I don't think that was a locally made video, as the cheesy effects seem to prove. It is an outsider looking in. So.... your complaint is ridiculous?


>> ^Mcboinkens:

They're lucky they get imported foodstuffs that far north. Complaining is ridiculous. If you want to live there, deal with it. If not, move closer to the farmlands that produce all of it and then get lower prices in return.

[redacted]

>> ^zombieater:

This seems like a shaky argument to me. Just because a central authority does not know all the facts about society - I'm reading that as population demographics and needs - does not mean that it cannot attempt to satisfy those areas of need of which it does have knowledge.
His argument seems to rest on the counterpoint that capitalism does know all the facts about a society, by which it gathers this wealth of information through the profit motive. However, may not a central authority also gather feedback from a changing population much like how profit levels works for a corporation? Does a government not change based on the whims of the population?


To give blankfist a heart attack, I'm going to defend Hayek for a second.

He means that a central authority can never know what everyone's preferences are going to be, in advance. Think of meals. If someone told you that you needed to write down on Jan 1st of each year the exact type and amount of foodstuffs you would want to consume in the coming year, you almost certainly couldn't do it without at some point in that year having to eat something because it was all you had, or not eat something because you'd exhausted your supply of it early.

In theory a totally planned economy would need you to do that with everything you would today spend money on, submit it to the central authority, and then the central authority would allocate resources towards meeting the needed supplies to match those demands for goods and services.

Ultimately though, I agree with the gist of your criticism of his criticism. All his criticism really means is that central planning has a severe information deficiency compared to markets. Not that it's impossible to overcome them, not that markets are perfect at this, not that whatever distribution of resources that result from markets is a just distribution, and certainly not that profit is always an indication of activity that's beneficial to society!

I'd always assumed those "commercial" burgers were made of fake foodstuffs.


...just like the ones they sell. *rimshot*

I'd argue there are stupid things that people do that always constitute reckless endangerment, like driving drunk, that should be illegal outright because people have lousy judgment (especially when drunk).

If someone runs a red light or a stop sign, or speeds in the middle of nowhere, chances are the penalties are going to be minor, if the law gets enforced at all.

Connecting with an actual victim, while doing something clearly proscribed by law, has harsh penalties. Connecting with a victim, when you were obeying all the right laws, and did your best to avoid the accident, but failed, carries a small penalty, or possibly no penalty at all depending on circumstances.

Part of having law exist in cases like this are to help decide who's the victim when things occur (was it the guy who ran the red light while drunk at fault, or the person obeying the signal?), and some of it to avoid the damage done when people misjudge their abilities (initially lowering the speed limits from 65 to 55 made a large reduction in highway fatalities). I also think limiting the amount of toxins you can legally put into foodstuffs is also fair game for the same reasons.

I don't think laws prohibiting recreational drugs, or gay marriage are tyrannical; ineffective and prejudicial perhaps, but not tyrannical.

As for whether a law is tyrannical or not, I don't think there's a simple set of criteria. To me, I usually define tyranny more along the lines of how the laws are made than on what the law itself is.

Dictators are tyrannical because they alone create the law, and are free to modify it at whim, and cannot have their proclamations challenged. The United States' government isn't tyrannical, because when it's working properly, the law is created by elected representatives, approved by an executive, and if necessary clarified or overturned by the courts.

I've often pondered whether it's appropriate to call George W. Bush a tyrant or not. He had a congress that followed his every whim (the slim Democratic majority from 2006-2008 approved most of his whims, but not every), a supreme court that first installed him to the Presidency, then upheld almost every single one of his extra-constitutional actions, and he listened to no one, and felt himself unconstrained by law or constitution when he thought he was right (and he often felt quite sure of himself).

As of right now, I think it's inconclusive as to whether he fully acted as a tyrant, or merely set up a legal precedent for ignoring the conventions that are supposed to prevent tyranny from breaking out.

I think we need investigations, and ultimately a post-administrative judgment made decrying what he did and reaffirming that law and the Constitution trumps a President's powers, even in extremes, and even if he hires lawyers who write him a note saying he has the authority to do whatever he damn well likes in the name of "national security".

>> ^jwray:
You presume that the price of food isn't going to go through the roof when the shit hits the fan. An average house could easily hold 20 cubic meters of grain, or other foodstuffs. In the worst case scenario, nearly everyone's top priority would be acquiring essential housing and food. Everything else is just a luxury.


No, I'm pretty sure he's accounting for that. When the dollar unit gets inflated and made less scarce, the price measured in those dollar units goes up by that debasement, including gold. That gold/oil chart I showed you earlier should have convinced you of that. The value of oil relative to gold never changed much, but both went up relative to dollars because that was what was being debased. Gold CAN'T be debased. You can't print 1 billion ounces of gold in a back room at the drop of a hat. You can do that with a fiat monetary unit. You can't do it with an inherently rare physical product which has to be mined from the Earth.

You're also not understanding what a depression is. It isn't armageddon in a vacuum. People are still employing each other and needing to pay each other, and trading with each other for a variety of products and services. Barter is ridiculously inefficient and cannot lead you back to the modern economy you once knew and stay there, you have to have money, a common means of exchange. In the Weimar hyperinflation of the 20s, many people were using cigarettes as money. Lastly, I tried to point out to you that food spoils, livestock requires upkeep and can die (lol, how'd you like to have your life savings in chickens wiped out by foxes, or a tornado, or disease), both are difficult to transport and have very high weight to value ratios, and frankly you can't hide them very well. If you hadn't paid someone to store it (provided you had what they wanted), someone could easily see you had craploads of wheat in your house (provided you had one) and raid it, killing you and your family. It is, after all, a depression full of desperate poor people. Not a smart idea. Or hey, what if there was a fire? Gold would survive it. Paper wouldn't, food wouldn't, oil wouldn't.

And imstellar, I appreciate your response and I generally think you have a good argument, but I think we need to focus on getting rid of the obvious first. It's a bit early to argue for voluntary taxation when we can't get rid of inflation and mandatory social programs for what should be market services. I find them unpalatable and dishonest relative to taxes.

You presume that the price of food isn't going to go through the roof when the shit hits the fan. An average house could easily hold 20 cubic meters of grain, or other foodstuffs. In the worst case scenario, nearly everyone's top priority would be acquiring essential housing and food. Everything else is just a luxury.

So if you honestly believe this, we can expect to see a video on the sift, starring you, where you liquidate your bank account and fill your house with several tons of wheat? Or is this one of those things where you don't really believe what you say, but keep saying it so you don't have to admit your beliefs are incompatible with reality?

$1,000 of gold is ~1oz...approximately a single gold coin you can fit in your pocket
$1,000 of wheat is ~50 bushels, or 3000 lbs...
So to store a one year supply of emergency savings, $12,000, you would need 12 gold coins or 36,000 lbs of wheat.

If oil becomes very scarce, farmers won't be able to transport their crops, and the price of food relative to gold will go way up. An average house could easily hold 20 cubic meters of grain, or other foodstuffs. In the worst case scenario, nearly everyone's top priority would be acquiring essential housing and food, and having your own stockpile is safer than relying on trade for your food. Everything but food and shelter is just a luxury. I wouldn't have to barter because I would have all the food I need for a year in case transportation infrastructure breaks down. And when my neighbors are starving, they will pay anything for food. Even under a gold standard, inflation is possible when the amount of goods in the market decreases (while the money supply remains constant). Inflation is based primarily on the ratio between the money supply and the amount of real goods and services available. Any war can reduce the supply of goods and services, thereby reducing the amount of goods and services you can buy with a fixed quantity of gold.

Great post! From Y/T: ""An abridged history of American-centric warfare, from WWII to present day, told through the foods of the countries in conflict.

For the official cheat sheet (breakdown of the foodstuffs), visit:
http://homepage.mac.com/stefannadelma...

For a breakdown of the actual battles portrayed in the film, visit:
http://homepage.mac.com/stefannadelma... ""

Arvana (today is one of my "self-awareness/reflection" days so please, do not hesitate to tell me if I'm being improper or disrespecting)
I think we're both showing our associations here - I'm uncomfortably familiar with pharma-corp and formerly associated in many more ways than I care to remember. So perhaps my grudge is coloring my potential view of agribusiness. Funny because I was raised by granola types and was volunteering at the local food co-op at age 12. I do understand that agribusiness (like any mega conglomerate of corporations) has a vested interest in profit-before-people and as to Monsanto - totally in agreement with you and Dag. However, let us not forget that here in America and other "first world" countries we have a huge assortment of selection when it comes to food and foodstuffs. Much like a recent vid whereby a lady espoused the evils of canned soup and potato chips, I take issue (as I usually do no matter what teh subject) with blanketting terms and lumping all choices into one - canned soup is available in low sodium varieties just as food can easily be gotten from local businesses rather than agribusinesses like Monsanto. I know because I've worked food industry for nearly two decades (restaurants and such) Every place I've been, there's ALWAYS a farmer's market somewhere. In some small towns, all you HAVE is local farming unless you want something exotic. Many resaurants are now trying to purchase local-only.
Okay enough blathering.
As to the testing; I wasn't sayign teh FDA helps any... I don't doubt they are waving anything Monsanto through. Regardless of Monsanto's evil business practices though (and yes, Dag, that is pretty evil) the results of genetically modifying a plant so that it will be resistant to a poison is a bad thing? ...wha? You can't believe that ANY genetic modification to a plant is a bad thing... honestly guys, plants have been modified way past their natural state already... the sheer number of selection among tomatoes, day lilies (my birthmother bred those and you wouldn't BELIEVE how many hundreds there are) and APPLES should tell you how prevelant genetic mucking is. So farmers do it by selecting breeding, and corporations do it by hiring a scientist and working it out in theory first. What's the difference? Well the scientist does it scientifically and doesn't have to waste time breeding something over and over HOPING things breed true.
Why is science okay when we debate the origins of the universe but suddenly become evil when we are talking about food?
Science is safe enough for yall to trust your health to when it comes to miracle drugs but not when it comes to figuring out how to breed better plants?

As usual, Penn and Teller take a good argument and go strawman-crazy on it. There's no conflict between organic growing and GE in fact the two can easily work in tandem and already have for a long time now. Does anyone really believe that the produce the see in the grocery stores now is genetically the same as produce that was growing wild a hundred years ago? Farmers have been "genetically engineering" food for centuries, no thousands of years with cross-breeding in order to yield better and more resistant crops.
I do think the world should know more about Norman Borlaug and appreciate all he's done in the name of feeding the hungry. But to act as if organic farming is somehow at odds with genetic engineering is totally stupid. Of course we should be concerned about modified food, and at the same time there are safer ways to farm than loading our crops with chemicals. I don't understand how they can put GE and pesticides in the same program as if the latter's okay just because the former might be!
But as to "frankenfood" that is just silly. Does anyone really think agribusiness can afford the lawsuits and mass degradation that would ensue were they to put out untested foodstuffs? Come on people! Genetically engineering food IS tested and rigorously so - these people ARE scientists and believe it or not, they DO know a lot about what they're doing.
If science claimed to have a cure for AIDs or Parkinson's based on genetic engineering people would be screaming for it to be released and used even if it weren't fully tested - oh wait, people already do that.
But if it's farming, everyone wants to believe the agribusiness is out to kill everyone with untested food? That's Bullshit! I'll believe in agribusiness long before I believe in pharma-corp.

UmberGryphon, just because he's pro-western doesn't mean this is right. Who gives a f*ck about what Bush does because he represents only a small percent of the narrowminded people in this country. This is OFFENSIVE to western culture!!! I don't care if he's pro-Russia or pro-Guam, suppression of the voice of the people by any means is just wrong. If Bush could actually do the right thing, it would be to put a stop to THIS.

Be thankful while you can, that the internet is still here. Despite Comedy Central's ban on foreign counties, China's excessive filtering and arresting of dissenting bloggers, North Korea's total blockade of anything foreign (hell, they praised their God-like leader when he FINALLY allowed an eye surgeon to come in and fix something that us Westerners don't even know about because we've almost entirely fixed the problem) and American capitalist dictorial corporations selling out for a few dollars despite the know consequences of their toxin filled toys, bio-pirated foodstuff, and slave labor to name a few.

To all you Americans, please, don't ever let this happen in our country. And to our leaders . . . Jesus Christ, do something right for once!

Oh, right. The genious hypothesis that throngs of secret government ninjas repeatedly infiltrated the two towers and apparently 7WT dressed as UPS delivery boys for months and perhaps years on end before 9/11/01 planting these so-called "much more advanced" military bombs that explode without actually generate any sound, yet are capable of collapsing a building. But wait, call me stupid but anything that explodes causes noise as a result of the compression of sound waves spreading out from the source. So, the military must have even more advanced technologies than we conspiracy theorists were aware!

Perhaps they are so advanced they no longer even need bombs. Perhaps there were invisible laser beams being fired from a distance. Or is more likely that they government has simply developed termites with diamond teeth and an appetite for metal and they were simultaneously all released from their well-hidden hibernation tubes located on each floor right near the appropriate support beams within the walls? And of course since these much more advanced termites have been in hibernation for years, they had quite the appetite and they powered through the building so quickly that dust and smoke started pouring out which is why people mistakenly believe there was a fire in the building. Then I guess to leave no evidence behind, they must have had jet-packs attached so when the building came down they were able to fly away hidden in the clouds of smoke only to be captured later and assassinated alongside all the secret govnernment ninjas so they could never reveal in what they had participated.

Maybe the ninjas in fact delivered newborn babies into the walls of the buildings on every floor 10 years ago with a decade worth of foodstuffs and a How-To manual for the included welding kit they would instinctively know to break open on the morning of 9/11. Hmm, but they'd need to use the bathroom and might die of boredom... Perhaps they were really robots with advanced military laser beams that cut through all the major supports for the building.

Oh, but wait, the video that dictates what I'm supposed to believe says from "explosive energy" that caused the "hot dust clouds." Looks like I'm back at square one...

Help me out here. There are just so many very plausible, believable, realistic theories that it's hard to determine with which one I should embarass myself by announcing my enormous gullibility to the world.

Or wait, maybe gorgonheap has a point: Code in the united states requires that buildings over 3 stories high be able to collapse in on themselves so as not to damage, or to minimize damage to surrounding structures.
Nah, he's out of his mind. It was the government with their advanced ninja non-exploding-bomb weapons. Everyone knows it.