- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
> The Vestey family might be said to stand as representative of a strand of the laissez faire modus operandi.No, the privileged modus operandi. There is nothing laissez faire or free market about privilege. Blaming the free market for privilege is a classic, indeed almost universal, leftist blunder.
> Although it is easier to see the disadvantages of importing and relying on cheap foreign food :the destruction of UK farming ,low industrial wages (see Marx);Which shows David still hasn't understood how Marx's position on this question merely proves he didn't understand the Law of Rent.
> physical deteroriation of the population etc,Access to more, better, and cheaper imported food leads to physical deterioration of the population? No. In Japan, it has resulted in an increase of nearly 10cm in average height since WW II.
> it is the disadvantages to the exporting countries which are less often discussed (i.e. until recently).The rise of the Via Campesina and Food Sovereignty movement has shewn that the system of plantation production of export foodstuffs is actively deleterious to the livelihoods of the mass of small scale farmers locally ie most of the population.Compared to plantation production for local consumption? No. The problem is not that the crop is exported, but that the local small scale farmers are stripped of their rights to use land, in order to force them to bid down each other's wages.
> Agri business takes too much land (Easter Island was out of bounds to the islanders by being a gigantic sheep farm) ,Again, the problem was not agribusiness, it was people being stripped of their rights to liberty without just compensation.
> food like rice gets replaced by cash crops for export and places end up importing foodstuffs at dumped prices so small local traders can't even compete on food crops growable at home.They could do something more productive if they had their rights to liberty.
> So CAP may stand in a different tradition of food production (not governed by import-export prices see the Vi Campesina) but it is nevertheless not deserving of the off-hand dismissal it routinely gets from land taxers ,Of course it is. It's nothing but a colossal welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners.
> who are routinely rubbished in return by modern laissez faire fundamentalists for their pains.Lying apologists for privilege and injustice are not interested in laissez faire at all, let alone being "fundamentalists."
> It is possible to see the industrial corporations interlocked with the agri-corporations to nobody's benefit but their own.Right: they both profit by removing people's rights to liberty.
-- Roy Langston
- The point is, Scott, that the little fields of Britain cannot compete with the mass production of the US.Harry
********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga CA 90243(818) 352-4141********************
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Scott Bergeson <scottb@...> wrote:
Quoting Harry Pollard on Sat, 24 Nov 2012 09:06:15 -0800:
if we import our bulk foods, farm land is given over to animals,
which provide instant food while crops are being started (not
to mention they improve fertility rather than use it up).
Importing meat and animal feed needn't be a huge strategic
concern, if you're willing, when besieged, to slaughter
most of the animals (preserving the meat, of course) and
switch to a primarily vegetarian diet.
As you know, the combine harvesters in the US probably
work all day in a field, then stop until next morning
when they continue harvesting in the same field.
Many of them have lights. Combines are a separate business
from farming. They migrate, following the harvest.