Feeding People is Cultural Appropriation?

[Guest MormonGator]

8 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Critiquing capitalism does not imply I have a PhD in economics with a neat-o new kind of economy in my back pocket.  Geez, people are invested in the sacred cow of capitalism on this board.  

Understandably so. Capitalism is like the boyfriend/girlfriend you had that did everything for you, made your life better and yet you (generic) still tore them down on a daily basis. No system that has done so much good in the world has been more bashed. 

[NeuroTypical]

Going back to the cultural appropriation and food part of this thread - this is a fascinating story.

http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20170530-the-ugly-story-behind-a-breakfast-meat

Dominican fried salami - a staple breakfast enjoyed by the whole country.  Apparently the history of this dish is steeped in racism, two dictatorships, an attempt at ethnic cleansing, and Jewish refugees from WWII who culturally appropriated non-kosher dishes from a mix of Spanish, African and indigenous Taíno cultures.  

It reminds me of early Saints' businesses that sold whiskey and tobacco.

Edited June 6, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Blueskye2]

On 6/6/2017 at 8:55 AM, MormonGator said:

Understandably so. Capitalism is like the boyfriend/girlfriend you had that did everything for you, made your life better and yet you (generic) still tore them down on a daily basis. No system that has done so much good in the world has been more bashed. 

The thing with sacred cows, is that it's taboo to discuss shortcomings of the sacred, which means shortcomings are never addressed.  Like the boy/girlfriend who beats on ya once in a while but we should all be grateful, because life could be worse...and only discuss how good a person they are.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2017 by Blueskye2

[Guest]

On 6/10/2017 at 1:28 PM, Blueskye2 said:

The thing with sacred cows, is that it's taboo to discuss shortcomings of the sacred, which means shortcomings are never addressed.  Like the boy/girlfriend who beats on ya once in a while but we should all be grateful, because life could be worse...and only discuss how good a person they are.

In that sense, it is NOT a sacred cow.  I don't think there are many people here who do not acknowledge the shortcomings of capitalism.  My point is mainly, what is the alternative?  And it is exactly this point that you are not willing to address (c.f: Your statement about how you don't have an alternative up your sleeve).

If you want to point out the weaknesses of capitalism, point away.  But make sure they really are the weaknesses, not just socialistic rhetoric.

[Blueskye2]

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

In that sense, it is NOT a sacred cow.  I don't think there are many people here who do not acknowledge the shortcomings of capitalism.  My point is mainly, what is the alternative?  And it is exactly this point that you are not willing to address (c.f: Your statement about how you don't have an alternative up your sleeve).

If you want to point out the weaknesses of capitalism, point away.  But make sure they really are the weaknesses, not just socialistic rhetoric.

Socialism isn't entirely off the mark. I'm no Marxist, but I do like the mixed forms off capitism/socialism, such as Norway and other countries use. If I were younger and all that I'd seriously consider moving to Stockholm, if even for a few years then come back to the States, because this is where my family are. 

Admittedly capitalists have me jaded. I worked in business for 27 years and saw and experienced some pretty rotten people and practices, all acceptable to my capitalist colleagues, as long profit was the justification. There was a straw that broke the camels back, and I left for the nonprofit world.  Indeed, rather ironically, nonprofits rely heavily on capitalist wealth.  Not a perfect world and I know people who left the nonprofit world because of the hypocracy in it, and a heavy dose of self importance too. Seen plenty of that, but I gotta pay the bills, so I go to work and count the days to retirement where my  pension from the capitalists is waiting for me!

i have a friend, who takes the Catholic teaching on poverty very literally, like our dear St. Francis.  He has given away every thing he has ever earned, spent most of his adult life working and spending all he made on housing for the extremely poor, and now is retired in poverty and reliant on the State (Italy) for a meager means of living. And still he gives away any "extra" to those he calls "street people".   I'm hyper capitalist compared to him.

Anyway, this is why I have no solution up my sleeve...there isn't one that I know of that would be a swap out capitalism for whatever.  Therefore, it is my opinion that capitalism must be improved, with the center moved away from money to people  Sure, make a profit, but not at the expense of the long list of negative impacts to people and environment.

But that seems too much to ask of capitalists. Making people and environment a central concern is labeled socialist, as a means to keeping the status quo.

 

Edited June 14, 2017 by Blueskye2

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Anyway, this is why I have no solution up my sleeve...there isn't one that I know of that would be a swap out capitalism for whatever.  Therefore, it is my opinion that capitalism must be improved, with the center moved away from money to people  Sure, make a profit, but not at the expense of the long list of negative impacts to people and environment.

But that seems too much to ask of capitalists. Making people and environment a central concern is labeled socialist, as a means to keeping the status quo.

OK.  This is a real statement about real concerns of capitalism.  I can appreciate that.  So, let me address it.

Can it be improved?  Actually, no.  The system is exactly what it is supposed to do.  But the improvement is in two other areas: People and government.

1) Obviously, if you have good honorable people, you will have a successful system no matter what.  But there are systems which require more honor than others.  Communism requires a HUGE percentage to be perfectly honorable.  This is a pipe dream short of the Millennium.  Socialism moderately the same (hence it is called "Communism Lite").  Capitalism requires just enough honor that it is at realistic levels.  Even the Swedish system is heavily dependent upon the honor of the people.  It is a quirk that the work ethic of the average Swede is sufficient to keep it going.  But with the recent refugee crisis, the cracks in the armor are showing.  If they continue to allow more immigrants who have not been raised with the same work ethic, then the system will fall.

2) Government is supposed to be about ethics and character just as much or possibly more than ability.  The reason is that if you let capitalism go free, but have government there to simply keep people honest, then the weaknesses go away.  And our elections are where we can ensure character.  But because that element has been missing for many generations, capitalism has degenerated into crony capitalism which lacks that element of the real capitalistic system.

Yes, these are real weaknesses.  But I believe that giving more power to government has taken away responsibility/duty from family and church which is supposed to be the source of the character of our leaders and the work ethic and morality of the average American.  Remove that and capitalism will fall.

[zil]

8 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Admittedly capitalists have me jaded. I worked in business for 27 years and saw and experienced some pretty rotten people and practices, all acceptable to my capitalist colleagues, as long profit was the justification.

Those aren't "capitalists" (start, end, only).  Those are immoral people.  And because these immoral people justified their dishonesty by claiming it was normal "capitalism", should one dismiss the possibility that capitalism is not what those people claimed, and that there are honest capitalists with integrity would would condemn immoral practices just as much as you would?

I've lived in communist Russia and seen worse than whatever it was you saw (I'm 99% certain I can accurately state that without even knowing what you saw), all in the name of communism (not that I think communism as a concept mandated their evil behavior either, only that one is deluded if they think the economic policy somehow makes immoral people moral or vice versa).

One must learn to separate the choices of the individual, and the concepts of honesty and integrity, from "an economic model" if one is to judge anything by its merit and find (or intelligently discuss) improvements or solutions.

[yjacket]

26 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, these are real weaknesses.  But I believe that giving more power to government has taken away responsibility/duty from family and church which is supposed to be the source of the character of our leaders and the work ethic and morality of the average American.  Remove that and capitalism will fall.

Capitalism is the best system that will allow faith and religion to thrive (outside of a theocracy).  

The biggest arguments against communism and socialism is that it inevitably removes God from the public. Every government that goes down the socialistic route eventually roots out God.

[Guest MormonGator]

38 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Capitalism is the best system that will allow faith and religion to thrive (outside of a theocracy).  

The biggest arguments against communism and socialism is that it inevitably removes God from the public. Every government that goes down the socialistic route eventually roots out God.

I agree that socialism/communism removes God from the public eye and that is a major problem with it-but to me, the major problem with communism/socialism (and there are all sorts of problems with that economic system) is that it uses force to achieve it's goals. In theory, any system that requires force is inherently evil. I know that's an oversimplification. 

[Just_A_Guy]

On 6/10/2017 at 0:28 PM, Blueskye2 said:

The thing with sacred cows, is that it's taboo to discuss shortcomings of the sacred, which means shortcomings are never addressed.  Like the boy/girlfriend who beats on ya once in a while but we should all be grateful, because life could be worse...and only discuss how good a person they are.

Trying to take a capitalist government and make it more socialist; is rather analogous to marrying your abusive boyfriend and buying him a gun as a wedding gift.

[mordorbund]

12 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Socialism isn't entirely off the mark. I'm no Marxist, but I do like the mixed forms off capitism/socialism, such as Norway and other countries use. If I were younger and all that I'd seriously consider moving to Stockholm, if even for a few years then come back to the States, because this is where my family are. 

Admittedly capitalists have me jaded. I worked in business for 27 years and saw and experienced some pretty rotten people and practices, all acceptable to my capitalist colleagues, as long profit was the justification. There was a straw that broke the camels back, and I left for the nonprofit world.  Indeed, rather ironically, nonprofits rely heavily on capitalist wealth.  Not a perfect world and I know people who left the nonprofit world because of the hypocracy in it, and a heavy dose of self importance too. Seen plenty of that, but I gotta pay the bills, so I go to work and count the days to retirement where my  pension from the capitalists is waiting for me!

i have a friend, who takes the Catholic teaching on poverty very literally, like our dear St. Francis.  He has given away every thing he has ever earned, spent most of his adult life working and spending all he made on housing for the extremely poor, and now is retired in poverty and reliant on the State (Italy) for a meager means of living. And still he gives away any "extra" to those he calls "street people".   I'm hyper capitalist compared to him.

Anyway, this is why I have no solution up my sleeve...there isn't one that I know of that would be a swap out capitalism for whatever.  Therefore, it is my opinion that capitalism must be improved, with the center moved away from money to people  Sure, make a profit, but not at the expense of the long list of negative impacts to people and environment.

But that seems too much to ask of capitalists. Making people and environment a central concern is labeled socialist, as a means to keeping the status quo.

 

You may want to read Creating a World Without Poverty: Social Business and the Future of Capitalism by Muhammad Yunus (the guy with the micro-loans). He advocates a new order of business called a "social business" who's main features are:

1. Its service or product is aimed at a social benefit (reducing poverty, affordable nutrition for the undernourished, housing for the homeless, etc).
2. Investors either a) are the target demographic of their business (poor, homeless, etc) or b) receive only their initial investment back - no dividends or profit.
3. Operate like a business with profit-building (so the business can continue to operate on it's principal task and not on fund-raising) and fair wages (so it can attract quality workers to pursue its principal task).

Edited June 14, 2017 by mordorbund

[anatess2]

14 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Socialism isn't entirely off the mark. I'm no Marxist, but I do like the mixed forms off capitism/socialism, such as Norway and other countries use. If I were younger and all that I'd seriously consider moving to Stockholm, if even for a few years then come back to the States, because this is where my family are.

 

I hear this a lot.  Especially from the Bernie Sanders supporters.  Democratic Socialism!  The Nordic Model!  Etc. etc.  They keep on forgetting that the Nordic states are TINY.  The population of the entire country of Norway is half that of New York CITY!  And they used to be a homogenous people - upwards of 70% Lutherans.  They all share the same culture and belief system encompassing a stellar work ethic derived from their protestant roots.  Sweden may be twice the size of Norway but it is still TINY!  Sweden is New York CITY.  Same thing as Norway - Lutherans. 

So yes, social programs through wealth redistribution in countries such as Norway and Sweden is the same concept as LDS members giving tithes and fast offerings to the Church and the Church redistributing the money as they see fit.  This is not sustainable when you get a diverse group of people who have a completely different idea of how wealth should be redistributed - or if even they trust the government to do it for them.  Therefore, the Nordic Model ONLY WORKED because of the existence of the United States of America.  You might wonder, huh???  How so?  Well, the USA is about the only country in the entire history of the planet that keeps the Nordic countries sovereign and free of foreign invaders through NATO.  Nordic countries spend... ZERO... on national defense. 

So, then they joined the EU.  Now they're in trouble.  The EU made the homogenous citizenry of Nordic countries strain under multi-culturalism and globalization.  Their economies tanked, and only Norway's abundance of natural gas kept the economy from bursting.  They have been turning away from their socialistic model to go more with the capitalistic model to save themselves.  In the meantime, they still pay ZERO for their defense.  They rely on the EU which relies on the USA.  Without the USA, these tiny countries would have been ancient states we only get to read about in history books.

So does Democratic Socialism work?  Yes, of course - if you're uni-cultural with a TINY population and you have authority to kick non-conformers off the island.

Be careful going to Stockholm.  Sweden currently has its head in the sand about the influx of a completely different culture into their country.  This culture does not want to assimilate and they are using up social benefits.  A culture war is brewing and Sweden's response is to pretend it does not exist and to silence everybody who says it does - including Pewdiepie, for crying out loud!

 

14 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

i have a friend, who takes the Catholic teaching on poverty very literally, like our dear St. Francis.  He has given away every thing he has ever earned, spent most of his adult life working and spending all he made on housing for the extremely poor, and now is retired in poverty and reliant on the State (Italy) for a meager means of living. And still he gives away any "extra" to those he calls "street people".   I'm hyper capitalist compared to him.

This has nothing to do with being a capitalist or a socialist.  Nothing in capitalism prevents you from giving away all your money.  NOTHING.  The fact that your Catholic friend EARNED something already points to him being a capitalist. 

Socialism is - person 1 builds all the houses, person 2 makes all the clothes, person 3 makes all the food, then everybody uses the houses, clothes, and food according to their needs regardless of the value of their production.  The system is sustainable until person 1 gets greedy and decides it's a lot more work to build houses than to make clothes so he won't make houses anymore, he'll just wait for somebody to build him a house.  So then they'll have to figure out how they're gonna make houses.

Capitalism is - person 1 makes houses worth $5, person 2 makes clothes worth $2, person 3 makes food worth $1.  If person 1 wants a house, he has to first find 3 people who need clothes.  If person 3 wants a house, he has to first find 5 people who need food.  There is value to one's production determined by the convergence of how much someone wants to sell the product and how much someone wants to pay for it.  Of course, if person 3 cannot find 5 people who need food, nothing is stopping person 2 from finding 3 people who need clothes so he can buy person 3 a house.  The system is sustainable even when person 1 gets greedy because if he decides he wants $10 for his house, he still won't be able to sell it unless somebody decides to pay him $10 for it.  Chances are, somebody would jump at the opportunity of making $5 so he can buy 5 people food and the house building continues under new ownership.  The system fails when the government prevents another person from building houses for $5 because they want person 1 to make $10 out of his house.  This is not capitalism anymore - this is corporatism (crony capitalism) that is currently the economic state of the USA.

 

Edited June 14, 2017 by anatess2

[Blueskye2]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

OK.  This is a real statement about real concerns of capitalism.  I can appreciate that.  So, let me address it.

Can it be improved?  Actually, no.  The system is exactly what it is supposed to do.  But the improvement is in two other areas: People and government.

1) Obviously, if you have good honorable people, you will have a successful system no matter what.  But there are systems which require more honor than others.  Communism requires a HUGE percentage to be perfectly honorable.  This is a pipe dream short of the Millennium.  Socialism moderately the same (hence it is called "Communism Lite").  Capitalism requires just enough honor that it is at realistic levels.  Even the Swedish system is heavily dependent upon the honor of the people.  It is a quirk that the work ethic of the average Swede is sufficient to keep it going.  But with the recent refugee crisis, the cracks in the armor are showing.  If they continue to allow more immigrants who have not been raised with the same work ethic, then the system will fall.

2) Government is supposed to be about ethics and character just as much or possibly more than ability.  The reason is that if you let capitalism go free, but have government there to simply keep people honest, then the weaknesses go away.  And our elections are where we can ensure character.  But because that element has been missing for many generations, capitalism has degenerated into crony capitalism which lacks that element of the real capitalistic system.

Yes, these are real weaknesses.  But I believe that giving more power to government has taken away responsibility/duty from family and church which is supposed to be the source of the character of our leaders and the work ethic and morality of the average American.  Remove that and capitalism will fall.

 

I agree on your point regarding cultural changes that gave impacted government involvement. 

[Blueskye2]

34 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I hear this a lot.  Especially from the Bernie Sanders supporters.  Democratic Socialism!  The Nordic Model!  Etc. etc.  They keep on forgetting that the Nordic states are TINY.  The population of the entire country of Norway is half that of New York CITY!  And they used to be a homogenous people - upwards of 70% Lutherans.  They all share the same culture and belief system encompassing a stellar work ethic derived from their protestant roots.  Sweden may be twice the size of Norway but it is still TINY!  Sweden is New York CITY.  Same thing as Norway - Lutherans. 

So yes, social programs through wealth redistribution in countries such as Norway and Sweden is the same concept as LDS members giving tithes and fast offerings to the Church and the Church redistributing the money as they see fit.  This is not sustainable when you get a diverse group of people who have a completely different idea of how wealth should be redistributed - or if even they trust the government to do it for them.  Therefore, the Nordic Model ONLY WORKED because of the existence of the United States of America.  You might wonder, huh???  How so?  Well, the USA is about the only country in the entire history of the planet that keeps the Nordic countries sovereign and free of foreign invaders through NATO.  Nordic countries spend... ZERO... on national defense. 

So, then they joined the EU.  Now they're in trouble.  The EU made the homogenous citizenry of Nordic countries strain under multi-culturalism and globalization.  Their economies tanked, and only Norway's abundance of natural gas kept the economy from bursting.  They have been turning away from their socialistic model to go more with the capitalistic model to save themselves.  In the meantime, they still pay ZERO for their defense.  They rely on the EU which relies on the USA.  Without the USA, these tiny countries would have been ancient states we only get to read about in history books.

So does Democratic Socialism work?  Yes, of course - if you're uni-cultural with a TINY population and you have authority to kick non-conformers off the island.

Be careful going to Stockholm.  Sweden currently has its head in the sand about the influx of a completely different culture into their country.  This culture does not want to assimilate and they are using up social benefits.  A culture war is brewing and Sweden's response is to pretend it does not exist and to silence everybody who says it does - including Pewdiepie, for crying out loud!

 

This has nothing to do with being a capitalist or a socialist.  Nothing in capitalism prevents you from giving away all your money.  NOTHING.  The fact that your Catholic friend EARNED something already points to him being a capitalist. 

Socialism is - person 1 builds all the houses, person 2 makes all the clothes, person 3 makes all the food, then everybody uses the houses, clothes, and food according to their needs regardless of the value of their production.  The system is sustainable until person 1 gets greedy and decides it's a lot more work to build houses than to make clothes so he won't make houses anymore, he'll just wait for somebody to build him a house.  So then they'll have to figure out how they're gonna make houses.

Capitalism is - person 1 makes houses worth $5, person 2 makes clothes worth $2, person 3 makes food worth $1.  If person 1 wants a house, he has to first find 3 people who need clothes.  If person 3 wants a house, he has to first find 5 people who need food.  There is value to one's production determined by the convergence of how much someone wants to sell the product and how much someone wants to pay for it.  Of course, if person 3 cannot find 5 people who need food, nothing is stopping person 2 from finding 3 people who need clothes so he can buy person 3 a house.  The system is sustainable even when person 1 gets greedy because if he decides he wants $10 for his house, he still won't be able to sell it unless somebody decides to pay him $10 for it.  Chances are, somebody would jump at the opportunity of making $5 so he can buy 5 people food and the house building continues under new ownership.  The system fails when the government prevents another person from building houses for $5 because they want person 1 to make $10 out of his house.  This is not capitalism anymore - this is corporatism (crony capitalism) that is currently the economic state of the USA.

 

The US has a mixed market/command economy already. It is built into the Constituution. 

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

The US has a mixed market/command economy already. It is built into the Constituution. 

Uhm.  Not quite.  The Constitution simply provides protections for a free market economy with competition considered the universal arbiter.  So things like anti-trust laws are created.  You might think, Copyright Law is a command economy... not quite.  Copyright law is property rights.  So yeah, all these government involvement that squashes competition masquerading as Environment Protection or the new-fangled Supreme Court upholding minimum wage law as Interstate Commerce standards or the healthcare mandate masquerading as a Tax... those would have failed Constitutionality if they were truthfully exposed as attempts at instituting a command economy.

[Blueskye2]

30 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Uhm.  Not quite.  The Constitution simply provides protections for a free market economy with competition considered the universal arbiter.  So things like anti-trust laws are created.  You might think, Copyright Law is a command economy... not quite.  Copyright law is property rights.  So yeah, all these government involvement that squashes competition masquerading as Environment Protection or the new-fangled Supreme Court upholding minimum wage law as Interstate Commerce standards or the healthcare mandate masquerading as a Tax... those would have failed Constitutionality if they were truthfully exposed as attempts at instituting a command economy.

The Constitution provides for areas where Government promotes the general welfare. Government controlled and owned enterprises in the US includes highways, research, law enforcement, military...just to name a few. The Government also has a monopoly on some markets  

There is a Federal Budget to prioritize and fund Government enterprises. This takes the place of a "central plan" as found in non-mixed command economies. 

Congress determines the allocation of resources. This includes taxes, fees or fines that discourage some market activities. Congress also determines subsidies that encourage some markets. Congress regulates economic priorities such as fishing and agriculture.

Etc.  

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

The Constitution provides for areas where Government promotes the general welfare. Government controlled and owned enterprises in the US includes highways, research, law enforcement, military...just to name a few. The Government also has a monopoly on some markets  

There is a Federal Budget to prioritize and fund Government enterprises. This takes the place of a "central plan" as found in non-mixed command economies. 

Etc.  

Law Enforcement and Military is not an economic enterprise.  It's National Defense.  Public Service - i.e. government work - is not an economic enterprise - it's government.  Highways and utilities are not economic enterprises - it's Infrastructure.  All these underpins economic activity and not the economic activity itself. 

The US Postal Service and Amtrak used to be part of the infrastructure but progress has moved past the need for them as their functions got better served by the private sector.  Now, they simply serve a historic purpose and as part of emergency services.

Public Education was also considered Public Service but it has overreached its purpose.

The government cannot enforce a monopoly on any market.  That is super unconstitutional.

 

8 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Congress determines the allocation of resources. This includes taxes, fees or fines that discourage some market activities. Congress also determines subsidies that encourage some markets. Congress regulates economic priorities such as fishing and agriculture.

There is a Federal Budget to prioritize and fund Government enterprises. This takes the place of a "central plan" as found in non-mixed command economies. 

Etc.  

This is the Corporatism that I am talking about.  They are part of the Swamp that is the reason Donald Trump got elected President.

 

Edited June 14, 2017 by anatess2

[Blueskye2]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Law Enforcement and Military is not an economic enterprise.  It's National Defense.  Public Service - i.e. government work - is not an economic enterprise - it's government.  Highways and utilities are not economic enterprises - it's Infrastructure.  All these underpins economic activity and not the economic activity itself. 

 

This is the Corporatism that I am talking about.  They are part of the Swamp that is the reason Donald Trump got elected President.

 

They certainly are economic enterprises, and all of them could be privatized. Trump has mentioned privatizing new projects for the federal highway system. (Which would be disastrous.)

Really, you believe that economic priority given to the production of food is a swamp activity?  Okee dokee. 

How do you think infrastructure is managed and funded without managing the economic activity of related markets?

Edited June 14, 2017 by Blueskye2

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Blueskye2 said:

They certainly are economic enterprises, and all of them could be privatized. Trump as mentioned privatizing the federal highway system.

They are certainly not economic enterprises although they can be.  Just because you can make money doing the same service in the private sector doesn't mean the public sector equivalent is an economic enterprise.  If they were economic enterprises, value-on-investment will be a factor.  When was the last time you've heard of Public Schools, the Post Office, Amtrak, etc., create value commensurate to their investment?

And no Donald Trump is not proposing privatizing highways.  Rather, he is proposing that infrastructure projects is going to be funded through private partnerships.  Basically, this is how it works - say, Pennsylvania wants to build a bridge.  The normal route would be to get money from tax revenue to fund the project.  If the bridge is part of an interstate system, then Pennsylvania can fund it through Federal tax revenue.  Trump's plan is - instead of taking money out of the Treasury to build the bridge, he's going to get a private company to put up the money to build the bridge.  In return, the private company will be given tax exemptions for X number of years in the future.  So, in the end, it still means the same thing - somehow, it ends up as taxpayer funded.

1 minute ago, Blueskye2 said:

Really, you believe that economic priority given to the production of food is  a swamp activity?  Okee dokee. 

Yes.  You think we need government to make sure we have food?  Okee dokee.

[NeuroTypical]

Heaven forfend that I start relying on the government to feed my family.

I remember back in 1981, my dad and neighbor laughed when they realized they qualified for government cheese.  I went with them, sitting in the back seat, while they drove to the distribution place, and counted the Cadillacs.

I've since learned it was a Reagan rollback of Carter-era price supports for milk.  The country had five-hundred and sixty million pounds of cheese stored away, while millions of Americans experienced food insecurity.  Because, government!

Please, please, please don't think about the government and food supply in the same thought.  

Edited June 14, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Blueskye2]

Just now, anatess2 said:

They are certainly not economic enterprises although they can be.  Just because you can make money doing the same service in the private sector doesn't mean the public sector equivalent is an economic enterprise.  If they were economic enterprises, value-on-investment will be a factor.  When was the last time you've heard of Public Schools, the Post Office, Amtrak, etc., create value commensurate to their investment?

And no Donald Trump is not proposing privatizing highways.  Rather, he is proposing that infrastructure projects is going to be funded through private partnerships.  Basically, this is how it works - say, Pennsylvania wants to build a bridge.  The normal route would be to get money from tax revenue to fund the project.  If the bridge is part of an interstate system, then Pennsylvania can fund it through Federal tax revenue.  Trump's plan is - instead of taking money out of the Treasury to build the bridge, he's going to get a private company to put up the money to build the bridge.  In return, the private company will be given tax exemptions for X number of years in the future.  So, in the end, it still means the same thing - somehow, it ends up as taxpayer funded.

Yes.  You think we need government to make sure we have food?  Okee dokee.

Of course he is privatizing the highway system. Right now taxes fund most of the federal highway system, which includes design, build, and maintenance. Trump proposes that corporations build the highways and we pay tolls to use them. With the money collected going to the corporations. 

Besides the fact that privatized roads cost more to design, build and maintain. There is the fact that paying a toll to drive a often travelled stretch of highway will cost taxpayers more than what we pay in taxes. And third, corporations will prioritize based on profit not on need. Profitable areas are urban centers, rural areas will be neglected, as the profit/loss analysis would dictate where a corporation focuses its resources rather than the needs of the people. 

You better believe economic priority should be given to food production. It doesn't take much research to see why. 

[unixknight]

The Soviet Union was all about the Government providing food, as it was basically the sole means of distribution of food (and prettymuch everything else besides black market bluejeans.) 

This is a typical Soviet era bread line.  (And yes, that sign actually says "bread store 61." Yes, I can read Russian and no, I can't tell what that tiny text at the top of the sign says.)

If the Government must have a role in food distribution it should be to facilitate private industry's efforts to handle it.  Nothing more.

Edited June 14, 2017 by unixknight

[zil]

14 minutes ago, unixknight said:

The Soviet Union was all about the Government providing food, as it was basically the sole means of distribution of food (and prettymuch everything else besides black market bluejeans.) 

This is a typical Soviet era bread line.  (And yes, that sign actually says "bread store 61." Yes, I can read Russian and no, I can't tell what that tiny text at the top of the sign says.)

If the Government must have a role in food distribution it should be to facilitate private industry's efforts to handle it.  Nothing more.

What that sign doesn't tell you is that it works like this:

1. You get in the first line to tell one woman what you want.  She notes this on a scrap of paper with the prices and gives you the slip of paper.
2. You go get in a second line to pay another woman.  (It's possible she tears the scrap of paper so it can't be reused - see next.)
3. You take your receipt back to the first woman who gives you what you asked for and tears the receipt a bit so that one can't re-use it to get the same thing again.

(I can't remember whether the scrap of paper goes back to the first woman or stays with the cashier - it was '91-'94.)  All this assumes, of course, that they don't run out before you get to the front of line 1, or that they have what you want.  I stood in line a few times, for the experience, but thereafter, I would just buy bread from women selling it on the street (no idea if they were reselling or selling home-made stuff - nor did I care - bread is one of the few things Russians do better than Americans).

When I got there, the line to get into McDonald's was ~3 hours long.  We did that once - for the experience, but only once.   (And they didn't have chicken nuggets.)

Government should very definitely stay far, far away from food and everything else except defending our borders and printing currency.

[NeuroTypical]

3 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

You better believe economic priority should be given to food production. It doesn't take much research to see why. 

Blueskye2, I wonder if you could help me out.  What do you mean by "economic priority should be given"?

What is an "economic priority"?  Who "gives" it?

 

[Traveler]

Just wondering what everyone thinks the government (election) choices and economic system will be in the heaven they plan to live in forever in the next life?

 

The Traveler