Joined: Jul 02, 2008 Posts: 436 Location: Espinho, Porto, Portugal
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:47 am Post subject: Re: US food groups plan hefty price rises
If you're a peakoiler, you'll know that the theory states that the problem is not lack of oil; as you reach the peak, and there's plenty of oil left still by then, growth on demand without the possibility of growth in offer makes for increased value. Oil gets more expensive because of market giving it more value.
Same for food.
I don't agree with this. I've been arguing that free market is the way to doom in another thread; I'm on the commie/collectivist/planned economy side of this dispute, thank you very much. But to fight a system, I had to understand it first (shouldn't really be past tense, I am learning about it), and then reason why it won't work. I think people will, sometime in the near-to-medium future, lose those 8-hour jobs. It will be the time to go back to the land and grow something, but you can't do that alone. You need a community to take you in, help you and put you to work. However, in the short term, there are incentives to keep business-as-usual: food price goes up, more people are investing in food production because of the yields that investment brings. We're not desperate yet. No die-off yet.
The current crisis has, for the first time in history, environmental issues as part of it. Most crisis in the past 100 years have been economic or financial crisis. All the changes you states - less resources, less water, climate change - are not yet so desperate that will make us all starve this year, or next year. At least us, in the Western world. Problem is the price of food, not scarcity of food. Again, yet.
So, I'll end where I started: don't go around preaching die-off for tomorrow. _________________ Give anyone a lever long enough and they can change the world. It's unreliable levers that are the problem.
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:38 am Post subject: Re: US food groups plan hefty price rises
Byron is a little confused. He is talking about die-off, but in the same breath concluding that not only will mothers be breast feeding in 100 years from now, but that society will still exist in such a way that they will have the time and inclination to analyze our habits today and pass judgement on them. Sounds more like an incoherent rant to me rather than preaching.
There is a long history of collectivization surviving in the market economy in competition with private enterprise. For example the farmer's co-op movement. In the town where I grew up we had a co-op grocery store, a co-op gas and bulk fuel station, a co-op lumberyard, a co-operative grain elevator (Alberta Wheat Pool), co-operative banks (Caisse Populaire or Alberta Treasury Branch), etc.
We were all members and we all received a rebate at the end of the year from the co-op's profits in proportion to how much we spent there. But we were also free to walk across the street and buy our groceries from the IGA, or bank with the CIBC and sell our grain to Cargill. And ironically (or not) the larger and more successful those co-operatives became the more they structured themselves and came to resemble their privately-owned competitors.
We as consumers benefited from that choice. It was not an either or, but a win-win proposition. If those private companies had been ripping us off as consumers we could have done all our business with the co-op. If the co-op were poorly run and badly managed we would have done our business with their competitors.
You can put your money on forced collectivization or communism, but I prefer the market economy and competition. It is not ideology. I simply believe in what has been proven to work the best. No government is going to solve our peak oil resource depletion problems. But a million small firms will devise mitigating strategies. Some will be dead ends. Some may help us transition to a new lower energy, sustainable future.
If you want the sharp end of a die-off scenario then put your faith in government to solve our problems. Look what a good job they are doing so far on global warming, climate change and curbing carbon emissions. They cannot agree on what they disagree about much less devise coherent solutions or decide who will pay for them. Good luck with that, comrade! _________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
Joined: Jul 02, 2008 Posts: 436 Location: Espinho, Porto, Portugal
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:57 am Post subject: Re: US food groups plan hefty price rises
MrBill wrote:
There is a long history of collectivization surviving in the market economy in competition with private enterprise. For example the farmer's co-op movement.
...
You can put your money on forced collectivization or communism, but I prefer the market economy and competition. It is not ideology. I simply believe in what has been proven to work the best. No government is going to solve our peak oil resource depletion problems. But a million small firms will devise mitigating strategies. Some will be dead ends. Some may help us transition to a new lower energy, sustainable future.
My girlfriend comes from a small Island in the middle of the Atlantic, called St. George (Azores). Most income comes from exporting cheese - the famous local cheese is, I am told, quite appreciated worldwide. The whole island's agriculture has organized itself on a couple farmer's co-ops that are highly successful. That brought the basis for my idea of local production and management - by private ownership of the land for pasture, they have managed to avoid the "tragedy of the commons", keeping production high enough to provide good yields and scarce enough to maintain a premium, essentially not answering all the demand. Good call on them, I thought.
So, you need private ownership and private investment, but you also need state regulation. The people in St. George Island know they'll have to live there next year, but it doesn't happen like that on all industries around us. The fact is that the concept of an industry as an accumulation of capital, whose investment on a resource is designed only to produce the maximum yield in the shortest amount of time, will lead to depletion - and, after that depletion, capital will simply move on to deplete the next resource, like a cloud of grasshoppers. So, strict regulation and strong enforcement is due, I believe. _________________ Give anyone a lever long enough and they can change the world. It's unreliable levers that are the problem.
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:25 am Post subject: Re: US food groups plan hefty price rises
CarlosFerreira wrote:
....
So, you need private ownership and private investment, but you also need state regulation. The people in St. George Island know they'll have to live there next year, but it doesn't happen like that on all industries around us. The fact is that the concept of an industry as an accumulation of capital, whose investment on a resource is designed only to produce the maximum yield in the shortest amount of time, will lead to depletion - and, after that depletion, capital will simply move on to deplete the next resource, like a cloud of grasshoppers. So, strict regulation and strong enforcement is due, I believe.
Unfortunately it's my observation the state often encourages unsustainable practices.
For example if I try to save my money by putting it in a bank I'll get an interest rate that's below inflation.
Furthermore there's income tax on interest earned.
I'm losing money putting it in a bank!
however....
If I go out and buy a house then I get a tax deduction. And if I go over my head and over extend myself well that's okay because the government is currently working on a plan to bail out all those reckless people right now.
Government encourages people to SPEND SPEND SPEND.-->"like a cloud of grasshoppers"
You get financially punished for attempting to live a sustainable life in today's world.
I do not put much faith in the state finding a solution or even a mitigation plan. They are more often then not helping to make the problem worse not better.
Joined: Jul 02, 2008 Posts: 436 Location: Espinho, Porto, Portugal
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:07 am Post subject: Re: US food groups plan hefty price rises
I absolutely agree with everything you say. People will get the change when they ask for a government of change. We haven't hit low enough on this economic model for people to want a change.
Just a thought: you don't have to put the money in the bank for interest rates and you don't have to buy a house. You don't have to invest. OK, you money devalues because of inflation. Inflation acts as an incentive to investment. But, if you have a steady income you don't have to spend it. You could, if you want, keep it under your pillow. Buy fruit from local producers to make jam and sell for a small profit. Join with the neighbors and invest locally in a sustainable fashion. Co-op.
How does that sound? Unfashionable? Or futuristic? That's the kind of stuff I want to see incentives for. _________________ Give anyone a lever long enough and they can change the world. It's unreliable levers that are the problem.
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:49 am Post subject: Re: US food groups plan hefty price rises
Carlos, I would suggest you go buy some fresh fruit, buy some sugar, buy some jars and buy some certo then take them home. Keep track of your time. Sterilize those jam jars. Cook your fresh fruit. Keep track of your time and your energy use. Then label those jam jars properly. If you're going to compete with Kraft then do so on a level playing field.
Now take them down to the farmer's market. Take the day off from your paid work. Keep track of your time and your fuel consumption. Put your jars of homemade jam on sale. See how much consumers are willing to pay. Then once you have factored in the cost of fruit, sugar, jars, certo, fuel and your time come back and tell us how much 'profit' you make. We will all be very interested to know if all of us should be making homemade jams and jellies to sell to one another.
Now, secondly, please tell us what 'incentives' you are looking for? Maybe a government subsidy to support your jam making activities? So we can all sell jams and jellies to one another, while the taxpayer somehow pitches in so that we think we are making a profit? I don't think it sounds unfashionable or futuristic? Just naive! ; - )) _________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
Joined: Jul 02, 2008 Posts: 436 Location: Espinho, Porto, Portugal
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:05 am Post subject: Re: US food groups plan hefty price rises
MrBill wrote:
Now, secondly, please tell us what 'incentives' you are looking for? Maybe a government subsidy to support your jam making activities? So we can all sell jams and jellies to one another, while the taxpayer somehow pitches in so that we think we are making a profit? I don't think it sounds unfashionable or futuristic? Just naive! ; - ))
I know. It is naive. It's something kids do while on those long summer holidays. Or boy-scouts, when raising funds for something.
There are no incentives for that, of course. And I don't expect government support, be it subsidies or tax cuts. But I believe we need more support for local (realistic! ) activities to face upcoming problems from Peak Oil. Here's an answer: raise back some of those taxes on import of basic goods, such as food, gradually. Result will be an immediate raise in food prices - please note I said raise taxes gradually - raising incentives for local food production. That'll help. Please don't say it's unfair - import taxes were all lowered (sometimes eliminated), but net food exporters offer heavy subsidies to their producers. Note the subsidies for agricultural production in the US. It's not just subsidies for corn for ethanol, it's money for food production.
I have a book around here somewhere that I bought in a local used books store. From 1971! Written by a braxilian doctor and sociologist. It's called The Geopolitics of Famine. Lower/eliminate the tariffs, flood them with cheap food, ruin local production, make them dependent. Food prices have been to low because of this movement, diverting capital for consumer good. That created monopolies. Now it's swinging back - we're paying more for the food, there's little or no alternative suppliers of raw food.
Well, I always seem to get in deep with these issues. Right. _________________ Give anyone a lever long enough and they can change the world. It's unreliable levers that are the problem.
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:31 am Post subject: Re: US food groups plan hefty price rises
Don't worry. I always have plenty of time for a good debate. It adds spice to my day. Between working hard naturally.
Okay, let's look at the concept of 'creeping normalization' which is I think a term used by Jarrod Diamond in his book Collapse when refering to the inhabitants of Easter Island cutting down all their trees. What did they think or say when the last tree was felled? Probably nothing as it had been going on for so long that each generation just probably got used to seeing fewer trees, and those they did see were progressively smaller. They just got used to seeing less trees and more sky naturally.
We have built a great deal of infrastructure based around the automobile and cheap energy. The term cheap energy is relative, but it is affected by creeping normalization. We just get used to something that costs approximately what it costs and we build that cost and availability into our lifestyle without thinking about it very much. Until it gets a lot more expensive, that is outside our realm of comfort, and/or it becomes unavailable due to scarcity or physical shortages. Scarcity is having to drive a few blocks further to find it. Physical shortages I would take to mean it is not available at any price. An unforeseen eventuality naturally.
The same as cheap food. Historically, food has never been so cheap. So why do we complain if the price doubles from an historically very low base? Food was so cheap that farmers had to rely on corporate welfare to survive. Food was so cheap that developing nations not only could not compete with western farmers, but they often found it less expensive to import food rather than produce it themselves. So we collectively just got used to cheap food. There was no conspiracy. Just complacency and political expediency naturally.
However, due to creeping normalization consumers got used to low energy prices, cheap food prices and falling inflation, so their financing costs were also at or near record lows. They should have been saving and investing for the proverbial rainy day. But due to creeping normalization they just got used to everything getting cheaper, and as they expected that trend to continue they spent that extra money they earned. Not only that, but as their expectation were so well-anchored they felt as though they could afford to borrow or take on debt to move purchases and consumption forward. On easy credit naturally.
They literally set themselves up for the fall as soon as anything went wrong. Like food, energy, inflation and interest rates starting to rise. The danger of complacency. Now to be fair the road to Hell is well paved. There were many people like big business and big government than helped convince people that the good times would roll forever. And when they looked less certain these parties lobbied to give the consumer an extra boost. At the taxpayer's expense naturally.
Unfortunately, the problem with societal collapse - either financially or environmentally or both - is that the good get washed away with the bad. The individual lives in society. It is hard to thrive when others are struggling to survive. And in a social-democracy where you have rule by the majority, if the majority are suffering then government will punish everyone, also the prudent minority, for the sins of the majority. So your house goes down in value because everyone's house goes down in value. Your taxes go up because the government needs the money. Inflation erodes your paycheque because the government is trying to bail-out someone else. In everyone's best interest naturally.
There is no moral to this story other than to say good government matters. Bureaucracy, incompetence and corruption negatively affect society, and by default everyone in society to a greater or lesser degree. In an ownership society, instead of an entitlement society, each person does their own part, while electing governments that are efficient and responsive to the needs of its citizens. In an entitlement society it is someone else's responsibility or the government's problem to solve, until it becomes everyone's problem. And then everyone suffers. The good with the bad. But its no one's fault naturally. _________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
Joined: Sep 08, 2005 Posts: 749 Location: Atlanta, GA
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:05 am Post subject: Re: US food groups plan hefty price rises
MrBill wrote:
----
Unfortunately, the problem with societal collapse - either financially or environmentally or both - is that the good get washed away with the bad. The individual lives in society. It is hard to thrive when others are struggling to survive. And in a social-democracy where you have rule by the majority, if the majority are suffering then government will punish everyone, also the prudent minority, for the sins of the majority. So your house goes down in value because everyone's house goes down in value. Your taxes go up because the government needs the money. Inflation erodes your paycheque because the government is trying to bail-out someone else. In everyone's best interest naturally.
There is no moral to this story other than to say good government matters. Bureaucracy, incompetence and corruption negatively affect society, and by default everyone in society to a greater or lesser degree. In an ownership society, instead of an entitlement society, each person does their own part, while electing governments that are efficient and responsive to the needs of its citizens. In an entitlement society it is someone else's responsibility or the government's problem to solve, until it becomes everyone's problem. And then everyone suffers. The good with the bad. But its no one's fault naturally.
As always, you present calm, rational arguments. If everyone was 100% rational 100% of the time, and if everyone had a university degree with a well-versed knowledge of economics, etc, etc, then perhaps we can make a transition to your vaunted "ownership" society. But, unfortunately, most people are not rational beings, nor are they smart enough to really grasp the fundamentals of economics. Heck, not even the folks writing for the "Economist" really do not have a grasp of the fundamental problem of the "infinite growth vs finite supply" conundrum. Either that, or it's just good old-fashioned denial...hehe. Hence, my endless frustration at watching the train head towards the huge, looming chasm ahead, and knowing that it's far too late to stop it now.
Why do you think marketing works so well? It's much too easy to pander to people's basic instincts of wanting more, more and even more, and getting them to get into debt so they have what they want *right now.* Most people just are not "forward thinkers"...why worry about tomorrow, when you can have what you want today? And cheap oil really made it way too easy for us to get into this mess, as it's made it far too easy to overcome the fundamental problem of scarcity. Oil really is the "free money" that's enabled the party to go on as long as it has, giving us the illusion of transcending the fundamental problem of scarcity vs unlimited wants. Therefore, we have governments that try their best to make things work, such as all these bail-outs and the never-ending resource wars. Irrational populations make for irrational governments....makes sense, no?
But getting to the problem I have with so-called "free markets"...while it's good in theory, in practice, it *always* leads to vast inequality, as you always have a few people that are bigger, stronger and smarter than the majority. Given enough time, the few and powerful find a way to control most of the resources, using them to benefit them while taking advantage of the labors of the majority. Ever see the French film "Germinal"? Perfect example of the rich folk living up on the manor in splendor while the workers starve as they work themselves to death in the mines. But good golly, watching the riot scenes was one of the most exciting movie scenes ever...LOL.
I honestly think I was born a couple centuries ahead of my time, as I really don't fit into today's world. I just do not grasp the concept of living a materialist lifestyle in order to find happiness and satisfaction. I *like* living the simple life, I *like* learning how to do things on my own, as opposed to paying others to do it for me. But if everyone suddenly decided to live like me, kiss the modern economy good-bye, as what would happen to all the jobs of people that cater to what everyone else wants? What's good for the individual (saving as much as possible, only buying from others what is needed, etc) is NOT good for society as a whole...imagine what would happen if every single person in America cut up their credit cards today and cut spending down to the bare necessities? Depression city, baby. And this is exactly what Peak Oil is going to do to us, as we'll be *forced* to consume less, way less over time. And another thing, I really am sick and tired of people bitching about those who don't carry their weight, when we have a "conservative" government bailing out the richest of the rich...let them pull their own damn weight for a change, and then maybe we can talk. I do not expect people to have any sort of innate desire to pull their own weight until the bigwigs start setting a positive example for the rest of us. It's NOT "Do as I say, not as I do"...it's "I do what is right, and it's best for you to follow my example."
For those of you who insist that the only way is the way of the few dominating the many, well, you can count me out of that bullcrap. If that's the only way humans can live, well then, I say bring on the death and destruction, as what's the point of living a life of total misery just so a few can live a life of utter luxury? Better for folks to not to have lived at all, I say... whether it be in the past, present or future. _________________ Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide...
...and the meek shall inherit the Earth!
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:17 am Post subject: Re: US food groups plan hefty price rises
You're right, Byron, that natural resources like crude oil are nothing more than found wealth. Like Spain stumbling across gold in S. America. It allows for unearned wealth. There is no denying this. And I think most of us are guilty of squandering more than our fair share of that natural bounty, while leaving too little for whatever generations come after us. It is nothing but short-sightedness and collective greed on our part. But where are the solutions? To paraphrase an Accenture ad featuring Tiger Woods:
Everything we have done up to now = 10% What we do next = 90% _________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:41 am Post subject: Re: US food groups plan hefty price rises
Byron100 wrote:
Specop_007 wrote:
Byron100 wrote:
When I hear stories like this, I can only hope that the Age of the Corporation is drawing that much closer to its inevitable end. I would love nothing more than to see a huge, debilitating increase in food costs just so the people demand that we switch over to a socialistic economic system, nationalizing everything in sight.
This would be marked by an utter lack of advertising, very limited choices in supermarkets, very little "processed" foods and the virtual elimination of junk food. And oh, let's hope for an end to fast food as well...a world without McDonald's, Burger King, et al will be a far better place indeed.
It's going to be so much fun watching all those evil corporations commit hari kari on themselves....LOL.
You obviously have no idea how the world works. Thats ok, everyone was a dumbass at some point.
And the whole human race is a dumbass for f*cking up this planet with such a f*cked up economic system.
Momma Nature and the law of *finite* resources will have the last laugh.
Bring on the die-off...we have it coming to us.
Well now just a minute ago you were applauding the ideas of socialism. And now you're saying all economic systems are failures.
I dont think you really know anything about it, but rather are just randomly throwing out whatever opinion you have for the day. _________________ "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."
Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:52 am Post subject: Re: US food groups plan hefty price rises
We started eating about one fourth what we had been. Really watching what wee buy. No junk food etc. I have lost 35 pounds and the wife has lost 30. We are in the best shape of our lives. I SHOWED THEM...hah..
Now we run and do so many things. Tenmore pounds to go.
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:36 am Post subject: Re: US food groups plan hefty price rises
MrBill wrote:
Carlos, I would suggest you go buy some fresh fruit, buy some sugar, buy some jars and buy some certo then take them home. Keep track of your time......
Recently I priced the labour for some homemade products. Making marmalade when priced against high cost imports meant that the cost saving when divided by the time I spent on it was about half the minimum wage (this was with using some ingredients from my garden). I did better on making biscuits (="cookies" for those of you who don't speak English), when my labour was worth almost the minimum wage.
If I was to sell the products, and pay tax etc I probably would make a cash loss and get nothing for my time!
Lessons:
1) there is a huge cost advantage in centralised food processing.
2) But, I can still save money by doing more food processing myself.
3a) Doing things oneself is very time consuming.
3b) If there is a general collapse in shopping (or, more likely, in my income) then I may not have enough time to process all the food myself, so I will have to do without.
4) while it was fun doing these things to experiment, I know they could easily become a major burden if I had to do them all the time. _________________ We should teach our children the 4-Rs: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Rejoice.
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:39 am Post subject: Re: US food groups plan hefty price rises
Some people like to garden. I do not particularly like it. It is a lot of work. Time spent that I when I would sooner be doing something else. I like work. It is just I do not particularly like gardening. But I will do it if I have to. I do enjoy growing the best tomatos in the neighborhood! ; - ))
Recently my mother came to visit and the one thing we did while she was here was to make homemade jam with my wife. My mom and grandmother make the best jams and even better pies. I wanted to make sure we did not lose the recipes or the art of those skills honed over generations.
On the farm we have wild strawberries, choke cherries, saskatoons and rhubarb. All make excellent jams and jellies. Free ingedients except, of course, when you have to buy the sugar, etc. for jams or pies. I am not sure it saves any money over store bought items, but if one were unemployed or otherwise had more spare time than spare cash then that labor spent making homemade stuff, at least for one's own needs, is probably time well spent. But I doubt it would be worth it to try to sell it at the market? As your calculations show. _________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
Joined: Oct 22, 2005 Posts: 709 Location: European Capital of Kulcha 2008
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:10 am Post subject: Re: US food groups plan hefty price rises
There is a simple rule of thumb here: when times are prosperous - it's 'every man for himself'. When there's a general threat - it's usually time to cooperate. Societies need to be flexible enough to recognise which tack to take at the appropriate time. Unfortunately, we're now seemingly bound by ideological conviction, and both unprepared - and unwilling - to change course (even temporarily) to avoid disaster. Whether you're inclined to the left, or right, in politics - should your convictions be so entrenched that you refuse to modify them, even in the face of mounting evidence that the system you've created no longer works?
How else can you explain, for example, a UK government which claims it recognises the very real threats of climate change and fuel scarcity - yet has pledged massive expansion of both airports and motorways?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
) activities to face upcoming problems from Peak Oil. Here's an answer: raise back some of those taxes on import of basic goods, such as food, gradually. Result will be an immediate raise in food prices - please note I said raise taxes gradually - raising incentives for local food production. That'll help. Please don't say it's unfair - import taxes were all lowered (sometimes eliminated), but net food exporters offer heavy subsidies to their producers. Note the subsidies for agricultural production in the US. It's not just subsidies for corn for ethanol, it's money for food production.
If everyone was 100% rational 100% of the time, and if everyone had a university degree with a well-versed knowledge of economics, etc, etc, then perhaps we can make a transition to your vaunted "ownership" society. But, unfortunately, most people are not rational beings, nor are they smart enough to really grasp the fundamentals of economics. Heck, not even the folks writing for the "Economist" really do not have a grasp of the fundamental problem of the "infinite growth vs finite supply" conundrum. Either that, or it's just good old-fashioned denial...hehe. Hence, my endless frustration at watching the train head towards the huge, looming chasm ahead, and knowing that it's far too late to stop it now.
And this is exactly what Peak Oil is going to do to us, as we'll be *forced* to consume less, way less over time. And another thing, I really am sick and tired of people bitching about those who don't carry their weight, when we have a "conservative" government bailing out the richest of the rich...let them pull their own damn weight for a change, and then maybe we can talk. I do not expect people to have any sort of innate desire to pull their own weight until the bigwigs start setting a positive example for the rest of us. It's NOT "Do as I say, not as I do"...it's "I do what is right, and it's best for you to follow my example."
