ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 11th July 2019, 06:01 AM   #121
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 26,256
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Maybe but not necessarily. There actually is a rather large room for increased efficiency and streamlining. The current system is so wasteful that you could rather easily double what farmers make and still lower most food prices. The majority of this is caused by regulatory capture.
I think you're going to have to show your working on that one. It's true that farmers typically receive a tiny proportion of the retail price for produce but the breakdown. The one that hits the headlines in the UK is a price of a pint of milk which typically breaks down roughly to, for a 45p pint:

The farmer is paid 15p by the processor (which is below the cost of production)
The processor is paid 30p by the supermarket
The supermarket charges 45p

Of course both the processor and the supermarket have considerable costs, and also have profits to make so I'd be surprised if the farmer could be paid 30p and price to the consumer wouldn't rise.


Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
I did already mention this and even gave a good reference. I am sorry you did not understand what you were reading.
Are you referring to the Scientific American article, or the abstract you linked to ?

The Scientific American article criticises the corn industry but as far as I can tell, it doesn't provide a path to profitability for the nation's farmers without the same, or equal subsidy.

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Yes it will. Usually by making it higher quality and safer. But indeed we shouldn't eliminate all regulations, just get rid of the ones that are counterproductive and no longer serve the public interest.
Again, I'd need to see evidence for the claim that reducing regulation results in higher quality and safer food. The reasons that many of these regulations are in place is to rectify historical flaws in food quality and/or safety.

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
If you mean agribiz will continue to bribe politicians to enact even more regulatory capture so they can get away with being even more wasteful and inefficient and still manage a profit...sure they will keep trying that.
No I'm saying that Agribiz enjoys advantages over smaller farmers. They buy and sell in greater quantities than small farmers and so are in a position to strike better deals. They can afford to invest in greater mechanisation to drive down costs and produce quantities that make that mechanisation financially viable.

If farming generally becomes more profitable, they stand to gain more and can drive competitors out of business and can buy up or buy out smaller competitors.

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Oh and 2 wrongs don't make a right. Just because I advocate the regulatory capture that favors wasteful inefficient industry be removed, doesn't mean I want a whole new set of regulatory capture enacted favoring small farms. You fell for the false dichotomy. Indeed that is just as unAmerican as what we have now.
Then I don't understand how you prevent the processes of mechanisation and consolidation which reduces the number of farms and shrinks the agricultural workforce
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2019, 10:00 AM   #122
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,111
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Large farms are more financially efficient than small farms and tend towards increased mechanisation. Unless you're going to legislate against large farms and/or mechanisation in farming, it's not clear to me how the trends are going to be reversed.
The next wave of mechanization will be a little bit different. The next wave of agricultural robots won't give a huge advantage to large farms.

I don't know how far off those are, though. There has been tremendous progress just in the last three years, but they aren't ready for actual, full scale, field work.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2019, 10:21 AM   #123
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,711
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
I think you're going to have to show your working on that one. It's true that farmers typically receive a tiny proportion of the retail price for produce but the breakdown. The one that hits the headlines in the UK is a price of a pint of milk which typically breaks down roughly to, for a 45p pint:

The farmer is paid 15p by the processor (which is below the cost of production)
The processor is paid 30p by the supermarket
The supermarket charges 45p

Of course both the processor and the supermarket have considerable costs, and also have profits to make so I'd be surprised if the farmer could be paid 30p and price to the consumer wouldn't rise.
Well American farmers make considerably less than their UK counterparts apparently less than 1/2 they do. Instead of a luxurious 30% of the food dollar, US farmers average just 14.6%.
Farmer share of food dollar declines

Also keep in mind a great deal of farmers in the US do not even produce food for people. They produce commodity crops that are used for things like biofuels and animal feeds etc... But in many cases the cost to produce is higher than the % of food dollar the farmer receives. Where I am from in Oklahoma many farmers never even bothered to plant wheat this year because the price was so much less than cost to produce even with additional outside jobs by the whole family and crop insurance, it still wasn't enough. The only wheat farmers in this state who can afford to farm are the ones who have oil wells or wind mills generating massive side income for them.

One solution is a business model called a farm to fork. This allows most of the middlemen to be bypassed. That allows a much higher % to be paid to the farmers without increasing the cost to consumer.

Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Are you referring to the Scientific American article, or the abstract you linked to ?
Both really, but the paper from the Journal of Food and Law Policy spells it out in much greater detail. But even they only hint at the huge regulatory monster that is fed by hundreds of billions annually. That is indeed the only efficient part of US Agriculture. It is unreasonably wasteful in every way except in capturing those hundreds of billions.

Originally Posted by The Don View Post
The Scientific American article criticises the corn industry but as far as I can tell, it doesn't provide a path to profitability for the nation's farmers without the same, or equal subsidy.
correct



Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Again, I'd need to see evidence for the claim that reducing regulation results in higher quality and safer food. The reasons that many of these regulations are in place is to rectify historical flaws in food quality and/or safety.
Again please understand the concept of regulatory capture. That's a failure of a regulatory body to actually do what it was originally intended to do. I'll give a great example:

FSIS DIRECTIVE 6100.4, a clear cut example of regulatory capture.

Quote:
Regulatory capture is a form of government failure which occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.
Some of the older readers might remember safety regulations to make sure we keep Mad Cow Disease (BSE) out of the food supply. That’s exactly what we were told was the purpose of FSIS DIRECTIVE 6100.4.

EXCEPT…..dig a bit deeper and you find out that BSE is a direct result of CAFO feedlots, not grass. Specifically feeding animal products like bone meal mixed in their feedlot rations. It is impossible for grass to contain the BSE prions.

So when the news got out that it was feedlots that caused BSE. The logical solution is let cattle graze on grass so it would be impossible to contract. Problem solved. Unfortunately that wasn't acceptable to our USDA overlords. In spite of the danger coming only from feedlots, the regulation was instead adopted to prevent grassfed from becoming a viable option for consumers. That is a perfect example of regulatory capture!

As I stated before at ISF in previous agricultural discussions a feedlot can usually fatten a cow to grade choice or better in well under 30 months. Meanwhile grassfed beef generally takes 36 months or more to fatten to grade choice or better. Very very hard to get that done in under 30 months.

So what happened? To produce grassfed and finished a rancher had to choose, either a lower grade product, or a high grade but way over priced due to meeting the requirements of FSIS DIRECTIVE 6100.4.

Keep in mind the cause of BSE...the feedlots and their unnatural feeds that cows are not evolved to eat.... are exempt for undergoing this expensive processing procedure, because they don't typically produce 30 mo+ cattle, but the competition of the feedlots that do not ever cause BSE are required to follow it.

That’s why today there is usually one of two complaints regarding organic grassfed and finished beef. The high quality meat is too expensive or if cheap, it is tough and bland. That is the purposeful sabotaging of the marketplace by USDA regulatory capture! It’s an attempt to reduce the switch back to healthier and more environmentally sound grassfed by a rather large consumer demand.

I am sure you have heard that argument from industry shills many times...how organic and/or grassfed etc..is more expensive? Even though actually in this case it is much cheaper to produce, it’s the regulatory burden making the cost to consumer higher.

Either that or they will call it shoe leather when it is harvested under that 30 month time frame, because it hasn't had time to fatten up yet.

The industry will do anything to protect it’s factory farms which are a key element to the King Corn system capacity to suck up those 100's of billions of government subsidies. It's not about quality or safety as the above shows both are reduced.

Keep in mind too, that's just one of many thousands and thousands of regulations designed that reduce both quality and safety of our food.

There is an excellent book called Everything I want to do is illegal: War stories from the local food front by Joel Salatin that goes over the dozens of ways the US government has effectively blocked any attempt by farmers to either produce higher quality or more profitable food for consumers. I highly recommend you get it and read it. You have no idea what so ever how bad it is. That's again why I said you were naive. You can go crop by crop food item by food item from tomatoes to chicken and everything in between. The whole food system is nearly completely locked down by regulatory capture.

Originally Posted by The Don View Post
No I'm saying that Agribiz enjoys advantages over smaller farmers. They buy and sell in greater quantities than small farmers and so are in a position to strike better deals. They can afford to invest in greater mechanisation to drive down costs and produce quantities that make that mechanisation financially viable.
Farming is not financially viable. There is your first mistake. Most of the regulatory capture is designed to make sure it won't be. Remember the goal stated so clearly and bluntly by Earl Butz. Get big or get out. The full weight of the US government has since been directed at financially destabilizing farmers to force them out. This has had the side effect of completely destabilizing rural America in general, which was the OP topic in the first place.

Originally Posted by The Don View Post
If farming generally becomes more profitable, they stand to gain more and can drive competitors out of business and can buy up or buy out smaller competitors.
That's true if they can produce as high a quality product as efficiently. As a general rule though, quality declines when you get so big that a farmers can't even get eyes on his operation any more...



Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Then I don't understand how you prevent the processes of mechanisation and consolidation which reduces the number of farms and shrinks the agricultural workforce
You don't need to prevent it. appropriate technology is a great thing. What you shouldn't do it try to force it with hundreds of billions annually in subsidies and even greater regulatory burden.

It's not the natural succession of improvements in technology we are talking about here. It is the purposeful driving out of business a whole sector of the population. And entire demographic targeted for elimination no matter how much higher quality or how much more efficient they become. "get big or get out" is very clear and unambiguous language. It isn't get more safe, or get more efficient, or get higher quality....none of that....
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 11th July 2019 at 10:39 AM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2019, 12:23 PM   #124
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,322
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
I think the crisis is in the cities with high crime, people living in the streets, pollution, congestion, no sense of community. I guess it depends on your (not you dudalb) perspective. The cities aren't doing too well either.

The answers to all of our problems do not lie within city limits, in fact I see problems like homelessness getting worse at a staggering pace. I have no desire to live in a city, ever, not for any job or reason. There is more to life than being a slave to your job.

Example: I'm going fishin' today. Bye!
Good try, but you've posted your fishing hole locations before. I can't remember them off the top of my head, but "rural" was not my first thought. Something about avoiding neighborhood security and trying to find good parking nearby.

Maybe I'm wrong. Here's a test, if you can shoot your buddies bobber out of the water without having to run from the police it's rural, otherwise you are fishing in the suburbs, my friend! (Which isn't bad, one of my favorite childhood fishing holes went suburban decades ago. It was still a hot hole.)
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2019, 02:48 PM   #125
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,159
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
The next wave of mechanization will be a little bit different. The next wave of agricultural robots won't give a huge advantage to large farms.

I don't know how far off those are, though. There has been tremendous progress just in the last three years, but they aren't ready for actual, full scale, field work.
Will we have to worry about the Jawas stealing the farmbots?
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2019, 02:50 PM   #126
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,159
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Well American farmers make considerably less than their UK counterparts apparently less than 1/2 they do. Instead of a luxurious 30% of the food dollar, US farmers average just 14.6%.
Farmer share of food dollar declines

Also keep in mind a great deal of farmers in the US do not even produce food for people. They produce commodity crops that are used for things like biofuels and animal feeds etc... But in many cases the cost to produce is higher than the % of food dollar the farmer receives. Where I am from in Oklahoma many farmers never even bothered to plant wheat this year because the price was so much less than cost to produce even with additional outside jobs by the whole family and crop insurance, it still wasn't enough. The only wheat farmers in this state who can afford to farm are the ones who have oil wells or wind mills generating massive side income for them.

One solution is a business model called a farm to fork. This allows most of the middlemen to be bypassed. That allows a much higher % to be paid to the farmers without increasing the cost to consumer.


Both really, but the paper from the Journal of Food and Law Policy spells it out in much greater detail. But even they only hint at the huge regulatory monster that is fed by hundreds of billions annually. That is indeed the only efficient part of US Agriculture. It is unreasonably wasteful in every way except in capturing those hundreds of billions.

correct



Again please understand the concept of regulatory capture. That's a failure of a regulatory body to actually do what it was originally intended to do. I'll give a great example:

FSIS DIRECTIVE 6100.4, a clear cut example of regulatory capture.



Some of the older readers might remember safety regulations to make sure we keep Mad Cow Disease (BSE) out of the food supply. Thatís exactly what we were told was the purpose of FSIS DIRECTIVE 6100.4.

EXCEPTÖ..dig a bit deeper and you find out that BSE is a direct result of CAFO feedlots, not grass. Specifically feeding animal products like bone meal mixed in their feedlot rations. It is impossible for grass to contain the BSE prions.

So when the news got out that it was feedlots that caused BSE. The logical solution is let cattle graze on grass so it would be impossible to contract. Problem solved. Unfortunately that wasn't acceptable to our USDA overlords. In spite of the danger coming only from feedlots, the regulation was instead adopted to prevent grassfed from becoming a viable option for consumers. That is a perfect example of regulatory capture!

As I stated before at ISF in previous agricultural discussions a feedlot can usually fatten a cow to grade choice or better in well under 30 months. Meanwhile grassfed beef generally takes 36 months or more to fatten to grade choice or better. Very very hard to get that done in under 30 months.

So what happened? To produce grassfed and finished a rancher had to choose, either a lower grade product, or a high grade but way over priced due to meeting the requirements of FSIS DIRECTIVE 6100.4.

Keep in mind the cause of BSE...the feedlots and their unnatural feeds that cows are not evolved to eat.... are exempt for undergoing this expensive processing procedure, because they don't typically produce 30 mo+ cattle, but the competition of the feedlots that do not ever cause BSE are required to follow it.

Thatís why today there is usually one of two complaints regarding organic grassfed and finished beef. The high quality meat is too expensive or if cheap, it is tough and bland. That is the purposeful sabotaging of the marketplace by USDA regulatory capture! Itís an attempt to reduce the switch back to healthier and more environmentally sound grassfed by a rather large consumer demand.

I am sure you have heard that argument from industry shills many times...how organic and/or grassfed etc..is more expensive? Even though actually in this case it is much cheaper to produce, itís the regulatory burden making the cost to consumer higher.

Either that or they will call it shoe leather when it is harvested under that 30 month time frame, because it hasn't had time to fatten up yet.

The industry will do anything to protect itís factory farms which are a key element to the King Corn system capacity to suck up those 100's of billions of government subsidies. It's not about quality or safety as the above shows both are reduced.

Keep in mind too, that's just one of many thousands and thousands of regulations designed that reduce both quality and safety of our food.

There is an excellent book called Everything I want to do is illegal: War stories from the local food front by Joel Salatin that goes over the dozens of ways the US government has effectively blocked any attempt by farmers to either produce higher quality or more profitable food for consumers. I highly recommend you get it and read it. You have no idea what so ever how bad it is. That's again why I said you were naive. You can go crop by crop food item by food item from tomatoes to chicken and everything in between. The whole food system is nearly completely locked down by regulatory capture.

Farming is not financially viable. There is your first mistake. Most of the regulatory capture is designed to make sure it won't be. Remember the goal stated so clearly and bluntly by Earl Butz. Get big or get out. The full weight of the US government has since been directed at financially destabilizing farmers to force them out. This has had the side effect of completely destabilizing rural America in general, which was the OP topic in the first place.

That's true if they can produce as high a quality product as efficiently. As a general rule though, quality declines when you get so big that a farmers can't even get eyes on his operation any more...



You don't need to prevent it. appropriate technology is a great thing. What you shouldn't do it try to force it with hundreds of billions annually in subsidies and even greater regulatory burden.

It's not the natural succession of improvements in technology we are talking about here. It is the purposeful driving out of business a whole sector of the population. And entire demographic targeted for elimination no matter how much higher quality or how much more efficient they become. "get big or get out" is very clear and unambiguous language. It isn't get more safe, or get more efficient, or get higher quality....none of that....


My BS detector is tingling.
Sorry, but Jefferson's dream of a nation of Yeoman Farmers has been dead for a long,long, time.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2019, 06:16 PM   #127
Dread Pirate Roberts
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 75
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post


I believe that the only "Magacity" in the top 30 is only so-called because they break DFW (a true megacity) into two, and one section is marginally GOP. Other than that, you have to get down to #31 in top metro areas by population before you get to one that voted Trump in '16... Oklahoma City.
OK is the only state where every single county voted GOP in 04, 08, 12, and 16.

But OKC did elect a Dem House rep in 18, believe it or not.
Dread Pirate Roberts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2019, 07:11 AM   #128
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
I believe that the only "Magacity" in the top 30 is only so-called because they break DFW (a true megacity) into two, and one section is marginally GOP. Other than that, you have to get down to #31 in top metro areas by population before you get to one that voted Trump in '16... Oklahoma City.
Greetings from OKC.

We do have a load of Trump supporters here, but most of them don't live in the city proper but in the suburbs or the pastoral outer reaches which are (oddly enough) still within city limits.

ETA: Check out how high OKC sits on the List of United States cities by areaWP. Way up there, especially if we exclude cases in which "municipal government has merged with the government of the surrounding county."
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 12th July 2019 at 07:14 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2019, 07:18 AM   #129
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,711
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Greetings from OKC.

We do have a load of Trump supporters here, but most of them don't live in the city proper but in the suburbs or the pastoral outer reaches which are (oddly enough) still within city limits.

ETA: Check out how high OKC sits on the List of United States cities by areaWP. Way up there, especially if we exclude cases in which "municipal government has merged with the government of the surrounding county."
That's me. I live south by the base. I am as conservative Republican as a person can get too. But I did not vote Trump. Most my friends and neighbors hate him too. They just hated Hillary worse. Two NYC ********* to choose from so they picked the lessor of two evils.

However, there are some around here towing the company line who for some very strange reason love Trump. I have no idea why.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2019, 07:36 AM   #130
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
However, there are some around here towing the company line who for some very strange reason love Trump. I have no idea why.
My working theory is that it's all about pwning the libs and triggering the yutes.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
We do have a load of Trump supporters here, but most of them don't live in the city proper but in the suburbs or the pastoral outer reaches which are (oddly enough) still within city limits.
I realize it's poor form to provide anecdote in lieu of evidence, so here's a map:

[Spoil][/spoil]
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 12th July 2019 at 07:38 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2019, 09:13 PM   #131
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 40,813
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
My working theory is that it's all about pwning the libs and triggering the yutes.



I realize it's poor form to provide anecdote in lieu of evidence, so here's a map:

[Spoil]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...5a2093bad8.jpg[/spoil]

OKC is similar to all mega-spread metropolitan areas. If you do the breakdown in Phoenix or Dallas, you see the same pattern. Blue in the city centers trending to purple in the suburbs then going red when you get to exurbia. And there's always some exurbia or countryside... Metro Phoenix is four times the square acreage of Connecticut, fer crissake.

Not that it matters, really... district gerrymandering has an effect on House seats (and state house seats), but except for the couple of states with versions of proportional EC votes, it's still the total votes in the state by our present system in choosing the POTUS. But it's a trend, far more reliable than picking red states and blue states.

I just picked up on it as a point in national trending. Cities vote liberal or progressive. The population of the country is shifting more and more to the cities. Thus, the holding pattern of the current GOP is just that, a holding pattern. And note that the ordering of the Top 50 metro areas changes according to who compiled it, but somewhere around #35 you get to >50% of the US population.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2019, 08:05 AM   #132
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Cities vote liberal or progressive. The population of the country is shifting more and more to the cities. Thus, the holding pattern of the current GOP is just that, a holding pattern. And note that the ordering of the Top 50 metro areas changes according to who compiled it, but somewhere around #35 you get to >50% of the US population.
Happened across a podcast series and detailed study about the interplay of population density and politics just last week. Meant to share it here but then IRL stuff happened. Anyhow, enjoy!

https://niskanencenter.org/blog/the-...list-backlash/
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 13th July 2019 at 08:14 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2019, 09:07 AM   #133
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 40,813
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Happened across a podcast series and detailed study about the interplay of population density and politics just last week. Meant to share it here but then IRL stuff happened. Anyhow, enjoy!

https://niskanencenter.org/blog/the-...list-backlash/
Thanks. It's a topic that interests me greatly. My "grokking" time is in the early a.m. so I'll check it out tomorrow morning as it's nearing bedtime here.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2019, 05:45 PM   #134
portlandatheist
Illuminator
 
portlandatheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,112
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
The trend may be towards urbanization, but we shouldn't pretend that's just some independent force of nature. The current landscape is the result of public policy, for good or bad. It is perfectly reasonable to discuss whether public policy should be adjusted or if the trend of decreasing economic viability of large swaths of the country should continue.

Rural vs urban is a bit of a straw man anyway. Large parts of this country are neither, but rather medium density communities that are neither near large cities, nor undeveloped back country.
I think there is a bit of it being a force of nature and not just about policy. Rural flight is basically happening everywhere. Depopulation of the Great Plains is a process that has been going on for over one hundred years. And why shouldn't it? We don't need as many farmers, as many miners, as many loggers. The service sector that takes care of people in these communities can now be mostly done online: retail, lawyers, accountants, movies. They still need doctors and restaurants.
As to the OP, I don't think they should be revitalized. High density cities are more efficient, not just in carbon footprint, but things like the ratio of people and gas stations and other metrics.
Stewart Brand talks about this in his book "Whole Earth Discipline" where he imagines/hopes for a world of high density mega cities and rewilding of vast stretches of nature. Romantic and utopian perhaps but I think there is an element of truth to it as well.
portlandatheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2019, 09:26 PM   #135
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 40,813
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Happened across a podcast series and detailed study about the interplay of population density and politics just last week. Meant to share it here but then IRL stuff happened. Anyhow, enjoy!

https://niskanencenter.org/blog/the-...list-backlash/
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Thanks. It's a topic that interests me greatly. My "grokking" time is in the early a.m. so I'll check it out tomorrow morning as it's nearing bedtime here.
I read the uploadable version - I'm not real good at paying undivided attention to podcasts. (I have John Wick Chapter 3 on cable and when John's shooting and killing in his traditional well-orchestrated/choreographed fashion, I can stop reading and go back to the text but listening to a podcast simultaneously is rather difficult.)

Recommended reading. Not sure everyone will agree with the findings/assumptions, but the data is mighty interesting and it's a handy reference tool if just for the various reports.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2019, 08:44 AM   #136
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,934
It's almost as if being forced to live and work among a diverse populace makes one more tolerant of people different from you and able to recognize nuance in the issues we face.

City-living is a lot like the proverbial conservative high-school student who goes off to college and comes back more liberal. It's not the professors whose influence nudges students left ('cause we can't even get them to read the syllabus), it's living in the dorms and taking classes with people so very different than those with whom you were raised.

I spend a lot of time in rural areas, and was born and raised in same. Yes, a lot of folks there would like change to improve their living conditions but just as many are there precisely because if affords them the opportunity to not have to interact with *different* people. The thing that unites them? Once their basic needs are met locally (say with a good grocery store, K–12 school, and medical clinic) the last thing they want is to see their fields, forests, etc. taken over with shopping centers and housing developments.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2019, 11:25 AM   #137
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,652
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
per capita, crime is way, WAY worse in rural areas.
So is drug abuse.
This is what goes unappreciated, yeah. Crime - especially violent crime - is considerably higher in rural areas.

And on top of that, a big chunk of crime in urban areas are new migrants from the rural districts who brought their problems with them. Drug addicts don't leave the city to go live in the boonies. The migration flow is the other way around. And Vancouver is particularly attractive because of the weather.

I volunteer in Vancouver's Downtown East Side (DTES), which is essentially our Skid Row. It's all cowboy hats and spurs there, maybe 10% of the occupants were born in Vancouver or some other city out East. The rest were born and raised in small towns and IRs all over Canada.

My sister who lives in the Cariboo just installed a new security system on their lakeside recreational cabin because it's been broken into three times so far this year. Population of that area is about 25,000 spread across 20 towns, villages and IRs. 40% unemployment rate. The old Ainsworth sawmill just closed down, so it's not getting any better, crime is getting worse every week there.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2019, 11:28 AM   #138
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,652
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
It's almost as if being forced to live and work among a diverse populace makes one more tolerant of people different from you and able to recognize nuance in the issues we face.
I'm a big fan of integration in general (my wife is black, my kids are first nations) but unfortunately the research suggests that forcing people to mix escalates prejudice. I think this is why we see a backlash against bussing back in the 60s as an example;

and more recently, there's a growing NIMBY/YIMBY friction now that the boomers are losing their grip on voting power in municipalities' zoning bylaws, many of which are simply segregation through other means.

ETA: NIMBY zoning bylaws are IMO a major factor in why there's a somewhat different aspect to rural->urban migration over the last generation. Basically, the (redundant 3rd) farmer's son who in the past could have just left the farm and made his fortune in the Big City just can't do the same thing today. College used to be heavily subsidized. Now it just leads to crippling debt. Housing used to be quite cheap. Now there is nowhere in the United States where a minimum wage fulltime worker can afford to buy or rent a [satisfactory dwelling to raise a family].

These impediments to migration are new. Real estate pricing is solely the consequence of zoning choices by the Boomers, pulling up the ladder behind them and boosting their property values / keeping out the riffraff via aggressive municipal zoning.

Education has different root causes, but I consider it a second barrier to rural->urban migration. In the past, leaving the small town to go to university was a real motivator. Now, the inability for a bright, hardworking, motivated rural kid to pursue other options is just a source of despair.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by blutoski; 14th July 2019 at 11:36 AM.
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2019, 11:30 AM   #139
Allen773
Muse
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 998
Yes and yes.

Next question?
Allen773 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:37 AM   #140
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,711
This thread has become so much like an AGW denialist thread, with arguments parallel to their fallacious argument since the climate changes all the time naturally we cant be responsible for climate change.

Only now instead of denying Man Made climate change, people here are in complete denial of the regulatory capture that cannibalized agriculture and is destroying rural economies and even that there might be a need to revitalize. Since populations do move to cities, as a general trend of civilization, therefore no destruction of rural communities was planned and perpetrated by our government.

Both arguments are not only making the same logic flaw, they are both equally foolish.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:25 AM   #141
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,934
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
the research suggests that forcing people to mix escalates prejudice.
Agree. Forcing was not the correct phrase. I think what I really meant was something like "finding oneself interacting with" or somesuch.

Until college I had essentially zero interaction with people who were gay, punk, Asian, Jewish, wealthy, liberal, spoke with that weird NY/Long Island dialect, etc. Heck, I didn't even know any *protestants* growing up. Had I not gone away to school and had the experience of meeting people from these and other groups I'd probably still be holding onto whatever prejudices I had about them at 18. They'd all still be, to me, people you might see on TV but not the sort of people with whom you'd be interacting every day.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:33 AM   #142
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,111
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
It's not the natural succession of improvements in technology we are talking about here. It is the purposeful driving out of business a whole sector of the population. And entire demographic targeted for elimination no matter how much higher quality or how much more efficient they become. "get big or get out" is very clear and unambiguous language. It isn't get more safe, or get more efficient, or get higher quality....none of that....

That was fascinating reading about the BSE regulations and the feedlot versus grass fed beef. I have no doubt that a great deal of what you say is true....but.



So, what's the motivation? You say there's a "purposeful driving out of business of a whole sector of the population." Why? If it's purposeful, that means their motivation is, specifically, to drive people out. Why would they do that? I can understand unintended consequences, where regulations have an unintended effect of hurting rural communities or small farmers, but I don't understand why it would be a purposeful thing. I could even see a sort of unholy alliance where government regulators set out to do a task, and then big business intervenes and asks for modifications of regulations that would have the effect of supporting big business at the expense of small business, You seem to be suggesting, though, that there's more to it than that. Have I got that right, and if so, could you elaborate?
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:50 AM   #143
Armitage72
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,933
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
I'm a big fan of integration in general (my wife is black, my kids are first nations) but unfortunately the research suggests that forcing people to mix escalates prejudice. I think this is why we see a backlash against bussing back in the 60s as an example;

I recently saw someone describe the integration of schools as soldiers forcing black and white students to attend school together at gunpoint.
I don't think that's how it happened.
Armitage72 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:43 AM   #144
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,652
Originally Posted by Armitage72 View Post
I recently saw someone describe the integration of schools as soldiers forcing black and white students to attend school together at gunpoint.
I don't think that's how it happened.
Depends on the school. In some circumstances, it's not inaccurate. eg National Guard, armed with rifles escorted and guarded the black students being bussed into white schools, physically restraining the white parents who had vowed to murder them on the spot.

Don't get me wrong: I'm an avocate of integration. Just that it's not as simple as a legal decree. There's going to be violence, there's going to be nonviolent underhanded pushback, there's going to be a shift in attitude among people who were previously neutral. It's a 50 year multigenerational project.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:48 AM   #145
Armitage72
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,933
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
Depends on the school. In some circumstances, it's not inaccurate. eg National Guard, armed with rifles escorted and guarded the black students being bussed into white schools, physically restraining the white parents who had vowed to murder them on the spot.

No, they weren't saying that the soldiers were protecting the children. They were saying that the soldiers were pointing their weapons at the children, threatening to shoot them if they didn't attend school together.
The phrase they used was something like "forced to attend school together with soldiers weapons poking into their backs."
Armitage72 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:05 AM   #146
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,727
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
Depends on the school. In some circumstances, it's not inaccurate. eg National Guard, armed with rifles escorted and guarded the black students being bussed into white schools, physically restraining the white parents who had vowed to murder them on the spot.

Don't get me wrong: I'm an avocate of integration. Just that it's not as simple as a legal decree. There's going to be violence, there's going to be nonviolent underhanded pushback, there's going to be a shift in attitude among people who were previously neutral. It's a 50 year multigenerational project.
And one we have given up on. Hence why segregation in schooling is increasing.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:09 AM   #147
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,652
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
That was fascinating reading about the BSE regulations and the feedlot versus grass fed beef. I have no doubt that a great deal of what you say is true....but.



So, what's the motivation? You say there's a "purposeful driving out of business of a whole sector of the population." Why? If it's purposeful, that means their motivation is, specifically, to drive people out. Why would they do that? I can understand unintended consequences, where regulations have an unintended effect of hurting rural communities or small farmers, but I don't understand why it would be a purposeful thing. I could even see a sort of unholy alliance where government regulators set out to do a task, and then big business intervenes and asks for modifications of regulations that would have the effect of supporting big business at the expense of small business, You seem to be suggesting, though, that there's more to it than that. Have I got that right, and if so, could you elaborate?
One thing that is overlooked is that a large portion of 'farmers' are actually just leasing their land to the farming conglomerates. They get, I think a mean average of $75k/yr and a corporation's staff work the land. The economies of scale are pretty similar to the old farmers' cooperatives, where multiple farms would share equipment and labour pools. My impression is that these conglomerates are pressuring the system to put more farmers into a position of just accepting that there's no point in farming independently, the economics will not work out when competing against these economies of scale. And in their defense, there's a demographic factor as well. Farming is a greying industry, and a lot of farmers don't have a younger generation taking over the family farm. Leasing the acreage to a conglomerate makes sense if you've reached a well deserved retirement age. Here in Canada, the big one is Hancock Agricultural Investment Group, which is an American company. Not sure who the big players are in the USA.

Which is worth revisiting as a topic... farming regions used to be pretty left wing. The benefits of cooperatives were pretty clear at the end of the 19th and first half of the 20th century. This is where a lot of social programs come from, not to mention most of this land was given away for free in the first place as Indians were genocided off their lands by the federal army and local law enforcement. Farmers were the original welfare queens.

I recall somebody bent out of shape over 'obamaphones' - I pointed out that this was actually a rural phone access program dating back 100 years, where the federal government subsidized farmers' hookups (we had the same in Canada until about 15 years ago, with the federal government eating about $6,000 per rural wireline phone buildout).

Another Canadian example: socialized medicine started in Saskatchewan, the movement led by a Baptist pastor, son of a farmer. The association between farmers and 'small government' is only going back one or two generations. The people who built these nations were socialists at heart, benefitting from government benevolence, if not direct handouts. There was benevolent supportive government policy.

When the politics of the region shifted, the citizens voted their support away. It's hard to build a path to success with this barrier.

ETA: I date this shift to approximately 1970


And RBF brought up another example of a benevolent government project... at the turn of the previous century, the white:black farmer ratio in the US was about 60:40. The depression was an opportunity to 'fix' this by offering rescue grants and low interest loans to farmers facing foreclosure. [Well... only *white* farmers of course]. 30 years later the ratio was shifted to 95:5, mission accomplished.



I'm tangentially connected to farming, as my grandmother was a farmer in Kansas, then moved to Lacombe AB (free land). They've pretty much abandoned the property, but I get revenue from it because it's producing natural gas. It used to be a wheat farm, but that's not economically viable anymore. At least the gas dividends cover the property taxes... for now.

And I have an apple orchard in the Southern Gulf Islands. The previous owner went bankrupt, but I am coming out a bit ahead each year. I've culled the sick trees and targeted a different market: I'm supplying cideries. Next project: building my own cidery onsite, but I want to leave that for after I take an early retirement package from my current employer.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by blutoski; Yesterday at 09:25 AM. Reason: added date estimate for rural/urban politics shift
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:17 AM   #148
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,652
Originally Posted by Armitage72 View Post
No, they weren't saying that the soldiers were protecting the children. They were saying that the soldiers were pointing their weapons at the children, threatening to shoot them if they didn't attend school together.
The phrase they used was something like "forced to attend school together with soldiers weapons poking into their backs."
Well 'poking into their backs' is an exaggeration yeah. But in their defense, some students would also have been considered a threat on account of... uttering death threats in public. The violence did not just come from parents. Apples don't fall far from the trees as the expression goes.

And this isn't imaginary, it's pretty well documented, photos available of white students with weapons, screaming death threats at black classmates with impunity. National Guard would have been credibly concerned about violence originating there, and monitoring accordingly.

Guns pushed into their backs? No. Under the watch of armed National Guardsmen willing to shoot them if they tried to kill a black classmate? You bet.


In any case, probably off topic for the rural america revitalization question.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:43 AM   #149
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,652
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
I'm tangentially connected to farming, as my grandmother was a farmer in Kansas, then moved to Lacombe AB (free land). They've pretty much abandoned the property, but I get revenue from it because it's producing natural gas. It used to be a wheat farm, but that's not economically viable anymore. At least the gas dividends cover the property taxes... for now.

And I have an apple orchard in the Southern Gulf Islands. The previous owner went bankrupt, but I am coming out a bit ahead each year. I've culled the sick trees and targeted a different market: I'm supplying cideries. Next project: building my own cidery onsite, but I want to leave that for after I take an early retirement package from my current employer.

Regarding this... I agree with carrps and The Don about JoeMorgue's stereotype of rural = hard work + skill / urban = skill only. Nobody survives in a city if they're not a hard worker. Both of these human properties are valued everywhere.

My labour history in Vancouver involves construction, factory floor (lost the end of one finger in an industrial accident), and outdoor technical work such as hanging from cords under a bridge repairing communications conduit in a lightning storm. Cities are not a place where laziness or hesitation to undertake physical effort succeed any more than in a rural area.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:26 AM   #150
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,892
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And one we have given up on. Hence why segregation in schooling is increasing.
And one that is trivially easy to solve.
If one feels that integration is a laudable goal of society, one can obtain housing in a predominantly minority neighborhood with ease, and at a substantial savings in most cases.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:34 AM   #151
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,632
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
And one that is trivially easy to solve.
If one feels that integration is a laudable goal of society, one can obtain housing in a predominantly minority neighborhood with ease, and at a substantial savings in most cases.
It's called gentrification, and seems to be just as resented as the other thing. Try again.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:44 AM   #152
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,892
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's called gentrification, and seems to be just as resented as the other thing. Try again.
Not as greatly resented as it has been portrayed, in my experience. It is often quite appreciated up to a point.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:55 AM   #153
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,711
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
That was fascinating reading about the BSE regulations and the feedlot versus grass fed beef. I have no doubt that a great deal of what you say is true....but.



So, what's the motivation? You say there's a "purposeful driving out of business of a whole sector of the population." Why? If it's purposeful, that means their motivation is, specifically, to drive people out. Why would they do that? I can understand unintended consequences, where regulations have an unintended effect of hurting rural communities or small farmers, but I don't understand why it would be a purposeful thing. I could even see a sort of unholy alliance where government regulators set out to do a task, and then big business intervenes and asks for modifications of regulations that would have the effect of supporting big business at the expense of small business, You seem to be suggesting, though, that there's more to it than that. Have I got that right, and if so, could you elaborate?
Motivations are tricky. Once you try to get into the head of people then you exist on the slippery slope of conspiracy theory woo.

Lets just say this though. The most recent man who set up the whole system in the 1970's claims he did it to improve the efficiency of agriculture. Notwithstanding, by almost any rational measure except labor, modern agricultural systems are far less efficient now.
So does this mean it was all a trick and a scam by him for personal gain? Or did he really believe this planned expulsion of small farmers would really increase efficiency?
He is dead now. No way to attach a lie detector on him. But I will say that there is some evidence he was an arrogant elitist and racist who had a very low opinion of most small farmers and who actively hated despised and wanted to eliminate all organic farms in the country, and that he also went to prison for taking money from industry and not reporting these "gifts" as income. Earl Butz

So the case for regulatory capture is a pretty strong one.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; Yesterday at 11:05 AM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:33 AM   #154
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,727
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
And one that is trivially easy to solve.
If one feels that integration is a laudable goal of society, one can obtain housing in a predominantly minority neighborhood with ease, and at a substantial savings in most cases.
And then in 5 years do it again and continue the gentrification wave!
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:37 AM   #155
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,727
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Not as greatly resented as it has been portrayed, in my experience. It is often quite appreciated up to a point.
Not nessacarilly. FOr example pulling it into the rural areas, you get city people moving in and then wanting more services and raising property taxes. Sure home values go up but if you can't afford to live there because of property taxes even if you own your home you still have to move. But yes gentrification hits areas differently depending on renting vs owning dynamics.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:00 PM   #156
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,892
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Not nessacarilly. FOr example pulling it into the rural areas, you get city people moving in and then wanting more services and raising property taxes. Sure home values go up but if you can't afford to live there because of property taxes even if you own your home you still have to move. But yes gentrification hits areas differently depending on renting vs owning dynamics.
It is difficult to imagine that the services the "city people" seek out don't present the longer term residents with greater opportunities to earn a living.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:01 PM   #157
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,409
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Good try, but you've posted your fishing hole locations before. I can't remember them off the top of my head, but "rural" was not my first thought. Something about avoiding neighborhood security and trying to find good parking nearby.

Maybe I'm wrong. Here's a test, if you can shoot your buddies bobber out of the water without having to run from the police it's rural, otherwise you are fishing in the suburbs, my friend! (Which isn't bad, one of my favorite childhood fishing holes went suburban decades ago. It was still a hot hole.)
Spent twenty minutes responding and I lost my work...trying again

Your test is not a good one. I hear guns fired (legally) sometimes where I shoot and this spot is on the southern border of the city of San Jose in Cali. It is not by any means rural. My parents house is a few miles away and my step-dad shoots legally on the property on a small range.

I get your point but I didn't mean to claim I was rural. I'd call it suburban rural. Where I lived before is much farther from major cities but still not rural.

My comment "I'm going fishing" was a continuation from the previous sentence about there being more to life than being a slave to a job. I don't live in a true rural area, never have, but I will never live in a large city again. No way in hell.

I've been back in the Bay Area for a few months, helping my parents with their business. Before that I lived near the southern Delta. Again, not rural but duck hunting is allowed in many places and I sometimes hear guns.

Okay anyways, about revitalizing rural America...people here have no problem supporting illegal aliens and giving them sanctuary. Many of these people end up on the streets - they are among the 7,000 or so homeless people in San Jose.

Where do people expect many of them to end up if not on the street? They come to a strange country on foot with no money, no clothes and no food. Many end up on the street.

Illegals cost a lot of money. I know some people here actually believe that illegals are a net boon to our economy. They are woefully ignorant, but that's for another thread.

Anyone who is for giving sanctuary to illegals and paying for them should be okay with supporting the fine taxpaying citizens of rural America.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:33 PM   #158
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,322
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Spent twenty minutes responding and I lost my work...trying again
Sorry, that sucks.

Quote:
My comment "I'm going fishing" was a continuation from the previous sentence about there being more to life than being a slave to a job. I don't live in a true rural area, never have, but I will never live in a large city again. No way in hell.
I was just giving you **** because I followed your fishing thread and knew you weren't living anywhere I would consider rural. I suppose we are on the same page and I agree that there is certainly more to life.

Quote:
Okay anyways, about revitalizing rural America...people here have no problem supporting illegal aliens and giving them sanctuary. Many of these people end up on the streets - they are among the 7,000 or so homeless people in San Jose.
Interesting take. One of the main reasons illegals come across the border is to work in fields and other rural jobs. Maybe it is time to actually arrest employers who hire people without papers. That would do more to stop immigration than anything else. But I suppose we are wandering pretty far off topic.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:15 PM   #159
rdwight
Muse
 
rdwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 509
I would think the approach would vary immensely depending on the location. Rural Vermont would have different needs than rural New Mexico. Migrant workers flowing into and out of areas during different seasons and taking money that would normally stay circulating inside that local economy isn't an easy fix, especially as the local population diminishes. Nor is online shopping, bypassing the local businesses going to go away.
rdwight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:50 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.