Pinkbike will be undergoing scheduled maintenance on May 29 at 9pm PST for up to 6 hours. We apologize for any inconvenience caused during this time.
Powered by Outside

The USA thread

Author Message
flag carnell
O+
Posted: Feb 21, 2009 at 10:25 Quote
llessurretneprac wrote:
gibson19 wrote:
llessurretneprac wrote:

That is not a choice. That is similiar to saying, "If you don't do this, I'll shoot you. You have a choice."

“We are forced to grow pineapples and bananas for other people, while there is less corn to feed our own populations. It is obvious that we are on the wrong track, that we are abusing our natural resources.” - Costa Rican farmer


K heres the thing... When two countries trade... Both end up with more resources... so in this case costa rica is better at making pineapple and bananas and America is better at making corn... So if they both specialize and then trade their goods they can end up with more than they could have produce on its own...

But people cannot live off pineapples and bananas... I don't think you understand what a cash crop is.

Of course not but they are free to trade with whomever they want, and if you want to get technical there was a first nations band that urvived solely on the bounty of the sea, they didnt farm at all.
flag carnell
O+
Posted: Feb 21, 2009 at 10:26 Quote
scrippsranchDJ wrote:
gnarnell wrote:
gibson19 wrote:


K heres the thing... When two countries trade... Both end up with more resources... so in this case costa rica is better at making pineapple and bananas and America is better at making corn... So if they both specialize and then trade their goods they can end up with more than they could have produce on its own...

yeah but in many cases cost rican (im speaking hypothetically) land is bought by multi-national countries and then released to farmers to grow the goods and at low wage. So the wealthy and powerful have taken over a natives resource and exploited them. Had the multi national company not come, the costa rican farmer would be free to sell or trade his to whom he pleased.

If the land is owned by the farmers wouldn't they have the option to not sell their land? And if they did sell their land wouldn't it be for a large sum of money? Why would they sell their land if 1. they don't make stable profit or 2. it leaves them in a shittier situation then before.


Corrupt government sells land for farmer takes majority of money. Farmer is forced to sell or Company refuses to buy crops.
flag llessurretneprac
Posted: Feb 21, 2009 at 10:32 Quote
gnarnell wrote:
llessurretneprac wrote:
gibson19 wrote:


K heres the thing... When two countries trade... Both end up with more resources... so in this case costa rica is better at making pineapple and bananas and America is better at making corn... So if they both specialize and then trade their goods they can end up with more than they could have produce on its own...

But people cannot live off pineapples and bananas... I don't think you understand what a cash crop is.

Of course not but they are free to trade with whomever they want, and if you want to get technical there was a first nations band that urvived solely on the bounty of the sea, they didnt farm at all.

That's not how it works though... and the "bounty of the sea" thing is irrelevant. If everyone in your village is growing cash crops because they can't grow the crops they used to, they have nothing to eat. I have friends doing activist work in South America and they have told me of the problems first hand.
flag carnell
O+
Posted: Feb 21, 2009 at 11:07 Quote
What i'm saying is they wounldn't have to grow cash crops if the western world hadn't imposed capitalism on them.
flag llessurretneprac
Posted: Feb 21, 2009 at 11:11 Quote
gnarnell wrote:
What i'm saying is they wounldn't have to grow cash crops if the western world hadn't imposed capitalism on them.

I agree!
flag bonfire
Posted: Feb 21, 2009 at 16:12 Quote
Then they can starve. Simple as that. Without the US they would have nothing, a small wage is better than no wage.
flag llessurretneprac
Posted: Feb 21, 2009 at 16:22 Quote
bonfire- wrote:
Then they can starve. Simple as that. Without the US they would have nothing, a small wage is better than no wage.

You are wrong. A small wage and integration into the cash economy is worse than a traditional subsistence strategy.
flag bonfire
Posted: Feb 21, 2009 at 16:43 Quote
Nope. What makes it better? Isolationist principals are not the way to go in this modern world. Globalization is the way of the future.
flag carnell
O+
Posted: Feb 21, 2009 at 19:28 Quote
They have to survive on meager wages because the USA and other western countries have forced them to survive in effort to cut costs so profits can be increased and in turn give more wealth to the smallest minority. It all comes down to Greed 10% of the world holds 90% of the wealth. we could easily spread a little more to the poor of the world.

bigquotesWhat makes it better? Isolationist principals are not the way to go in this modern world. Globalization is the way of the future.

thats more of an unbacked up statment than a rebuttel, Don't a people have a right to decide if they wish to be isolationists? GLobalization is only the future because the rich have decided this it is.
flag scrippsranchDJ
Posted: Feb 21, 2009 at 21:20 Quote
gnarnell wrote:

Corrupt government sells land for farmer takes majority of money. Farmer is forced to sell or Company refuses to buy crops.

That doesn't make sense. Farmer is forced to sell or company refuses to buy crops? They weren't selling their crops to the company before they showed up, why would that matter?
flag marty660
Posted: Feb 21, 2009 at 21:24 Quote
scrippsranchDJ wrote:
gnarnell wrote:

Corrupt government sells land for farmer takes majority of money. Farmer is forced to sell or Company refuses to buy crops.

That doesn't make sense. Farmer is forced to sell or company refuses to buy crops? They weren't selling their crops to the company before they showed up, why would that matter?

There is SOOO much bullshit that goes down overseas, you have no clue.
A lot of Western wealth comes right off of the backs of developing countries. And we don't do it fair, either - a good example is what happened in Bolivia a few years ago. This American company bought the already pathetic water systems from the Bolivian government. It gave them rights to all water in Bolivia - even rain water. They charged ridiculous prices for it and many Bolivians went under. They ended up having massive riots about it, the Yanks got kicked out thank god.
flag carnell
O+
Posted: Feb 21, 2009 at 21:25 Quote
A farmer comes to own some plot of a land by whatever means.

Realizes that there is a large corporation willing to buy his large cash crop, so instead of diversifying crops concentrates on a single crop and therefore is locked in (keep in mind there isn't the same means of insurance as we have here).

Corporation looking to cut costs offers to buy farm and employ farmer, threatens farmer that if he/she does not accept they will not buy that farmers crop in the future.

Farmer who only has one single type of crop and no other buyers, and little to savings agrees to sale if only to survive.
flag scrippsranchDJ
Posted: Feb 21, 2009 at 21:35 Quote
gnarnell wrote:
A farmer comes to own some plot of a land by whatever means.

Realizes that there is a large corporation willing to buy his large cash crop, so instead of diversifying crops concentrates on a single crop and therefore is locked in (keep in mind there isn't the same means of insurance as we have here).

Corporation looking to cut costs offers to buy farm and employ farmer, threatens farmer that if he/she does not accept they will not buy that farmers crop in the future.

Farmer who only has one single type of crop and no other buyers, and little to savings agrees to sale if only to survive.

Still doesn't make sense. If the farmer owned the land before the company showed up, then he is not growing the cash crops yet. The company is not buying their produce to begin with so threatening them with not buying their crops means nothing. Get what I'm saying?
flag carnell
O+
Posted: Feb 21, 2009 at 21:41 Quote
i get what your saying but when the farmer realizes he can get paid consistantly for his crop he will switch.
flag llessurretneprac
Posted: Feb 22, 2009 at 0:28 Quote
gnarnell wrote:
They have to survive on meager wages because the USA and other western countries have forced them to survive in effort to cut costs so profits can be increased and in turn give more wealth to the smallest minority. It all comes down to Greed 10% of the world holds 90% of the wealth. we could easily spread a little more to the poor of the world.

bigquotesWhat makes it better? Isolationist principals are not the way to go in this modern world. Globalization is the way of the future.

thats more of an unbacked up statment than a rebuttel, Don't a people have a right to decide if they wish to be isolationists? GLobalization is only the future because the rich have decided this it is.

Well put.

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.011009
Mobile Version of Website