Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [Livingontheland] Why industrial farming may be the most, INefficient farming method

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Dan Conine <dconine@bertramwireless.com>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] Why industrial farming may be the most, INefficient farming method
  • Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 11:47:30 -0500

I agree with you , John. But then again, I'm a misanthrope ("You can tell you're a misanthrope when you can't understand why solitary confinement is considered punishment." -Florence King, "With Charity Toward None")

I look at it from the capitalist standpoint that has been drilled into my head since birth. If you have two competitors for a product, and they have equal shares of the market, their prices will be equal and they will more or less keep equal power in the community. If the balance starts to change (an ill store owner, for example), then the stronger one completely takes over the market and in the end, there is only one source for that product.

In the U.S., most states have a sales tax between 4 and 10% on products and services. To the customer buying a product, that represents 95% for capitalism and 5% for the commons. Income taxes are kept as invisible as possible.

In capitalism, almost every mandate starts at the purchase point. In order for societal risks and needs (government) to be equally represented alongside corporate influence, there would have to be a sales tax of 100% so that for every purchase of resources, an equal amount would go toward protection of the commons, and the cost of that purchase would be representative of its effects on the future.

The difference between a 5% sales tax and 100% sales tax is the gulf between the fantasy of civilization and the reality of resource depletion.

Dan C.

On 3/29/2014 11:00 AM, livingontheland-request@lists.ibiblio.org wrote:
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 22:25:43 -0000
From: "John D'hondt"<dhondt@eircom.net>
To: "Healthy soil and sustainable growing"
<livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] Why industrial farming may be the most
INefficient farming method
Message-ID: <C0222F21972345E38A86A32A5FAAC037@Targadc5fefe82d>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response

It is just with these two links that I have some problem Paul. I fear they
are cruelly over optimistic.
We already spoke about how much run in time is needed before you can
realistically expect to be able to live of a piece of land by growing crops.
But further let's just look around us and at the diseased and medicated
masses. I can not imagine that even a small part of those will be able to do
anything useful for themselves except maybe kill off those of us who can
grow food.
Also in the Middle ages the earth was still mostly pristine and fertile and
without persistent environmental toxins and radioactive contamination. And
the population was much smaller. And even then there were famines.

I feel quite pessimistic about "going over the cliff". We are not going to
land very softly and just pick ourselves up I'm afraid.
I think it likely we are already in freefall and from time to time as I
tumble as in a dream I can see glimpses of sharp rocks at the bottom.
John






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page