced it with... what, exactly?


In fact, production has slowed in construction and manufacturing in capitalism right now, exposing the fact that the amount that things are produced is based on conditions and the way production is organized.

One would think that construction and manufacturing production in the socialist community is also dependent upon "conditions."


Do you want to eat lunch prepared by someone without healthcare or sick-days? Do you like going into stores and having the person at the register so demoralized and pissed-off that they huff when you ask a question or they snap at you?

Entirely beside the point.


Consumer is an idiotic way to group people

Its not grouping people. Economic activity is about consumption and production.

[Dean]

Its not grouping people. Economic activity is about consumption and production.

You're attempting to define the two terms as alienated; however, they overlap, and the executive processes of labor and consumption need not exist apart from one another.

[Skooma Addict]

You're attempting to define the two terms as alienated; however, they overlap, and the executive processes of labor and consumption need not exist apart from one another.

Provide an example.

[Scary Monster]

I've got a womb. It is therefore natural for me to get pregnant. Therefore, contraceptives and abortion are an impediment to the natural process. Therefore they should be opposed. You don't agree with that do you? Personally, whilst I am morally comfortable eating meat, I find these sorts of 'naturalistic' arguments (really, they are fallacies) pretty ineffective, and your "argument" really boils down to: "Plus, meat is filling, and just soo damn tastay!!"

lol cmon now. i think this is what someone would call a strawman argument. All i said was, our biology allows us to eat meat, we crave meat, and meat is very filling and very tasty. So why not eat it? I can tell you, u can never go wrong with meat. I can get enough of it from the grocery store to keep 5 people full for a few days, all for $8

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The idea that livestock rearing is inherently "inefficient" is a stupid fallacy that needs to die already.

Firstly, the energy used to feed a pig doesn't just disappear - throughout the pig's life it drops out of the other end of the pig in a very useful form.

Secondly, animal parts are used for so much other than eating - aside from the muscles and internal organs, bones horns and hooves can be rendered down into glue, collagen can be extracted from skin, fat is used to make soaps, and numerous other parts are used to make all sorts of things.

Livestock rearing is only inefficient if looked at in a completely one-dimensional manner - as a source of nutrition - rather than as a lynchpin to a whole series of tasks. So yes, livestock rearing is a real economic activity. It produces a range of tangible products that many people of all kinds of backgrounds find a very good use for.

If we want to talk about the kind of thing that isn't real economic activity, there are much more obvious targets - the whole banking system, for a start. Do those besuited bastards actually do anything that any sensible being would consider useful?

This I consider the litmus test for a "real" economic activity - is it something that would be considered useful outside the context of modern capitalism? A steak or a leather coat or a heap of dung are inherently useful no matter the economic system. Outside of capitalism, a stock portfolio is fucking useless except possibly as toilet paper.

[RGacky3]

A profit occurs when the value of a finished product exceeds that of its component parts.
Why would a socialist community not be interested in production where the value of a finished product is greater than its component parts?


Its market value, not real value, and market value is extremely distorted. I can move weed a couple miles in a car and make huge profits, has the product changed? Have the components change? not at all.

I can pay someone to do it, I can pay a middle class guy $1000 to do it, or I can pay a desperate homelss kid $100 to do it. Whats the diffence? Is the value any different? Nope.

Market value has no corrolation to actual value.

Socialism is interested in use value, its interested in meeting peoples need, profit does'nt come into it.


Which is not contrary.


Absolutely it is, infact it in the interests to cut workers pay who are then consumers, then to raise prices as much as they can, its in their interest to make monopolies, lower the value of the product to keep profits higher, its in their interest to get as much out of the consumer while giving the least amount back.

Market people point to competition, but emprirically its simply not a big enough factor.


Which is not contrary.


No. people simply decided that their "use value" was less than in say 2005.


Yeah, individual value is miles apart from market value.

Also you mean people according to the amount of money they have.


So to be clear: car companies generally have made a better profit producing SUV's than subcompact; people stop buying SUV's and the car companies start cutting back production of SUV's.
Given such circumstances, what other decisions would a socialist community make?


THey would cut back making SUVs because less people drive them ....


Profit is a way the demand for a product is guaged.


Market demand (one dollar one vote), which is far different from actual individual demand (one person one vote).

That why its guagued that starving kids don't need food, homeless don't need shelters, but David Koch needs another private jet.


Yes. That's the nature of a "bubble."


Which is the nature of Capitalism


It says nothing about the information used in making those decisions. You have eliminated profit as a source of information in making "democratic" decisions, and replaced it with... what, exactly?


There are many many different models, vouchers, consumer groups, equalized wealth and so on. Parecon for example, gift economies for exapmle, worker organizations, mutual aid and so on.

BTW, you know who makes a HUGE amount of profits, health insurance companies, banks, exactly what demand are they meeting? Also how are their profits tied with meeting those demands?


One would think that construction and manufacturing production in the socialist community is also dependent upon "conditions."


What conditions? Obviously not the public good.


Its not grouping people. Economic activity is about consumption and production.

Yes it is, it is grouping people.

[Dean]

Provide an example.
The simple fact that consumers are also laborers? The two have never existed apart - except perhaps in purely agrarian societies, and even then it seems unlikely. By definition, a wage-laborer is also a consumer.

[Delirium]

from: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 78, No. 3, 660S-663S, September 2003
here (http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.full)


Worldwide, an estimated 2 billion people live primarily on a meat-based diet, while an estimated 4 billion live primarily on a plant-based diet. The shortages of cropland, fresh water, and energy resources require most of the 4 billion people to live on a plant-based diet. The World Health Organization recently reported that more than 3 billion people are malnourished (1 (http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.full#R1), 2 (http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.full#R2)). This is the largest number and proportion of malnourished people ever recorded in history. In large measure, the food shortage and malnourishment problem is primarily related to rapid population growth in the world plus the declining per capita availability of land, water, and energy resources (3 (http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.full#R3))...

The amount of feed grains used to produce the animal products (milk and eggs) consumed in the lactoovovegetarian diet was about half (450 kg) the amount of feed grains fed to the livestock (816 kg) to produce the animal products consumed in the meat-based diet....

In the United States, more than 9 billion livestock are maintained to supply the animal protein consumed each year (11 (http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.full#R11)). This livestock population on average outweighs the US human population by about 5 times. Some livestock, such as poultry and hogs, consume only grains, whereas dairy cattle, beef cattle, and lambs consume both grains and forage. At present, the US livestock population consumes more than 7 times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire American population (11 (http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.full#R11)). The amount of grains fed to US livestock is sufficient to feed about 840 million people who follow a plant-based diet (7 (http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.full#R7)). From the US livestockhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=2036614 population, a total of about 8 million tons (metric) of animal protein is produced annually....

Fossil energy is expended in livestock production systems (Table 2). For example, broiler chicken production is the most efficient, with an input of 4 kcal of fossil energy for each 1 kcal of broiler protein produced. The broiler system is primarily dependent on grain. Turkey, also a grain-fed system, is next in efficiency, with a ratio of 10:1. Milk production, based on a mixture of two-thirds grain and one-third forage, is relatively efficient, with a ratio of 14:1. Both pork and egg production also depend on grain. Pork production has a ratio of 14:1, whereas egg production has a 39:1 ratio. The 2 livestock systems depending most heavily on forage but also using significant amounts of grain are the beef and lamb production systems (Table 3). The beef system has a ratio of 40:1, while the lamb has the highest, with a ratio of 57:1 (Table 2http://www.ajcn.org/icons/fig-up.gif (http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.full#T2)). If these animals were fed on only good-quality pasture, the energy inputs could be reduced by about half...

Producing 1 kg of animal protein requires about 100 times more water than producing 1 kg of grain protein (8 (http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.full#R8)). Livestock directly uses only 1.3% of the total water used in agriculture. However, when the water required for forage and grain production is included, the water requirements for livestock production dramatically increase. For example, producing 1 kg of fresh beef may require about 13 kg of grain and 30 kg of hay (17 (http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.full#R17)). This much forage and grain requires about 100 000 L of water to produce the 100 kg of hay, and 5400 L for the 4 kg of grain. On rangeland for forage production, more than 200 000 L of water are needed to produce 1 kg of beef (30 (http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.full#R30)). Animals vary in the amounts of water required for their production. In contrast to beef, 1 kg of broiler can be produced with about 2.3 kg of grain requiring approximately 3500 L of water...

Both the meat-based average American diet and the lactoovovegetarian diet require significant quantities of nonrenewable fossil energy to produce. Thus, both food systems are not sustainable in the long term based on heavy fossil energy requirements. However, the meat-based diet requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet.



My emphasis

[Skooma Addict]

The simple fact that consumers are also laborers? The two have never existed apart - except perhaps in purely agrarian societies, and even then it seems unlikely. By definition, a wage-laborer is also a consumer.

When you said they "overlap" I thought you meant that an action can be both consumption and production.

[Revolution starts with U]

All production is consumption, one would think. You can't just make shit out of thin air. Even the net needs servers.

[Dean]

When you said they "overlap" I thought you meant that an action can be both consumption and production.

Alright - I guess that is possible, too, but you'd have to broaden the generally accepted definition of "consumption." It's not what I meant anyhow.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

from: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 78, No. 3, 660S-663S, September 2003
here (http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.full)

My emphasis

Fucking stupid. Assumes there's no better way of doing things other than the way we do them now, that the only major source of energy is fossil fuels (what happened to nuclear?), and that current shortages cannot be remedied effectively, of which history and the Green Revolution have taught us otherwise.

Misanthropic veggies might be convinced that the only way to save the world is to force everyone to eat nothing but rabbit food, but their apocalyptic maunderings will meet the same fate as all Malthusian designs on humanity's future - ridicule by our descendants.

[ComradeMan]

Fucking stupid. Assumes there's no better way of doing things other than the way we do them now, that the only major source of energy is fossil fuels (what happened to nuclear?), and that current shortages cannot be remedied effectively, of which history and the Green Revolution have taught us otherwise.

Misanthropic veggies might be convinced that the only way to save the world is to force everyone to eat nothing but rabbit food, but their apocalyptic maunderings will meet the same fate as all Malthusian designs on humanity's future - ridicule by our descendants.

Here's an article you may care tor read...
Eating less meat could cut climate costs

Cutting back on beefburgers and bacon could wipe $20 trillion off the cost of fighting climate change. That's the dramatic conclusion of a study that totted up the economic costs of modern meat-heavy diets...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16573-eating-less-meat-could-cut-climate-costs.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

---

I am not a vegetarian but I eat as little meat as possible, also for health reasons. The greater demand for meat has also caused rice shortages in India amongst other places. There are many good reasons why vegetarians' arguments are justified.

[Ele'ill]

We're going to force people to eat vegan diets by hooking them up to fruit-tubes that transfer raw mango, pineapple, grapefruit smoothies directly into their stomachs- right after we force everybody to take over the means of production at gun point not giving them a choice at all or anything. :rolleyes:

[Tim Finnegan]

Misanthropic veggies...
Why is it assumed that not holding the Other in contempt means that you must necessarily hold yourself in contempt? Do all white anti-racists hate white people? Do all male feminists hate men? Do all queer allies hate straight and cis people?

I mean, really. This is basic social justice thought.

[RGacky3]

The greater demand for meat has also caused rice shortages in India amongst other places. There are many good reasons why vegetarians' arguments are justified.

Any proof of this? Much of the rice shortages have been due to financial markets price manipulation through food speculation.


I am not a vegetarian but I eat as little meat as possible, also for health reasons.

I'm not saying I don't believe you (I honestly don't know), But what are the health reasons specifically?

[ComradeMan]

Any proof of this? Much of the rice shortages have been due to financial markets price manipulation through food speculation.



I'm not saying I don't believe you (I honestly don't know), But what are the health reasons specifically?

A few years ago the greater demand for meat led to more grain and rice being diverted to feed livestock, along with bio-fuels too- this led to the rice/grain shortages in India and a temporary ban on export by the Indian government. I can't remember all the details, I'll see if I can find them.

Edit:- On checking it wasn't India's meat consumption but seems to have been connected to China's growing meat consumption.

Here's an article that talks about this in relation to China's meat consumption.
http://www.radnoesis.info/rnarchives/2008/06/14/world_rice_shor.php

http://www.vivavegie.org/vvi/vva/vvi23/grainshort.html

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Here's an article you may care tor read...
Eating less meat could cut climate costs

Cutting back on beefburgers and bacon could wipe $20 trillion off the cost of fighting climate change. That's the dramatic conclusion of a study that totted up the economic costs of modern meat-heavy diets...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16573-eating-less-meat-could-cut-climate-costs.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

I'm well aware of the absurdities of the contemporary gastro-industrial complex. Just because I'm not a fan of erasing all but the vegetarian options from the menu, doesn't mean I think the current way we produce meat is the best way.

The New Scientist article also makes the classic veggie mistake of assuming that the systemic problems of contemporary food production are susceptible to individual dietary choices.


Why is it assumed that not holding the Other in contempt means that you must necessarily hold yourself in contempt? Do all white anti-racists hate white people? Do all male feminists hate men? Do all queer allies hate straight and cis people?

I mean, really. This is basic social justice thought.

I've got no problems with anyone who just doesn't eat meat - it's the cock-eyed notion of what I hope to be a vocal minority of vegetarians that meat eating is some kind of moral or political failing that I cannot countenance.

[Tim Finnegan]

I've got no problems with anyone who just doesn't eat meat - it's the cock-eyed notion of what I hope to be a vocal minority of vegetarians that meat eating is some kind of moral or political failing that I cannot countenance.
Just like those damn commies who keep telling us that racial discrimination is some kind of moral or political failing? :rolleyes:

[RGacky3]

Just like those damn commies who keep telling us that racial discrimination is some kind of moral or political failing? :rolleyes:

Wait what??? Whats the corrolation???

So non vegetarians are like racists????

[RGacky3]

Comrademan: I meant on the health benefits of not eating meat?? I'm gonna admit, I eat a lot of meat.

As far as the 2 links, it seams to make sense to me, however there are many other factors, such as the commodities market, and derivatives on that market, (what cuased the recent food crisis), as well as subsidies for first world farmers and other price manipulations (such as buying land and leaving it desolate) which destroys production in the third world by artificially raises prices. I think if those factors were eliminated mean consumption would'nt be a problem. But clearly meat eating is a factor.

[Tim Finnegan]

Wait what??? Whats the corrolation???

So non vegetarians are like racists????
Unless they're cannibals, yes.

[Thug Lessons]

The idea that livestock rearing is inherently "inefficient" is a stupid fallacy that needs to die already.

Firstly, the energy used to feed a pig doesn't just disappear - throughout the pig's life it drops out of the other end of the pig in a very useful form.

I don't believe for a minute this is anything more than a shrill, reductionist attempt to hand-wave away the environmental consequences of meat production in an attempt to justify your dietary choices.

Oh yes, the fertilization benefits of pig shit! Well, pig manure was used traditionally to fertilize farms, but outside of select organic farming operations, it's been mostly phased out in favor of synthetic fertilizers, because those synthetic fertilizers are both cheaper and more efficient. In fact, every pound of synthetic fertilizers contains the same amount of nutrients as 100 pounds (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/business/worldbusiness/30fertilizer.html?_r=1&hp) of manure. Now, this can be counteracted to an extent through enrichment processes and using more fertilizer, but there's a limit to both, because manure can only be enriched so far and you can only use so much fertilizer before you start running into serious problems with runoff, (more on that second point later).

Now, at the same time as manure has been phased out as a fertilizer, we've seen a massive increase in meat consumption. Contrary to the suggestion of some earlier posters, eating meat is a privilege of economic success, and the countries that have been economically successful, especially the United States, have seen their diets shifting more and more towards meat over more efficient means of food production because their citizens have more disposable income to spend on it. This has led to a massive surplus of livestock manure, and the consequences of this surplus have been detailed in articles such as this (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:EGBUZt3HH8cJ:regionalworkbench.org/USP2/pdf_files/pigs.pdf+rolling+stone+boss+hog&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShfzRSd45hsYzFSQIq4Zd5EP1kxU7jt0y_-m9zI9-Im-xBMl9WPeV5GbD2OqWnckbM1efnQBIAVGsMRpmAnnAULNg3qt0r CKasXh0uVGOJJVlFURJnLBqEg5jmKmBqsLbbtRglM&sig=AHIEtbQHBSrlUGAHbslFrNAnugxPePDxug), which serves as a source for most of the next section.

So what's actually happening to all that pig shit that doesn't get used as fertilizer? It's stored in man-made lagoons. Vast, stinking lagoons of pig shit. When it rains, the lagoons overflow and the runoff leaks into waterways, infecting them with bacteria that makes the water unsafe to drink. Eventually these flow to the ocean, where the fertilization benefits of manure are put to a new use -- the production of algae. Some of this algae is toxic. As a result, 'dead zones' are appearing in coastal waters all across the US, where animal life cannot exist as a result of reduced dissolved oxygen in the water, (the process by which this happens is somewhat irrelevant but I can explain it to you if you're confused). In North Carolina, the center of pork production in the US, most of this happens in the Cape Fear Estuary, one of the most unique ecosystems in the world, (as evidenced by the fact that it's the only natural habitat of species like the Venus Fly Trap), but it's also one of the most fragile, as it is, after all, an estuary. Not only does this runoff threaten the native species, but it threatens the local economy as well, since Wilmington, (the major city situated on Cape Fear), is heavily dependent on fishing to provide jobs. As runoff enlarges dead zones and depletes fisheries, more and more people are forced out of work and driven into other, less productive, sectors.

'Very useful' indeed. Fuck you. You don't know what you're talking about, you don't care what meat production is doing to the environment, you just want your fucking bacon and the consequences be damned.



Secondly, animal parts are used for so much other than eating - aside from the muscles and internal organs, bones horns and hooves can be rendered down into glue, collagen can be extracted from skin, fat is used to make soaps, and numerous other parts are used to make all sorts of things.

Livestock rearing is only inefficient if looked at in a completely one-dimensional manner - as a source of nutrition - rather than as a lynchpin to a whole series of tasks. So yes, livestock rearing is a real economic activity. It produces a range of tangible products that many people of all kinds of backgrounds find a very good use for.

Yes, that's true, there are other uses for animal products than simple consumption. But how much more efficient does this really make it? How much glue is made from animal horns and hooves? How much soap is made from tallow? With the possible exception of leather, you'll find that almost all of these have been largely replaced by cheaper, more efficient synthetic alternatives. It may even be cheaper to throw away or compost non-meat products than to try and sell them for uses such as these. Livestock rearing is not just inefficient when it comes to producing nutrition, it is inefficient when it comes to producing glue, soap and clothing materials as well.

So what is the real efficiency of livestock rearing? How much do these other uses make up for the immense resources that we must devote to maintain it? I don't really know, so feel free to inform me. But what's really obnoxious here, what's so aggressively and proudly ignorant, is that you want to say, "See! See! There are other uses for animal products so meat production must be efficient!" As though any mitigation of the waste that goes into the process is enough to justify it.


For what it's worth, I don't demand the total elimination of meat production. I can imagine a world where livestock is reared at a much more reduced, local level, and people eat meat occasionally and use every part of the animal for some useful purpose. This would still probably be inefficient, but it would be a tolerable inefficiency. However, what's very clear is that today meat is overproduced in the extreme, to the point that it has incredible consequences for both the environment and human health. You don't seem to realize this and are willing to seize on any possible excuse to avoid doing so, and while you seem like an fairly intelligent person, if that's the case then I'd prefer you didn't contribute anything at all.

[Thug Lessons]

Since it probably got lost in that massive carepost, I'd like to highlight this article. It really demonstrates the environmental and humanitarian consequences of meat production in North Carolina in an effective and compelling way:

Boss Hog (http://www.anonym.to/?http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:EGBUZt3HH8cJ:regionalworkbench.org/USP2/pdf_files/pigs.pdf+rolling+stone+boss+hog&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShfzRSd45hsYzFSQIq4Zd5EP1kxU7jt0y_-m9zI9-Im-xBMl9WPeV5GbD2OqWnckbM1efnQBIAVGsMRpmAnnAULNg3qt0r CKasXh0uVGOJJVlFURJnLBqEg5jmKmBqsLbbtRglM&sig=AHIEtbQHBSrlUGAHbslFrNAnugxPePDxug)

[Thug Lessons]

Fucking stupid. Assumes there's no better way of doing things other than the way we do them now, that the only major source of energy is fossil fuels (what happened to nuclear?), and that current shortages cannot be remedied effectively, of which history and the Green Revolution have taught us otherwise.

Misanthropic veggies might be convinced that the only way to save the world is to force everyone to eat nothing but rabbit food, but their apocalyptic maunderings will meet the same fate as all Malthusian designs on humanity's future - ridicule by our descendants.
Here's you:

eah23WvLYsQ

[Dean]

I'm well aware of the absurdities of the contemporary gastro-industrial complex. Just because I'm not a fan of erasing all but the vegetarian options from the menu, doesn't mean I think the current way we produce meat is the best way.
Emphasis on cheaper, and more diverse foods would not only further empower consumers, but almost certainly lead to less meat consumption among 1st-worlders. While I agree with most of what you've said, the energy and cost savings that have been mentioned are real, and I would love, for instance, to have things like falafel as readily available as burgers. A lot of people would benefit from access to these cheaper products.



I've got no problems with anyone who just doesn't eat meat - it's the cock-eyed notion of what I hope to be a vocal minority of vegetarians that meat eating is some kind of moral or political failing that I cannot countenance.
I don't think meat-eating is. I do think that killing animals is, though, for the simple reason that they have sentience. Our knowledge of biology indicates that all of the basic requirements for mental processes and feeling are present in a lot of animals - the only difference, of course, is the "level" of it.

I know you've heard the arguments before, so I won't bore you. I think its reasonable to expect a sane society to primarily engage in humane butchering, and to explore the issues mentioned above. But that doesn't mean we should be forcing a narrow morality on people. Abortion is a similar issue - there can be no compromise with regard to a woman's rights to control her body. But its naive to think that this means that there is no moral value congealed in what may be a sentient life form (and would become one if it were birthed). Much like the dignity of the woman comes first, so does the dignity of humanity v. animals - but I think its always a mistake to pretend that there was never an important moral question in the first place.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Just like those damn commies who keep telling us that racial discrimination is some kind of moral or political failing? :rolleyes:

You have the analogy wrong. Vegetarians who harp on about the alleged moral failings of meat eaters are the equivalent of white people who harp on about the alleged moral failings of people with dark skin.


I don't believe for a minute this is anything more than a shrill, reductionist attempt to hand-wave away the environmental consequences of meat production in an attempt to justify your dietary choices.

Oh yes, the fertilization benefits of pig shit! Well, pig manure was used traditionally to fertilize farms, but outside of select organic farming operations, it's been mostly phased out in favor of synthetic fertilizers, because those synthetic fertilizers are both cheaper and more efficient. In fact, every pound of synthetic fertilizers contains the same amount of nutrients as 100 pounds (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/business/worldbusiness/30fertilizer.html?_r=1&hp) of manure. Now, this can be counteracted to an extent through enrichment processes and using more fertilizer, but there's a limit to both, because manure can only be enriched so far and you can only use so much fertilizer before you start running into serious problems with runoff, (more on that second point later).

Ah yes, the cheapness and efficiency of synthetic fertilisers! Although remind me, aren't they derived from non-renewable resources? Processed from oil, and mined from the ground? Exactly the sort of practice that should be phased out for our own good even if they aren't running out any time soon.

And there's more things that can be done with animal muck than just fertiliser. It's nitrates can be extracted for use in the chemical industry, for example. For fuck's sake, in my first post in the thread I emphasised that animal husbandry can be more than about mere nutrition, and you have the stones to call me reductionist?

Troll suspected.


So what's actually happening to all that pig shit that doesn't get used as fertilizer? It's stored in man-made lagoons. Vast, stinking lagoons of pig shit. When it rains, the lagoons overflow and the runoff leaks into waterways, infecting them with bacteria that makes the water unsafe to drink. Eventually these flow to the ocean, where the fertilization benefits of manure are put to a new use -- the production of algae. Some of this algae is toxic. As a result, 'dead zones' are appearing in coastal waters all across the US, where animal life cannot exist as a result of reduced dissolved oxygen in the water, (the process by which this happens is somewhat irrelevant but I can explain it to you if you're confused). In North Carolina, the center of pork production in the US, most of this happens in the Cape Fear Estuary, one of the most unique ecosystems in the world, (as evidenced by the fact that it's the only natural habitat of species like the Venus Fly Trap), but it's also one of the most fragile, as it is, after all, an estuary. Not only does this runoff threaten the native species, but it threatens the local economy as well, since Wilmington, (the major city situated on Cape Fear), is heavily dependent on fishing to provide jobs. As runoff enlarges dead zones and depletes fisheries, more and more people are forced out of work and driven into other, less productive, sectors.

The runoff problem would be solved if the muck was stored in closed vats and tanks rather than open lagoons. Good grief, do you seriously lack that much of an engineering imagination not to see such a simple solution? Also, storing it in tanks would make it vastly easier to seperate out useful compounds like methane.


'Very useful' indeed. Fuck you. You don't know what you're talking about, you don't care what meat production is doing to the environment, you just want your fucking bacon and the consequences be damned.

And you just want a chance to preach to others and feel morally superior. Right back atcha.


Yes, that's true, there are other uses for animal products than simple consumption. But how much more efficient does this really make it? How much glue is made from animal horns and hooves? How much soap is made from tallow? With the possible exception of leather, you'll find that almost all of these have been largely replaced by cheaper, more efficient synthetic alternatives. It may even be cheaper to throw away or compost non-meat products than to try and sell them for uses such as these. Livestock rearing is not just inefficient when it comes to producing nutrition, it is inefficient when it comes to producing glue, soap and clothing materials as well.

You are confusing efficiency with cheapness. The apparent efficiency of the synthetic alternatives is derived from the cheapness of oil. Which, unlike animals, is a non-renewable resource. Which means it won't always be cheap.

Since you appear to worship at the Altar of Efficiency, don't you think it's more efficient in the long run to make use of a renewable resource that scales with one's productive capacity (you have a herd of X cows capable of producing Y amount of milk/meat/glue/leather/muck annually), rather than to make use of a non-renewable resource that as a consequence always diminishes over time?


For what it's worth, I don't demand the total elimination of meat production. I can imagine a world where livestock is reared at a much more reduced, local level, and people eat meat occasionally and use every part of the animal for some useful purpose. This would still probably be inefficient, but it would be a tolerable inefficiency. However, what's very clear is that today meat is overproduced in the extreme, to the point that it has incredible consequences for both the environment and human health. You don't seem to realize this and are willing to seize on any possible excuse to avoid doing so, and while you seem like an fairly intelligent person, if that's the case then I'd prefer you didn't contribute anything at all.

Sorry, someone was calling me arrogant? :rolleyes:


Emphasis on cheaper, and more diverse foods would not only further empower consumers, but almost certainly lead to less meat consumption among 1st-worlders. While I agree with most of what you've said, the energy and cost savings that have been mentioned are real, and I would love, for instance, to have things like falafel as readily available as burgers. A lot of people would benefit from access to these cheaper products.

Cheaper access to foods, including meat, will not happen through individual dietary choices, except in the obvious sense of only being able to eat what one can afford.

We don't expect the sociopolitical system to change through people dropping out of it, so why should we expect the food production system to change just because a handful of relatively rich Westerners drop out of a particular subset of it?


I don't think meat-eating is. I do think that killing animals is, though, for the simple reason that they have sentience. Our knowledge of biology indicates that all of the basic requirements for mental processes and feeling are present in a lot of animals - the only difference, of course, is the "level" of it.

I know you've heard the arguments before, so I won't bore you. I think its reasonable to expect a sane society to primarily engage in humane butchering, and to explore the issues mentioned above. But that doesn't mean we should be forcing a narrow morality on people. Abortion is a similar issue - there can be no compromise with regard to a woman's rights to control her body. But its naive to think that this means that there is no moral value congealed in what may be a sentient life form (and would become one if it were birthed). Much like the dignity of the woman comes first, so does the dignity of humanity v. animals - but I think its always a mistake to pretend that there was never an important moral question in the first place.

Sick, stressed animals produce crappy meat. This applies right up to the point of death, so I'm in favour of making the life of livestock as comfortable as is practical.

[Tim Finnegan]

You have the analogy wrong. Vegetarians who harp on about the alleged moral failings of meat eaters are the equivalent of white people who harp on about the alleged moral failings of people with dark skin.
That doesn't even make sense. Seriously, we're into "feminists are the real bigots" territory here.

(And aside from anything else, don't you think it's a bit insulting to reduce five hundred years of slavery, conquest and oppression to "harping on about moral failings"?)