🚀 go-pugleaf

 
 
In ca.politics dlow@ppg01.sc.hp.com (Danny Low) said: 
 
 
>Jim Barrett (jimbar@webe.hooked.net) wrote: : It still makes sense that  
>somesome grown closer is ultimately less 
>: expensive. There is a cost of moving the produce.  
> 
>No it does not. You are very ignorant of the economics of growing and
marketing  
>food. Transportation cost is ONLY ONE of many costs associated with
farming.  
>Farming is still very labor intensive with many types of crops. Cheap
labor can  
>make long distance transportation cost insignificant. Water is also
another  
>cost. In some areas it falls free from the skies most of the time. In
other  
>areas, costly irrigation systems must be used. These are just two of the
many  
>costs that can make it cheaper to grow food in place and transported to  
>another. 
> 
 
------------------------------ 
Let me put it even more simply (being that I am ignorent and tend toward
simplicity).  
 
 
All else being equal it would be preferable to buy produce that is grown
closer to you than to buy produce that is grown farther away.  
 
 
 
 
 
--------------------------------- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
>: The reports I have heard (CNN news for one) suggest that the percentage
of 
>: organically grown produce eaten in California is 1%. The prediction is
that 
>: it will be 10% by the end of the century. This is a substantial
reversal. 
> 
>It is NOT a substantial reversal. It does not even become a reversal until
51%  
>of the food is grown organically. All you are saying is that there are a
large  
>number of people with more dollars than sense who are willing to pay more
for  
>their food. The local Coop Market sells both organic and chemically grown
food.  
>There is a substantial price difference but no difference in quality that
I can  
>see or taste. 
> 
 
 
 
 
This is a substantial reversal of a trend. I would invest in the organic
produce market since it is expanding. 
 
 
Just because you can't see or taste something does not mean it isn't bad
for you. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
>: 1.) It would be better for both the environment and the economy if we
could 
>: grow as much of our food locally as we can.  
> 
>This is highly questionable. North Africa used to be the prime source of
grains  
>for Rome. So the practice of growing food elsewhere existed back when all 

>farming was organic and transportation was also organic. You cannot get
more  
>organic that sailing ships and slave rowers. 
> 
 
 
You are right that when slaves rowed ships that the environmental problems
from transportation were less. This is not a solution that we probably want
to engage in. 
 
 
>: 2.) It would be better for both the environment and the economy if we
could 
>: grow food without the use of chemicals. 
> 
>There is some truth in the "environment" part but the "economy" is
extremely  
>questionable. You show a significant ignorance of economics when it comes
to  
>farming that your judgement here is not something I consider valid. 
> 
 
 
If you consider it "extremely questionable" (regardless of you perceptions
of my knowlege of economics), you at least admit that there is some
possibility. So I will state it as follows. 
 
There is some possibility that it would be better for the economy if we
grew food without the use of chemicals. 
 
 
 
 
 
I'm trying to get you to agree to something so that we can work towards
solutions. Since you have shot down everything I say and consider my
judgement to be invalid maybe you have some suggestions as to how we can
promoter both a healthy economy and a healthy environment. If you are not
at all interested in this and only wish to have the last word then just say
so and I will go on.: