You say " because the thin rainforest soil is very soon eroded and depleted from commercial crops".
And then: " In an entirely free market, the soy producers would plunder the forests even worse." I know and they know and in a moment you will know that no commercial firm would dream of growing anything in the rainforest. This because the forest mostly grows above ground. The tree roots are shallow (which is why they can be pulled down with two tractors and a chain. The stupid governmental land reform settled peasants in the rain forest. They burned the trees and the ashes provided sustenance for the first year crops. Then nothing would grow and the government brought in fertilizers to keep their "land reform" program going. I doubt there is much in the way of 'commercial crops' grown. Hardwood is useful. Back when I looked at this, a hardwood tree would fetch $10,000 - probably much more now. Unfortunately, the hardwood doesn't grow in groves but singly - each may be quarter-mile from the next. There are probably patches of land within the forest that might be cultivable, but it isn't a 'commercial' proposition in your sense of the word. The cattle weren't in the rainforest but in the enormous area of privately owned land away from the forest. You are supposed to be a socialist but you have little to say about the expropriation of the peasant from the soil - as Marx would say. Instead you make silly little quips about McDonalds. I fear propaganda removes good thinking from the discussion. But perhaps that is all that can be expected from a callow youth. Harry ********************************* Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ********************************* -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph Reuss Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 6:21 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Futurework] Long-Distance Journey of a Fast-Food Order Harry Pollard wrote: > Working from memory, it seems to me that the rain forest > encompasses an area of 2.5 million square miles. > > If, as is mentioned 40% of this will be lost, my thought is that > a lot of Soya can be produced on one million square miles. But not for long, because the thin rainforest soil is very soon eroded and depleted from commercial crops, so they have to move on to new parcels of slashed forest. > Actually most of the land of Brazil is not much used but is held > by large landholders. It's probably changed now, but my favorite > is the 84,000 acre "cattle ranch" containing 200 animals. Cattle grazing is actually all that remains to do on the depleted soil... > It's probably government policy rather than the free market that > encourages Soya production. In an entirely free market, the soy producers would plunder the forests even worse. Would you say that McD is closer to government or to Free Market policies? Chris _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
