Pages: 1 … 10 11 12

Topic closed

2010-03-21 08:04:30
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6380|MN

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Not true, if the forcast predicted bean sprouts selling at 100 dollars a bushel and corn only selling at 25 dollars a bushel. How or why would you suppose corn would be planted without the influence of profit?
The people running agribusinesses aren't stupid.  They know what demand there is for a given crop.  It doesn't matter how profitable a crop is compared to others when it comes to demand for food overall.

Think of it like this...  When ethanol demand went up, it did result in more corn being processed for ethanol, which in turn, did drive up the value of corn.  However, despite this dramatic rise in value, it did not suddenly cause most farmers to switch over their yields to just corn.   Corn may have increased as a share of their production, but they wouldn't simply grow only corn.

Why?  Because there's always going to be a lot of demand for other produce.  People aren't going to simply eat what's most valuable, not only because of taste, but because if something is more expensive, most people are going to buy less of it.  They'll find cheaper alternatives to eat.

This all results in an equilibrium between demand and supply.

It's basic economics man....
Stop making sense.  It makes it harder to make fun of you when you go all liberal on us.

I live in the heart of ethanol country in MN.  You are very correct that the % of tillable that was planted as corn did go up, but not exponentially so.  I think we planted about 15% more acres to corn than the previous several years in 2007 (92.9 Million acres planted as corn).  Since then it has been shifting back down a bit (2009=86.5 million acres planted as corn).  Overall we are about 3% higher on corn percentage from a decade ago.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2010-03-21 10:22:57
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6406|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Not really sure how many ways I can say it.

I support govt. subsidizing of farms and farmers, not necessarily in the form it is currently done in the examples you post.

you asked and I answered how.
You've yet to give me an example of subsidization of farms that would make sense.  We have agreed to certain forms of regulation, but so far, I've shown you that subsidization doesn't make sense.

I guess I'm curious as to what forms of subsidization you're talking about, if you agree that the current forms don't work.
2010-03-21 11:10:48
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6223|teh FIN-land

eleven bravo wrote:

rye bread is lowings mirror image
lol

11 Bravo wrote:

and you two do?  pa lease
Thank you again for a very useful contribution
lol

Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-03-21 12:54:50)

2010-03-21 13:55:57
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6652|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Not really sure how many ways I can say it.

I support govt. subsidizing of farms and farmers, not necessarily in the form it is currently done in the examples you post.

you asked and I answered how.
You've yet to give me an example of subsidization of farms that would make sense.  We have agreed to certain forms of regulation, but so far, I've shown you that subsidization doesn't make sense.

I guess I'm curious as to what forms of subsidization you're talking about, if you agree that the current forms don't work.
I have no problem with tax free farming.
I have no problem with govt. insurance for farms in case of crop loss.
Incentives to keep farms, farms, instead of farmers selling out to real estate developers and retiring.
2010-03-21 17:44:23
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6406|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

I have no problem with tax free farming.
No tax incentives are necessary for farming.  Agribusinesses don't need them, and we aren't dependent on small farmers, so if they choose a risky career, that's their problem, not mine.

lowing wrote:

I have no problem with govt. insurance for farms in case of crop loss.
Not necessary for the same reasons listed above.

lowing wrote:

Incentives to keep farms, farms, instead of farmers selling out to real estate developers and retiring.
Not necessary either, because the market should clear these things without government hindrances.  Why?  Because land is most efficiently used when the market determines its use.  The only exceptions to this involve wildlife preserves and parks, and in many cases, even that's debatable.
2010-03-22 02:17:11
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6223|teh FIN-land

lowing wrote:

If you are on welfare, then by definition and default YOU are mooching. Your reasons for doing so are a different matter all together.
No, according to you then anyone on welfare is a 'moocher'. As you know 'moocher' isn't an objective word

1.  To obtain or try to obtain by begging; cadge. See Synonyms at cadge.
2. To steal; filch.
v.intr.
1. To get or try to get something free of charge; sponge: lived by mooching off friends.
2. To wander about aimlessly.
3. To skulk around; sneak.
n.
1. One who begs or cadges; a sponge.
2. A dupe, as in a confidence game.
The definition is laden with subjective terms, so its only by YOUR interpretation of welfare, welfare recipients and 'mooching' that anyone fits the definition. The further point is that your blanket portrayal of everyone on welfare or who gets certain benefits - again, according to your personal criteria - is out to 'get something for nothing' and ao on. And how many people are on welfare or get other benefits you're railing against? Millions no doubt. So according to you all of those people are just sponging of you (and it seems to be 'you' since you're talking all the time about people taking money from you by force, etc). You're just wrong about that. I have no doubt that some people on welfare probably don't try and get work and are lazy and so on. But there are surely thousands or millions who have got to that situation through no fault of their own and require help. Which society gives them. Which is what being in a SOCIETY is all about. Not necessarily giving a free ride to everyone but helping your fellow citizens who have fallen on hard times. If you someday lose your job and can't find another one, and enter into a time of economic hardship, I guess we would NEVER see you collecting food stamps?

And saying all that stuff about the best thing in US history is black people being emancipated and so on...that doesn't mean you don't hold any racist opinions.

lowing wrote:

Never said anything about ALL MUSLIMS are evil, so making up shit to argue isn't going to work.
Yeah? Pretty sure there's been lots of threads where you've said that everyone following Islam and all teaching it are following a religion which advocates terrorism and therefore all muslims are terrorists bleh bleh...or was that someone else?

Already said, many many times, I am concerned ONLY about those that are concerned themselves, help themselves, CANNOT help themselves, and children. No apologies for that.
Children? Until they become 'responsible' and then fuck 'em, yeah? As for the others you list, that's fine, but you also seem to think that everyone on welfare does NOT belong to those groups you are 'concerned' about and therefore is NOT worthy of your consideration. See above.

I have no problem anyone disagreeing with me. That is not what makes you an asshole. Your tactics, your posting style, your mannerisms is what makes you an asshole. ATG obviously disagrees with me, and has before, I however do not consider him an asshole.
So now I definitely AM an asshole as opposed to just sounding like one? Nice that you make personal judgements about people based on an internet forum. I don't think you're an asshole, I just think you're wrong about a lot of stuff. Go figure.

If there is any trolling in any of these threads, you would be close to being at the top of the list. You rarely contribute to a thread, and I already told you what it is your tactics consist of, so again, no need in going over it.
Already told you who the entitled are, not going over it again either.
Pot, kettle.

You'll have to do better than that.
2010-03-22 10:11:38
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6652|USA

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

If you are on welfare, then by definition and default YOU are mooching. Your reasons for doing so are a different matter all together.
No, according to you then anyone on welfare is a 'moocher'. As you know 'moocher' isn't an objective word

1.  To obtain or try to obtain by begging; cadge. See Synonyms at cadge.
2. To steal; filch.
v.intr.
1. To get or try to get something free of charge; sponge: lived by mooching off friends.
2. To wander about aimlessly.
3. To skulk around; sneak.
n.
1. One who begs or cadges; a sponge.
2. A dupe, as in a confidence game.
The definition is laden with subjective terms, so its only by YOUR interpretation of welfare, welfare recipients and 'mooching' that anyone fits the definition. The further point is that your blanket portrayal of everyone on welfare or who gets certain benefits - again, according to your personal criteria - is out to 'get something for nothing' and ao on. And how many people are on welfare or get other benefits you're railing against? Millions no doubt. So according to you all of those people are just sponging of you (and it seems to be 'you' since you're talking all the time about people taking money from you by force, etc). You're just wrong about that. I have no doubt that some people on welfare probably don't try and get work and are lazy and so on. But there are surely thousands or millions who have got to that situation through no fault of their own and require help. Which society gives them. Which is what being in a SOCIETY is all about. Not necessarily giving a free ride to everyone but helping your fellow citizens who have fallen on hard times. If you someday lose your job and can't find another one, and enter into a time of economic hardship, I guess we would NEVER see you collecting food stamps?

And saying all that stuff about the best thing in US history is black people being emancipated and so on...that doesn't mean you don't hold any racist opinions.

lowing wrote:

Never said anything about ALL MUSLIMS are evil, so making up shit to argue isn't going to work.
Yeah? Pretty sure there's been lots of threads where you've said that everyone following Islam and all teaching it are following a religion which advocates terrorism and therefore all muslims are terrorists bleh bleh...or was that someone else?

Already said, many many times, I am concerned ONLY about those that are concerned themselves, help themselves, CANNOT help themselves, and children. No apologies for that.
Children? Until they become 'responsible' and then fuck 'em, yeah? As for the others you list, that's fine, but you also seem to think that everyone on welfare does NOT belong to those groups you are 'concerned' about and therefore is NOT worthy of your consideration. See above.

I have no problem anyone disagreeing with me. That is not what makes you an asshole. Your tactics, your posting style, your mannerisms is what makes you an asshole. ATG obviously disagrees with me, and has before, I however do not consider him an asshole.
So now I definitely AM an asshole as opposed to just sounding like one? Nice that you make personal judgements about people based on an internet forum. I don't think you're an asshole, I just think you're wrong about a lot of stuff. Go figure.

If there is any trolling in any of these threads, you would be close to being at the top of the list. You rarely contribute to a thread, and I already told you what it is your tactics consist of, so again, no need in going over it.
Already told you who the entitled are, not going over it again either.
Pot, kettle.

You'll have to do better than that.
Sorry ya hate it, but yet again here we go with your tactic of lets dissect every word and argue it. We all know what a moocher is. and if you are on welfare you qualify. Period. It is not "my definition" either, you pulled it up yourself. and yes they are sponging off of me, they are also sponging off of millions of other earners and contributers to society. I don't give a flying fuck about my " fellow man" , that does not give a flying fuck themselves. Welfare is not "help". It is govt. control and a willingness to bow to it. It is not a hand up it is a hand out. Hence mooching. and I doubt yo will ever see me collect food stamps. However, if I did, then I would be a moocher now wouldn't I? By the way, and we have been over this before, if I lost my job I collect unemployment insurance, NOT welfare. Try and remember that.

I hold absolutely no racist opinions. I hold social prejudices, I don't give a shit about race, and have never claimed my race is superior to any other. and what I posted about the black community I believe 100%

You will never find a post that shows me saying "ALL MUSIMS are EVIL". I speak of Islam a religion, and I speak of people as individuals.

Sorry, I think you are an asshole. Your posts have not an ounce honest debate in them.

I doubt you will get an agreement from most of the mods on this forum. Even the ones that disagree with me, I doubt think I do nothing except troll. Probably need to ask them.
2010-03-22 10:21:18
King_County_Downy
shitfaced
+2,791|6598|Seattle

I think we've gone round and round enough. Points have been made on all sides. If the OP would like this re-openned, please just PM me and I'd be happy to.
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 10 11 12

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard