Harry Pollard wrote: > I copied your statement, but forgot to add un to profitable.
You also confuse other opposites, like legitimate costs with rip-off... > Meantime you say: > > " Cheap imports make domestic food production unprofitable > because in the presence of cheapo competition, expensive > food is hard to sell. " > > That's a funny attitude for a socialist to take. You want > food to be expensive for the poor, so the Bourgeoisie can > make their high profits. You still don't understand. Producing quality --without externalizing costs-- is expensive, even if the profits are zero. The high profits are made by the traders, not by the producers. In fact, it can be observed IRL that as "Free Trade" expands, the traders' profit margins increase, but the producers get ever less money for their produce! That's why the predator class pushes "Free Trade" and globalization in the first place. Part of the externalization of costs happens through cheap (subsidized) fuels that make it "worth" shipping stuff around the planet although it could be grown here just as well. A severe market distortion! You oppose subsidies, don't you? Then you should oppose fuel subsidies too. And if producers would get paid the true price of quality (by the consumer), then subsidies wouldn't be necessary. But in the food market, this would be wrong, because "we are what we eat", and any dollar "saved" for food quality will cost 10 dollars (or so) in increased healthcare costs. That's why ag subsidies for quality food producers are a good idea. But that's not what EU and USA provide -- on the contrary, their ag subsidies go to the biggest factory farmers which produce junk food while driving small quality farmers out of business. > "People get blinded by low price and forget about quality." > > But, if the quality is lower it isn't cheap. It's just a > lower price for a poorer quality good. You are well aware of > the "problem", which is that the imported food is just as > high quality but is cheaper. No, the imported food is of lower quality. Their food quality standards are much lower and the pollution is higher (e.g. old pesticides are still being used there that have long been outlawed here). It would be half as bad if consumers really had a choice to opt for quality. But the junk drives the quality stuff out of business! (both in food and non-food products) The market for expensive quality is too small! > You then make one of your delightful comments. > > "As usual you ignore the difference between legitimate high > price and illegitimate money-making." > > You call government action to deliberately raise prices to > the poor "a legitimate high price"? No, "a legitimate high price" means that the money is invested in real measures of quality production (e.g. organic farming requires more manpower and higher investments, planning etc.) instead of just being skimmed off by shareholders and managers for contributing nothing. As an economist you should know very well the difference between "real bang for the buck" and "soap-bubble rip-off", but you subscribe to predator economics that deliberately mixes up the two! > You should analyze those propaganda pamphlets you read a > little more carefully. They might be wrong. Indeed that's what you should do. You're caught in predator economics that maximizes externalization of costs and sells it as good for the poor. As we saw in New Orleans (and many other places), the opposite is true -- at the end of the day, the poor bear the brunt of externalized costs. And come to think of it, the poor are poor due to predator economics in the first place! Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
