Re: save the world


Straydog wrote:
(quoted material at end)

I have rarely "pissed" on you. I have provided explanations, summaries of
history, and relevant facts. I will give you credit for some things, but I
do not accept most of your arguments, predictions, and understandings. I

think you have -to the extent that I stopped responding on many
ocassions.

read a little of what you wrote below and a return to an agrarian society
in the USA is just not going to happen. No one is going to disassemble all
the buildings, skyscrapers, and appartment complexes in the big cities and
organize a re-distribution of people out to the big land areas that are
all owned by agribusiness. Only if we have a revolution like Russia in
1917 or Cuba 50 years ago might that happen, and besides, when those
revolutions took place, Moscow was not disassembled and neither was Havana

as you say, re-distribution of farm land need not lead to cities being
dismantled.

Cuba. India will have some place in history again but I don't see it
becoming a modern country any time soon and China is already so far ahead
of India in its development and industry and does not have the caste
problem and the problem of "untouchables" and the problem with many many
more languages, ethnic, and religious groups that you have. There are all

we are moving in the direction of a uniform civil code -which is an
extension of a civil code that the British handed out to India (and to
other colonies -notably Iraq). It doesn't necessarily mean that the
country will prosper as a result -but just leads to the creation of a
more liberal/secular society.

of these other developing countries and they are betting all of their
future on providing service to Japan, USA, Europe, and there is not enough
work for all of them and if they undercut India, then India will stop
developing.


good for hate-mongers who are wishing India dead.

Otherwise, because of all of the above I am less interested to discuss
things with you any more and I've noticed that several other guys on this
no probs.

newsgroup also perceive your knowledge as both weak and narrow.

their opinion is not relevant to me. Its only the facts that matter.

regards
-kamal

===== no change to below, included for reference and context =====

On Fri, 9 Feb 2006, Kamal R. Prasad wrote:

since you seem to be pissing a lot less here -I will take the trouble
of responding.

Straydog wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2006, Kamal R. Prasad wrote:

[snip]

I don't disagree that there might be more to it than what meets the
eye. I just haven't found out that magic recipe that entitles americans
to a higher std of living. They say it is agriculture and when I
suggested that they go back to farming -they say the land is not
suitable in most parts of the country for that.

That is such a gross mischaracterization of what I wrote as to
constitute virtually an outright LIE!. The U.S. has historically
gained significanty wealth from its agriculture, and continues
to do so. That does not mean that your average urban American

think again .. if you say that americans are wealthy because they have
inherited by historical accident a huge piece of arable land (your
words) -then shouldn't it be possible for all americans to go back to
farming and continue living that way -unaffected by globalization and a
shift of industries?

The idea that US people could go back to subsistence farming "unaffected
by globalization" makes no sense. If globalization _causes_ US people to
go to farming, then this will happen _because_ globalization caused it and
so it cannot happen "unaffected by globalization". Furthermore, if a lot

globalization will cause them to go back to farming -but once they take
to farming, their livelihood will not be impacted by globalization
because whoever is your replacement -he will have to be physically
present in the US and you can vote that out.

of US land is owned by foreign interests, then it will be a 21st century
version of middle age feudalism under which US people will farm.

Every time you come up with a simple idea, it is always an idea that has
complex ramifications that you have no idea about. 200-400 years ago the
native American people were so few and the land so much that Europeans who
came here, and the children who were born here from them, could just take
large amounts of land without paying for it. In Europe, all (99%) land was

and when the Us returns to the agrarian age - many of the recent
migrants who came to work in the services sector will go back to where
they came from. A shift of industries is already causing that -but the
full impact will not be felt immediately. You have a ton of illegals
working in farms. You can send them all out and take control of your
own farms. Your std of living will plummet but at least you will have a
source of livelihood.Many of the amish farmers seem to be living a
simple, contended life and you may want to get a clue from them.


owned by the (rich) barrons or the church and no one could buy land and
own it and live in freedom. That land just was never available to the
average person at any price and the feudal system kept people poor.

yeah -the same applies to India. We have some renegade groups
(naxallites) hell-bent on breaking that system using armed struggle.
Even in the field of computers, it is really difficult for one to
become self-employed and one is always dependent on corporations.

can go off and earn a living on a subsistence farm, because
they don't know how to any more than you do, as you've shown
in great depth with your ridiculous posts on the subject. And

if someone doesn't know a trade -he can be educated about it.

In the European guilds, you could learn a trade and work as an apprentice
(slave), but the guild determined prices, and even if you would be allowed
by the guild to go into business! This is in the books. Guilds had
monopoly power.

that doesn't counter my point that if the land is suitable and you
don't know farming -it can very well be learnt.

But to
produce incredible amounts of wealth through farming -you do need a lot
of arable land.

And, either a lot of slaves or modern agricultural technique AND
fertilizer AND modern genetically modified crops.

that doesn't counter my point that your land isn't the source of
wealth/finance your lifestyle and it could never be -if all americans
returned to farming.

The land is a necessary condition and the skill is the
sufficient condition.

It is more than that. It is economies of scale and assets. Small farmers
in the US today who are successful are very specialized and in niche
businesses. You don't know this. Only if we had an economic collapse and a
government revolution followed by "agrarian reform" (i.e. give title of
land owned by the big business back to individuals) could we have some
peasant-serf farming again, or what is more likely is a return of

yes -that is what I meant. Americans don't stand much of a chance in
competing for jobs in manufacturing/services etc.. The competition
overseas beats you hands down in terms of productivity/labour costs. So
forget about things you cannot compete for -and do something where
there is no competition. The land is all yours and if foreigners own a
lot of it (as I suspect) -you can confiscate that and live in peace.
The bottom line is that a self-sufficient economy can better withstand
globalization than one which does nothing but spend.

something like the feudal system, or as in ancient times, landlords who
rented land to peasants for a fixed fee and if drought came, then because
the farmer could not pay the debt he would become a slave. This is in the
books.


it happens in practice in India -so I don't need the books for
reference. We had some land reforms to distribute land to the actual
tillers -it met with limited success. The govt tries to keep things
under control by providing free electricity/subsidiezed pesticide etc
to farmers -but there are some vested interests that ensure that most
of the subsidies are garnered by big farmers (who are already rich).
Over and above all of that, the weather plays a pivotal role on their
lives and consequently on the economy.

there isn't enough good land for the poor productivity of
subsistence farming too feed everyone, which is not due to the
lack of good farm land on the whole, but due to the primitive
agricultural techniques of subsistence farming. If every one of
the 6 billion people on Earth followed your suggestion, billions
of them would starve. And yes, a significant portion of the U.S.,

they would have to follow my suggestion if they wanted a higher std of
living for themselves without being a lot more productive and without
sitting on a ton of natural resources. I keep hearing from the Keatings
and what not about how globalization is affecting their std of living
and is a race to the bottom. But I havem't a clue of what entitled them
to a higher std of living than anybody else in the first place. Is it a
divine decree by any chance?

What entitles rich and powerful people to a higher standard of living?

the fact that they happened to be born rich!! The investor class
doesn't need to show productivity or sign up for work to life lavishly.
Their investments and a return on it allows them to enjoy life with no
worries.

And, what entitles them to take from the poor anything that they need to
have this higher standard of living? Think about that.

nothing entitles them -but to eanr your livelihood, you need to either
be competitive or do away with the competition, so that the rich do
employ you at favourable terms. The latter isn't possible with
services/manufacturing jobs where the competition beats you hands down
-so I suggested agriculture.

What entitles your caste system in India to the right to deny to 250
million "untouchables" a life?


nothing entitles them and it looks like you are looking for an excuse
here. I told you before the caste system cannot be implemented without
breaking the law!!

such as mountains, isn't suitable for farming, but that's the case
in most countries.

In the himalayas, they do terrace farming and at more than 5000 ft
above sea level, they grow apples. The land is unsuitable for many
types of agricultural produce, but there is always some type of crop
that can be transplanted without a historical precedent to yield a good
harvest.

The terrace farming is still not well understood by modern farming science

which means the science isn't all that modern:-).

and is partly not relevant to soil conditions elsewhere. Farming in
ancient times in Indonesia (Jared Diamond) and south America (Charles
Mann) is also based on a very different soil situation. Modern (US)
farming techniques don't work there.


Pesticides are an invention of modern farming techniques and it looks
like a disaster to me.


If you have any honor you'll apologize for shameful rhetorical
abuse.


Im not trying to indulge in rhetoric -and Im sorry if I sounded that
way. But will you ever get to answering the bigger question about what
entitles you to a better std of living or what finances the american
consumer's import binge?

You have not answered very many of my questions, either, and for many
topics you do not have a detailed understanding of the complexity or

how about you pay attention to the things I know and forget about the
things I don't know? Many of the questions that i have posed are ones
to which I cannot find an answer and do not expect/have not found a
suitable answer from you.

depth. I will give you credit for knowing english and reading and
is that an achievement of sorts?

responding to our various posts, but I do not see in you a person willing
to learn more and new things except from your own local sources.


yeah -I am a bit old-fashioned without being chronologically old. On
the work front -I have changed my career so that I do not spend time
learning anything new!!

[snip]

Nonsense. Most of the basic inventions known to mankind originated in
Asia.

That's an irrelevant historical accident.


If we could invent stuff in the past, there is good reason to believe
we can do it again. The label of being parasitic on the west's
inventions may not hold true for long -on account of that.

All areas of the earth near the equator had periods of "empire" followed
by declines into obscurity, sometimes multiple cycles, and in some areas
the heights were higher than for other areas. Sometimes technology spread
and sometimes it did not. It is not a question of being a parasite. Most

this looks like it is at variance with your and others' posts wherein
they say that we invented the transistor, the computer etc,, and so the
industry belongs to us. Many of the tools used by mankind before this
invention or to arrive at this invention were made in Asia (the number
zero, the paper, gunpowder, algebra etc..) . So, you probably owe some
of your IP to people in asia before you claim royalty from them.
(Everytime you use toilet paper, you should send some money to Egypt
which invented the paper from a plant named papyrus. ) What I would
like you to know is that just as empires come and go, different
societies start and stop inventing when they go through their social
upheavals. During the dark ages, many flourishing civilizations in Asia
came down crashing esp so after the advent of Islam. If they sound
primitive today it isn't because they are incapable of pushing the
envelope.

western inventions were free to be adopted (our schools were always open
to foreigners) or bought or licensed or stolen. The west never had walls
at the border, only that foreigners had to come with money to pay tuition.
Lots of them stayed in the west after they came. Why do you have a problem
acknowledging that so much of your recent growth in wealth and technology
is because the rich and powerful (CEOs) in the US are sending money to
support so many jobs in your country (by taking those jobs out of the US).

what are the chances that they would send those jobs if people here
didn't sweat it out and provide them with a return on investment? Why
would they be interested in removing poverty if it involves creating
poverty back home?

You had decades of mostly communism/socialism and it did almost nothing
for your people and the dust they lived in. And, all along you side with

No -the educational system in India is a result of decisions taken by
our politicians. Companies send hi-tech work here not because it is a
bowl of dust, but because the education system allows them to hire
personnel to get the job done. There is no shortage of poor people on
this planet -but the only poor people they will hire are the ones who
can do the job. If that isn't a requirement -then they might as well
not hire anybody and save even more money.

the rights of the few rich CEOs to do all this and you care nothing for
people who are poor, have no power, or once had jobs that they earned and
worked for but no longer have those jobs. I would like you to explain
yourself. Otherwise, you have the morality and ethics of a theif.


if you read the article from newsweek that I posted about the pump -you
will see the author is an american and supports people whose jobs have
been moved overseas due to globalization. He has the same views about
private equity/capital that i do and unlike me -he doesn't stand to
benefit from globalizaiton, meaning he is an american and his audience
is probably middle class american too. So, you may want to re-read that
article before indulging in conspiracy theories.

regards
-kamal



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: save the world
    ... suggested that they go back to farming -they say the land is not ... That does not mean that your average urban American ... inherited by historical accident a huge piece of arable land (your ... by globalization" makes no sense. ...
    (sci.research.careers)
  • Re: save the world
    ... Much of the unused land isn't suitable for agriculture. ... the mechanization of farming. ... or wealth or all of the seven wonders belong to the american public. ...
    (sci.research.careers)
  • Re: save the world
    ... to a higher std of living. ... suggested that they go back to farming -they say the land is not ... inherited by historical accident a huge piece of arable land (your ... by globalization" makes no sense. ...
    (sci.research.careers)
  • Re: save the world
    ... No one is going to disassemble all the buildings, skyscrapers, and appartment complexes in the big cities and organize a re-distribution of people out to the big land areas that are all owned by agribusiness. ... to a higher std of living. ... suggested that they go back to farming -they say the land is not ... by globalization" makes no sense. ...
    (sci.research.careers)
  • Re: save the world
    ... to a higher std of living. ... suggested that they go back to farming -they say the land is not ... That does not mean that your average urban American ... inherited by historical accident a huge piece of arable land (your ...
    (sci.research.careers)
Loading