How do you feed 9 billion people?

Jun 09, 2013
An international team of scientists has developed crop models to better forecast food production to feed a growing population -- projected to reach 9 billion by mid-century -- in the face of climate change. Credit: MSU

An international team of scientists has developed crop models to better forecast food production to feed a growing population – projected to reach 9 billion by mid-century – in the face of climate change.

In a paper appearing in Nature Climate Change, members of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project unveiled an all-encompassing modeling system that integrates multiple crop simulations with improved models. AgMIP's effort has produced new knowledge that better predicts global wheat yields while reducing political and socio-economic influences that can skew data and planning efforts, said Bruno Basso, Michigan State University ecosystem scientist and AgMIP member.

"Quantifying uncertainties is an important step to build confidence in future yield forecasts produced by crop models," said Basso, with MSU's geological sciences department and Kellogg Biological Station. "By using an ensemble of crop and , we can understand how increased in the atmosphere, along with temperature increases and precipitation changes, will affect wheat yield globally."

The improved crop models can help guide the world's developed and developing countries as they adapt to and create policies to improve food security and feed more people, he added.

Basso, part of MSU's Global Water Initiative, and his team of researchers developed the System Approach for Land-Use Sustainability model. SALUS is a new generation crop tool to forecast crop, soil, water, in current and future climates. It also can evaluate , planting dates, irrigation and fertilizer use and project crop yields and their impact on the land.

SALUS was initially designed by Joe Ritchie, MSU emeritus distinguished professor. Basso continued Ritchie's work and added new features to better predict the impact of agronomic management on crop yield over space and time.

"We can change the scenarios, run them simultaneously and compare their outcomes," Basso said. "It offers us a great framework to easily compare different land-management approaches and select the most efficient strategies to increase crop yield and reduce environmental impact such as nitrate leaching and greenhouse gas emission."

For the study, the team looked at simulated yield from 27 different wheat crop models. Through SALUS, Basso forecasted the impact of changes in temperature, precipitation and CO2 emissions on wheat yield from contrasting environment across the planet.

SALUS has been employed in several other projects monitoring grain yield and water use in water-sensitive areas, such as the Ogallala aquifer (spanning from South Dakota to Texas), Siberia, India and Africa.

"I have the ambitious goal to enhance scientific knowledge for living in a better world, and hopefully with less poverty and enough food for the planet," Basso said.

Explore further: Improving 'crop per drop' could boost global food security and water sustainability

More information: Uncertainty in simulating wheat yields under climate change, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate1916

Related Stories

New research links crop disease and climate change

Feb 28, 2012

Researchers from the University of Hertfordshire have investigated links between crop disease and climate change which impact our food growth and production - affecting our food security today and for future generations. ...

Recommended for you

New approach needed to deal with increased flood risk

12 minutes ago

Considering the impacts of climate change on flood risk may not be effective unless current risk is managed better, according to new research from the University of Bristol published today in the Journal ...

Researchers question emergency water treatment guidelines

19 hours ago

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) recommendations for treating water after a natural disaster or other emergencies call for more chlorine bleach than is necessary to kill disease-causing pathogens ...

European climate at the +2 C global warming threshold

21 hours ago

A global warming of 2 C relative to pre-industrial climate has been considered as a threshold which society should endeavor to remain below, in order to limit the dangerous effects of anthropogenic climate change.

User comments : 191

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JRi
3.8 / 5 (14) Jun 09, 2013
Better to concentrate on how not to ever get to the 9 billion number. There won't be any rain forest left to warm up that food by 2050, if population growth continues at current pace.
xel3241
2.5 / 5 (13) Jun 09, 2013
You feed 9 billion people by making better use of the food and water we already have. About 40% of the food grown on the Earth is wasted—an extreme travesty that kills millions. To feed even more people as we expand throughout the solar system in the latter 21st century, we need to move away from monocultures and develop farms as self-sustaining ecosystems, rather than as somehow independent of the remainder of the world.
grondilu
2 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2013
[remove this please]
BikeToAustralia
1.4 / 5 (14) Jun 09, 2013
My bet on the ways that will be used to control global population are war and disease. Saner, more pleasant ways are would show how mature and all-grown-up we are as a species. Krill, algae, mushrooms and bamboo are my bet on food sources. My dream is most of humanity migrates off-planet mines asteroids and lives in hollowed out asteroids. The humans living on Earth would be volunteers responsible for cleaning up the mess we have made of Earth. (edited spelling)
VINDOC
2.2 / 5 (17) Jun 09, 2013
The easiest way to feed 9,000,000,000 people is to stop using food as fuel and stop paying farmers not to grow crops.
Job001
1.5 / 5 (23) Jun 09, 2013
It's easy to feed 10 billion people. Quit obstructing the free market and assuming innovation does not exist. Problem solved!

The most likely result will be atomic energy and automation will provide intensive solutions where less than 1/4 acre of land are sufficient for a family. Existing aquaponics are already growing exponentially at individual and farm scales. Data shows more than half of the fish are now farmed fish rather than caught fish.
Further support for innovative energies potential to provide near zero marginal cost solutions on many fronts; modular, fusion, LENR+, wind, and solar. Cheap energy is coming which can be clearly seen by comparing the competing energy learning curves.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (29) Jun 09, 2013
"How do you feed 9 billion people?"
Get govts, especially more corrupt ones, out of the way and enable farmers to make a profit.
Shootist
1.9 / 5 (18) Jun 09, 2013
How do you feed 9 billion people?


Easy, "will that be paper or plastic".
freethinking
2.2 / 5 (30) Jun 09, 2013
There is no issues feeding 9 billion people once we get rid of corruption, big government interference, and crazy radical environmentalists.

Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (21) Jun 09, 2013
Well, that's at least three commenters that obviously slept through 2008...
DanDan303
1.8 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2013
Please, anything but wheat...
xel3241
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2013
@Job001, @freethinking:

"Crazy radical environmentalists" are probably the only ones stopping global warming from becoming bad enough to ruin or severely curtail much of the world's cropland (case in point: Indo-Gangetic Plain). "Big government interference" is actually helpful in many ways, as long as it doesn't go too far and is decoupled from at exactly the right moment; North Korea, for example, was the richer of the two Koreas until the 1970s. If it had chosen democratic socialism and moved to a mixed economy it would have been even richer than the South.

@Job001: Your statements on atomic energy have little bearing to the topic at hand, and are at best incoherent rambles.
BikeToAustralia
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 09, 2013
Proof of our grand wisdom will be in hindsight. When we look back on the past the picture will be sharper than our painting of the future.
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (15) Jun 09, 2013
"There is no issues feeding 9 billion people once we get rid of corruption, big government interference, and crazy radical environmentalists." - FreeTard

How many do you Fascists plan to kill this time?
socean
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2013
Here's one way to double food production.

http://phys.org/n...ost.html

That would be a good start.
socean
1.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2013
Thanks to the new husbandry technique known as mob herding. meat eaters will be happy to learn that beef and other grazing animals will still be plentiful and affordable. Plus they get to brag that they are helping to reverse global warming instead of contributing to it.

https://www.faceb...01268950
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (20) Jun 10, 2013
When even James Hansen has spilled the CO2 fertilization beans in his latest paper, the hyperventilating buffoonery of Phys.org headlines does real damage to science as a formerly noble occupation now become, evidently, just a cult, and a doomsday cult at that, dare I say religion?
arq
3.8 / 5 (8) Jun 10, 2013
The more the number of people increase... the more the number of people will become who cant access quality education, healthcare, clean water.
alfie_null
2.1 / 5 (9) Jun 10, 2013
Implying mass starvation is hyperbole. Rather, the end result will be that food will become incrementally more expensive. Some people will have to modify their selection of food. Perhaps less meat, for instance. Affluent people will be minimally affected, poor people more so.

We'll have regional starvation because of crop failure just like we do now. Focusing efforts on one crop like wheat (or corn) might not help, as it can't be grown in every region.

Regarding the comment on war: No. War is not an effective means of population control. Check it out - map world population vs. any war we have ever experienced.

My somewhat cynical thought on these predictive efforts: maybe of interest to futures traders?
RobPaulG
1.5 / 5 (12) Jun 10, 2013
Soylent Green. Duh.
TROJAN HORSE
1.5 / 5 (13) Jun 10, 2013
Well you release this food which has no nutrition at all therefore increasing cancer rate because all we eat today is glue just glue. Flour has no benefits apart from making you full and making you crap better. keep your GMO rubbish away from us.
Gigel
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 10, 2013
You teach them to feed themselves. It has always been so.

Have you heard about the underpopulation bomb? It's when people get fewer and older. The economy recesses, progress goes down and civilization enters a major crisis. It may be that the answer to the title question is in the opposite way: have more people that invent and bring solutions to problems.
socean
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2013
Sadly, it seems most people's vision of the future is that of scarcity, pollution, overpopulation, etc. Basically, an extrapolation of all our current problems.

I have a couple kids. I'm not willing to accept that vision of the future for their sake, even if it seems likely in some ways.

Do we ignore our problems, especially when they on a global scale? Of course not. But neither should we assume the worst, as if predicting that bad things can happen makes us wise. Anyone can forecast doom.

"WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!".. There, that should satisfy the naysayers.

Physorg is one forum for constructive, informed discussion. Instead of morbid fascination with our own demise, perhaps we could focus more on what opportunities we have to foment change. Something a little more astute than "its all the government's fault" would also be helpful.

ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (30) Jun 10, 2013
We'll have regional starvation because of crop failure just like we do now.

Not due to crop failures but to govt corruption and restrictions.
Regional crop failure should have little impact on global food production if markets are allowed to compensate.
So called anti-gouging laws promote shortages and rationing.
If the victims of OKC tornadoes or any disaster were willing to pay 2 or 3 times the going rate for food and water, there would be no shortages and soon the prices would drop as competitors flocked in and set up shop.
jdbertron
2.9 / 5 (15) Jun 10, 2013
Free the markets ?
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (30) Jun 10, 2013
Free the markets ?

Govts around the world have trade restrictions and subsides for their agriculture distorting market incentives and create shortages and impoverish farmers.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (26) Jun 10, 2013
How do you feed 9B people? Well you don't obviously, that would be self-defeating. You only feed 9B people if there are 11B people to feed.

This is an observation mind you, not an opinion.

Let me make a prediction. As soon as obamacare kicks in, clever pandemics will begin to appear, and the spectre of 20M in intensive care will not crash the health insurance industry.

This you must admit would be much quieter at least than continued Arab springs, summers, falls and winters, and regional nuclear war.

Things are A LOT worse than you have been led to believe. Interesting that the harbinger dan browns new book inferno is about overpop and pandemic.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (27) Jun 10, 2013
Free the markets ?

Govts around the world have trade restrictions and subsides for their agriculture distorting market incentives and create shortages and impoverish farmers.
Rygg why IS it that YOU are SO incessantly BLIND to the REALITY of OVERpopuLAtion? Is it because it negates your so obviously bankrupt notions of free markets sans economic cycles and the intrinsically corrupt nature of the human SPIRIT? Is THAT it?

They're not greedy ryggy they're only hungry. Capitalists are not greedy either, they are just desperate not to suffer the plight of their victims.
freethinking
2.1 / 5 (30) Jun 10, 2013
VD, how many sock puppets do you have? Must have a low opinion of yourself if you need to prop your opinions up with sock puppets!!!

You are just like every other Hezbollah Progressive. Lie, Cheat, Steal, vote often, have dead people vote for you.
Egleton
3.4 / 5 (11) Jun 10, 2013
Revisit the Limits to Growth charts. "Business as usual." It is all there for you in pretty colours.
Like it or loath it, we are going to have to go to the lagrange points.
Please dont bother me with your whines about how it all too hard.
Hard? You ain't seen nothing yet!
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (27) Jun 10, 2013
Revisit the Limits to Growth charts. "Business as usual." It is all there for you in pretty colours.
Like it or loath it, we are going to have to go to the lagrange points.
Please dont bother me with your whines about how it all too hard.
Hard? You ain't seen nothing yet!

Revisit "Models of Doom".
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (28) Jun 10, 2013
". It is my proposition that the human race has become a collective problem-solving machine, and it solves problems by changing its ways. It does so through invention driven often by the market: Scarcity drives up price; that encourages the development of alternatives and of efficiencies. It has happened often in history. ... The pessimists' mistake is extrapolationism: assuming that the future is just a bigger version of the past.""
"he most important thing to protect is the ability to make sure that we can get there — that the free market system is able to facilitate innovation and establish solutions.
Regulation, corruption and bad policies are the most dangerous aspects of all, and that's principally true in agriculture, where it can be a matter of life and death. That lesson was best demonstrated by the Great Famine of 1932-33 in the Soviet Union."
http://feedstuffs...ons-7166
mosahlah
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 10, 2013
@Job001, @freethinking:

"Crazy radical environmentalists" are probably the only ones stopping global warming from becoming bad enough to ruin or severely curtail much of the world's cropland (case in point: Indo-Gangetic Plain). "Big government interference" is actually helpful in many ways, as long as it doesn't go too far and is decoupled from at exactly the right moment; North Korea, for example, was the richer of the two Koreas until the 1970s. If it had chosen democratic socialism and moved to a mixed economy it would have been even richer than the south."


crazy radical environmentalists are stopping global warming from becoming bad? How exactly is that the case? Big govt interference is helpful as it would have made North Korea richer than the south? Maybe environmentalist did have a hand in the 2008-2012 recession and big govt would indeed explain it. But the Korea thing? Socialism making a country rich? You need to cut back on whatever you're smoking.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (28) Jun 10, 2013
"prosecuting price gougers makes life harder for storm victims.

Why do prices rise so radically after storms? There's a three-word answer: supply and demand. After massive storms, demand for tree removal services rises. Demand for building supplies rises. Demand for electric generators rises. Demand for basic groceries rises.

At the same time, supply of these goods and services might be falling."
" If houses are destroyed by a tornado, rising lumber prices tell someone in an unaffected area to think twice about building a new deck because the lumber is probably more valuable rebuilding houses. Rising gas prices tell people to think twice about burning scarce gas for a Sunday drive in the country"
http://www.forbes...ctims/2/
ScooterG
1.8 / 5 (23) Jun 10, 2013
The question is not how do you feed 9B, the question is will the 9B be able to pay for the food they require?

The production capability is there. It's just that farmers don't want to work for free, any more than any of you do.
Egleton
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 10, 2013
Revisit "Models of Doom".
Caling it funny names isn't going to make it go away.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (29) Jun 10, 2013
Revisit "Models of Doom".
Caling it funny names isn't going to make it go away.

"Models of Doom, by an interdisciplinary team at Sussex University's Science Policy Research Unit, examines the structure and assumptions of the MIT world models and a preliminary draft of Meadows' technical reports. Based on computer runs, it shows that forecasts of the world's future are very sensitive to a few key assumptions and suggests that the MIT assumptions are unduly pessimistic. Further, the Sussex scientists claim that the MIT methods, data, and predictions are faulty, that their world models--with their built-in Malthusian bias--do not accurately reflect reality."
Ehrlich lost is bet that commodity prices would rise.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (29) Jun 10, 2013
"As New Zealand and Australia demonstrate, along with American farmers of fruits, vegetables, livestock, and poultry, farmers can survive, and even thrive, without government subsidies. It is time to let the market determine what our farmers will grow, not the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington. It is time to get government out of agriculture entirely. Everyone—consumers, taxpayers, and farmers—will benefit."
http://capitalism...bsidies/
But then many produce and poultry farmers are subsidized by illegal alien labor.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (26) Jun 10, 2013
Why do prices rise so radically after storms? There's a three-word answer: supply and demand. After massive storms, demand for tree removal services rises. Demand for building supplies rises. Demand for electric generators rises. Demand for basic groceries rises
Why do prices always inexorably rise during the end of the prosperity phase of an economic bubble? Because families have been growing during the good times at a faster rate than the staples needed to sustain them.

And why does economic decline and collapse follow shortly thereafter? Come on rygg, you know the answer. 'One meal away from a revolution.'

These cycles have been going on for a lot lot longer than your pundits and apologists have been talking their way around them.

Who would invest in markets when they knew that collapse was inevitable? Answer - everyone. 401k gives us no choice. Just a deeper pool for the bloodsuckers to drink from.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (26) Jun 10, 2013
The question is not how do you feed 9B, the question is will the 9B be able to pay for the food they require?
Foreign aid is by definition something you dont need to pay for. At least initially. But the ultimate price to be paid is the blood of your children on the battlefield.

"There are well over 200 NGOs in the West Bank and Gaza, and 30% of the GDP here comes from international aid.
http://quitenorma...-planet/
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (27) Jun 10, 2013
When the population was 4B, the question was - How do we feed 5 Billion?
And with each subsequent billion increase, the question has been asked.
Now it's 9 billion and yet the fattest nation in world wastes 40% of its food.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (29) Jun 10, 2013
When the population was 4B, the question was - How do we feed 5 Billion?
And with each subsequent billion increase, the question has been asked.
Now it's 9 billion and yet the fattest nation in world wastes 40% of its food.

Socialists can't comprehend how billions of people can figure out ways to feed themselves without a centrally planned, top down economy.
ScooterG
2 / 5 (25) Jun 10, 2013
The question is not how do you feed 9B, the question is will the 9B be able to pay for the food they require?
Foreign aid is by definition something you dont need to pay for. At least initially. But the ultimate price to be paid is the blood of your children on the battlefield.

"There are well over 200 NGOs in the West Bank and Gaza, and 30% of the GDP here comes from international aid.
http://quitenorma...-planet/


So your answer to how to feed 9B people is simply "foreign aid"?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (27) Jun 10, 2013
Socialists can't comprehend how billions of people can figure out ways to feed themselves without a centrally planned, top down economy.
Who, these people?

"NAIROBI — A new study commissioned by the United Nations estimates 258,000 people died in Somalia as a result of food insecurity during a period of famine.

The joint report from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and the U.S.-funded Famine Early Warning Systems Network outlines the grim statistics from a period of food insecurity from October 2010 to April of last year.

According to the study, 133,000 children under the age of five died as a direct result of a lack of food, or because they were made too weak to fight off disease.

In the Lower Shabelle region of southern Somalia, at the heart of the famine, an estimated 18 percent of the child population died."
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (27) Jun 10, 2013
So your answer to how to feed 9B people is simply "foreign aid"?
Thats not MY answer but it is often the only answer left as religion-fueled population growth routinely exceeds the food supply.

MY ANSWER is to destroy the religions which cause the problem, which happens to be ALL of them. How can this be done? By exposing their lies, and by giving women other things to do besides making babies until it kills them.

But as history shows us, quite often the only way this is possible is by force. And we can see that this is how it is being done in the world today. Traditionally the best way is to divide the people up and cause them to fight one another.

We can watch the fruits of this Mechanism at work throughout the middle east. Does it really matter if one dies fighting against assad or for him? Both sides die with allahu ackbar on their lips because he is truly on both sides.
http://www.youtub...rSe35LJQ
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (29) Jun 10, 2013
"Though less publicized than the drought, of equal importance in triggering the famine was the simultaneous steep climb in the price of food globally."
{AGW/socialist mandates for ethanol was a factor.}

"The impact of conflict on famine has long been noted (Macrae and Zwi, 1992), but Somalia 2011–2012 offers new insights into several factors, including the role of the global war on terror (GWOT) and counter-insurgency legislation (Pantuliano et al., 2011). It was not a coincidence that the area affected by the famine was the area controlled by the Al-Shabaab insurgency."
http://www.scienc...1200003X
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (28) Jun 10, 2013
"Though less publicized than the drought, of equal importance in triggering the famine was the simultaneous steep climb in the price of food globally."
Right. So I guess somalis couldnt sell enough sand anymore to afford wheat chex. And freighters were getting too difficult to hijack. Whats there left to do but -die?
The impact of conflict on famine
What a load of shit. People forced to live in the desert because there is no room for them anywhere else. Because theres too MANY of them.

"133,000 children under the age of five died as a direct result of a lack of food, or because they were made too weak to fight off disease..."

Overpopulation CAUSES war, not the other way around.
Dug
2.2 / 5 (12) Jun 10, 2013
It would probably behoove all commenting to understand that 95% of human food production is dependent on petroluem and 85 % of that food production (and growing) is dependent on NPK fertilizers that are dependent petrochemicals for its production.

The interconnected dependency of our critical food production resources - and particularly those dependent on the economic scale of the current petroluem industry are lost on most people. Alternative energy will certainly replace much of peak petroleum's energy uses in transportation and electricity generation. However it won't supply the sources of the petrochemicals needed for even the current populations food production, nor will peak petroleum production's decline leave the current petrochemical/food production economies of scale in tact as we know them. Once the demand and scale required for petroleum transportation energy is necessarily replaced - the current surplus food production paradigms we currently have - will disappear.
Urgelt
3.1 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2013
MSU is well-known to be in the pocket of Big Ag.

Underlying this analysis is an assumption: that all you need to do to feed people (any number) is to meet their minimum daily caloric requirements. Big Ag loves this assumption, because it means foods are all interchangeable commodities. Not enough beans or rice? Feed 'em wheat or soy.

The assumption has been thoroughly discredited by nutrition science. Counting calories produced by the food industry does not take into account the many nutrients humans require to sustain good health.

The industrial diet is a diet of nutrient starvation. Be wary of Big Ag's foolish plans.
Howhot
4 / 5 (10) Jun 10, 2013
I hate to say it, but @TheGhostofOtto1923 is being soberly realistic.
How do you feed 9B people? Well you don't obviously, that would be self-defeating. You only feed 9B people if there are 11B people to feed.

Within the context of future earth, you have a rising population where it's primary energy source is a fossil fuel that induces global warming that cause massive extinctions of climate sensitive species with an effect that trickles up to food stock. The extinction of the Honeybee is one pending example!

There are some big issues this generation needs to confront globally.

Job001
1.2 / 5 (17) Jun 11, 2013
How do you feed 9 billion people?

You don't, they do it themselves with innovation in agriculture, aquaponics, bio-foods, energy, greenhouses, lighting, climate control, water desalination, transportation, trade, and automation.

Malthus assumptions were based upon animals that don't innovate and those assumptions for humans have been proven false.
Dug
3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2013
Today's mass balance analyzes are perfectly correct in predicting the finite limitations and economics of phosphorus availability to food production. We will always have the same amount of phosphorus on the planet. The natural processes/cycles that concentrate it into economically feasible/available forms supported about 1 billion people when we started harvesting concentrated phosphorus as phosphates in the 1800s - beyond that natural cycle's replacement. The energy and processing chemicals to turn phosphorus bearing ores to bio-available fertilizers as we continue to ever dilute further the natural concentrated forms - grows inversely with level of dilution. We either - 1.) drop population back closer to the natural phosphorus cycle or 2.) we move excess population off planet. Ironically once we move humans and their stuff off planet those human bound element resources will no longer be available to natural replenishment/conversion cycles on earth.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (25) Jun 11, 2013
Malthus assumptions were based upon animals that don't innovate and those assumptions for humans have been proven false
More outrageous 1970s bullshit. Malthus told you what happens when a tribal species with a tropical repro rate has all attritive elements eliminated which restrict growth, and must fight continuously in order to survive. Read Fucking History.
http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf

"In 1960, the population of Somalia was roughly around 2.8 million. Now the population stands at 11 million and growing by 450 000 people every year."

-This of course does not include the 260,000 who STARVED since 2011.
You don't, they do it themselves with innovation in blahblahblah
-So YOU give them these things and YOU operate it all for them in the desert while they sit around making more babies because that is what god demands of them, and the religionist militias try to blow it all up. Including you.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (28) Jun 11, 2013
"In 1944, Dr. Borlaug participated in the Rockefeller Foundation's {the robber baron?} pioneering technical assistance program in Mexico, where he was a research scientist in charge of wheat improvement. For the next sixteen years, he worked to solve a series of wheat production problems that were limiting wheat cultivation in Mexico and to help train a whole generation of young Mexican scientists."
"Having overcome great resistance by farmers in Mexico, Borlaug and his compatriots faced the seemingly impossible task of convincing the leaders of both India and Pakistan – two countries bitterly divided – to embrace an entirely new approach to agriculture. "
" It was as though the combination of new roads and new rice seed caused the roots of violent extremism to wither and disappear in a way that military action alone could not. "
http://www.worldf...ography/
freethinking
2.1 / 5 (30) Jun 11, 2013
Hey Rygg..... have you notices the slew of sock-puppers marking you down. Typical of Hezbollah progressives, if they can't win an argument, they try to shout you down, lie, cheat, steal.

Gotta love progressives.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (25) Jun 11, 2013
How do you feed 9 billion people?

Will we need to? Has anyone seen a chart showing human population? There is one commonality from every chart that goes parabolic, a reversion to the mean. It' inevitable, whether it happens before or after 9 bills makes no difference. If history is any guide, governments and the elitists will be driving this reversion to the mean.
LagomorphZero
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2013
Between Job001 and Otto's arguments (thank you both for your posts), I think a solution is available. Education is the key to innovation, innovation is the key to new methods of food production, food production is the key to feeding many people.

Educating more people will allow for more attempts at innovation. Educating people in remote regions will allow them to solve the problems existing in their region. The more people we educate, the more problems we can solve in parallel.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (28) Jun 11, 2013
Between Job001 and Otto's arguments (thank you both for your posts), I think a solution is available. Education is the key to innovation, innovation is the key to new methods of food production, food production is the key to feeding many people.

Educating more people will allow for more attempts at innovation. Educating people in remote regions will allow them to solve the problems existing in their region. The more people we educate, the more problems we can solve in parallel.

If people are allowed by the state to innovate.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (28) Jun 11, 2013
Hey Rygg..... have you notices the slew of sock-puppers marking you down. Typical of Hezbollah progressives, if they can't win an argument, they try to shout you down, lie, cheat, steal.

Gotta love progressives.

They are predictable.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (26) Jun 11, 2013
Job001 and Otto's arguments (thank you both for your posts), I think a solution is available. Education is the key to innovation, innovation is the key to new methods of food production, food production is the key to feeding many people.

Educating more people
If people are allowed by the state to innovate
THE STATE has nothing to do with it.

These people are already well-educated to the FACT that anything the west has to teach them is evil.
http://en.wikiped...ko_Haram

-This is exactly what Boko haram means.

First you destroy the culture and then you maybe you can educate whatever is left of the people. Like japan. And Vietnam. Two hard-won victories.

People who have not learned anything new about pop growth since the 70s need to factor in the ONE BILLION ABORTIONS which have occurred since roe v wade, along with several 100 million more preempted via contraception. And their descendants.

Family planning alone has kept the west at peace within it's bounds.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (27) Jun 11, 2013
Hey Rygg..... have you notices the slew of sock-puppers marking you down. Typical of Hezbollah progressives, if they can't win an argument, they try to shout you down, lie, cheat, steal.

Gotta love progressives.

They are predictable.
Hey ryggy I thought you liked Somalia. There the govt steps back and lets the people free-market themselves to death by the millions. Breathtaking isn't it?

Sir Lawrence liked the desert because 'its clean' as he said. Corpses don't rot in the desert, they mummify.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (27) Jun 11, 2013
Auto should like Somalia, it's tribal:
"The extended family is the core of Somali society. Families descended from common great grandparent form a jilib, the basic independent jural unit, and a number of jilibs in turn form a clan. "
http://mises.org/daily/2066

" The state became the primary means to achieve wealth because the private market
was systematically regulated and destroyed
by bureaucrats. People increasingly had to
turn to state aid to meet their basic survival needs. {Sounds like the USA} In 1978 the regime started its political
decline, and massive aid from the Soviet Union ceased because of Somalia's war with
another Soviet satellite, Ethiopia. "
"We find that although Somalia is poor, its relative economic performance has improved during its period of statelessness. "
http://www.indepe...alia.pdf
Somalia shows the statists a state is not all it's cracked up to be.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (25) Jun 11, 2013
"Federal Regulations Kill Innovation Too"
"here are lots of entrepreneurship-killing, economy-distorting regulations at the federal level, and they're not all in the Department of Agriculture. The Republican party and I have differences about many things. But they're right about this."
http://www.thedai...too.html
freethinking
2.3 / 5 (29) Jun 11, 2013
Own a business and you see how stupid government regulations are and how they hinder employment and innovations. I have a product that I cant distribute because the time it would take just to figure out how to collect tax on it makes it unprofitable. I once had a government employee tell me I was privileged to be allowed to open a business. (If I had my whits about me I would have said, you should be privileged to serve me a tax payer.)
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (27) Jun 11, 2013
As pops grow past the point of stability and conflict ensues, in order to maintain order the govt has no choice but become stricter. Mubarak was universally liked in the beginning (except by the muslim brotherhood). So was kaddaffy. They all were.

But when your children begin to starve you are going to blame it on whoever is in charge, regardless of how magnanimous they are or what system they operate under.

That is, unless these leaders are able to shunt the blame onto a natural enemy. One can immediately appreciate the category 'infidel' as especially useful in this regard.

In central Africa, catholic priests incited Hutu and Tutsi to slaughter one another on the traditional Cain/Abel, farmer/herder diametric. They were originally one people until the Brits established the distinction.

And they are still among the fastest growing pops in the world. The Cycle continues.
Estevan57
2.9 / 5 (28) Jun 11, 2013
NOM seems to be the new open...
NOM
3.1 / 5 (15) Jun 12, 2013
Unlike you, I don't do sock-puppets
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (26) Jun 12, 2013
But when your children begin to starve you are going to blame it on whoever is in charge, regardless of how magnanimous they are or what system they operate under.


The system DOES matter. Socialist dictators are still socialists controlling and regulating food production and trade.
The people of Zimbabwe were NOT starving before Mugabe nationalized the farms.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (26) Jun 12, 2013
People can't live on raisins alone, but every bit of money saved can be used to buy other food.
"the Hornes complained that Agricultural Marketing Agreement Program and California Raisin Marketing Order were unconstitutional.

The programs were created in the 1930s as a means to stabilize prices by limiting the supply of raisins on the market. The federal government can mandate that raisin growers not bring to market excess raisins in order to keep prices from fluctuating wildly."
"The Marketing Order Regulating Raisins has become a tool for grower bankruptcy, poverty and involuntary servitude... We will not relinquish ownership of our crop. We put forth the money and effort to grow it, not the Raisin Administrative Committee. This is America, not a communist state.""
http://www.latime...80.story
And FDR wasn't a socialist?
barakn
3 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2013
NOM seems to be the new open.... -Estevan57

NOM has been here since physorg.com first started allowing user accounts and comments in 2007. And you have been a sockpuppet for a year and a half.
freethinking
2.1 / 5 (25) Jun 12, 2013
NOM has not made any comments according the physorg...... interesting......
Howhot
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2013
@freepthing; If you have a choice, and it's an important decision, pick FEMA CAMP #8! It's much better than 9.

ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (23) Jun 13, 2013
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.

In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766"

"The report, released this afternoon by state Auditor Suzanne Bump's office, also showed where DTA failed to use technology that could have identified $15 million in questionable benefits and shelled out a $1 million more to those using fake Social Security numbers. - See more at: http://bostonhera...jsx.dpuf
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (15) Jul 01, 2013
@freepthing; If you have a choice, and it's an important decision, pick FEMA CAMP #8! It's much better than 9.


I heard camp #6 has the best wifi.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 01, 2013
@freepthing; If you have a choice, and it's an important decision, pick FEMA CAMP #8! It's much better than 9.


I heard camp #6 has the best wifi.

Not wifi, FEMA camps are equipped with hiwi (high voltage wire).
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (16) Jul 02, 2013
Imaginary people are amazingly easy to feed. Problem solved! Without the cultures that breed rabbit-like breeding there wouldn't be much of a problem to solve.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (24) Jul 02, 2013
The win-win solution for individual human beings are free markets and prosperity.
Birth rates slow, AND, innovation and technology make food production more efficient (cost less).
But the socialists must give up control, must stop central planning and the problem takes care of itself. Socialists will then have nothing to bitch about. (But I have confidence they will make up another crises to justify their existence, to themselves.)
deepsand
2.4 / 5 (28) Jul 03, 2013
Rygg lives in a fantasy world of his own making.
nowhere
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 03, 2013
The win-win solution for individual human beings are free markets and prosperity.
Birth rates slow, AND, innovation and technology make food production more efficient (cost less).
But the socialists must give up control, must stop central planning and the problem takes care of itself. Socialists will then have nothing to bitch about. (But I have confidence they will make up another crises to justify their existence, to themselves.)

In reality the free market with no state control leads directly to natural occurring monopolies, which use their dominance to stifle new innovation, and extort the market for maximum profit. Quality of production goes down and all suffer, except the monopoly which makes a killing in profits.
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (25) Jul 04, 2013
The win-win solution for individual human beings are free markets and prosperity.
Birth rates slow, AND, innovation and technology make food production more efficient (cost less).
But the socialists must give up control, must stop central planning and the problem takes care of itself. Socialists will then have nothing to bitch about. (But I have confidence they will make up another crises to justify their existence, to themselves.)

In reality the free market with no state control leads directly to natural occurring monopolies, which use their dominance to stifle new innovation, and extort the market for maximum profit. Quality of production goes down and all suffer, except the monopoly which makes a killing in profits.

Rygg lives in a fantasy world where monopolies can only exist with the helping hand of government. :rolleyes:
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (22) Jul 04, 2013
Sandy, what monopolies exist without the force of state protection?
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (25) Jul 05, 2013
Sandy, what monopolies exist without the force of state protection?

Your claim, your burden of proof.

Hint: Study history.
SteveS
5 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2013
Sandy, what monopolies exist without the force of state protection?


Do you believe that Governments should repeal antitrust legislation, or is this state intervention in the free market permissible?

What is the practical difference between a cartel and a monopoly?
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (21) Jul 05, 2013
Sandy, what monopolies exist without the force of state protection?

Your claim, your burden of proof.

Hint: Study history.

Translation, you have no examples of monopolies that exist without state protection.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (21) Jul 05, 2013
t Governments should repeal antitrust legislation

Yes

What is the practical difference between a cartel and a monopoly?


Cartels are attempts of by individual business entities to control a market. They always fail unless protected by the state.
Monopoly is a business whose competition is banned by the state.
nowhere
4 / 5 (8) Jul 05, 2013
Sandy, what monopolies exist without the force of state protection?

Your claim, your burden of proof.

Hint: Study history.

Translation, you have no examples of monopolies that exist without state protection.

Translation: You have no evidence or examples of your proposed system of free market without state regulation working.
Neinsense99
2.8 / 5 (16) Jul 05, 2013
Sandy, what monopolies exist without the force of state protection?

Your claim, your burden of proof.

Hint: Study history.

Translation, you have no examples of monopolies that exist without state protection.

M$, until recently. Or is the EU levying huge fines for monopolistic practices just for something to do in a quiet moment?
nowhere
4 / 5 (8) Jul 05, 2013
ryggesogn2 how would an emerging business, without state regulation, be able to enter a market when on all accounts it is at a disadvantage? Why wouldn't the existing business utilise their greater knowledge of the market, their greater financial capability, larger customer base, existing supplier relations, etc. to out-compete the new businesses?
SteveS
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2013
Cartels are attempts of by individual business entities to control a market. They always fail unless protected by the state.


cartel - a consortium of independent organizations formed to limit competition by controlling the production and distribution of a product or service
http://onlinedict...d/cartel

antitrust - opposing or intended to restrain trusts, monopolies, or other large combinations of business and capital, especially with a view to maintaining and promoting competition: (as in) antitrust legislation.

http://dictionary...ntitrust

Without antitrust legislation, large organisations and cartels would be free to limit competition by controlling the production and distribution of products or services, and as capitalism relies on competition there can be no such thing as free market capitalism without government intervention.

This makes free market capitalism an oxymoron.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (21) Jul 05, 2013
large organisations and cartels would be free to limit competition by controlling the production and distribution of products or services,


They can try. History shows they fail. OPEC is a cartel of nation-states with the intent of controlling the world's oil. And it has failed because members cheat.
How would a cartel enforce their arrangement?
The role of govt is to provide a legal framework to protect everyone's property.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (22) Jul 05, 2013
ryggesogn2 how would an emerging business, without state regulation, be able to enter a market when on all accounts it is at a disadvantage?

Ask Five Guys Burgers or the hundreds of other companies the do it every year.
Why wouldn't the existing business utilise their greater knowledge of the market, their greater financial capability, larger customer base, existing supplier relations, etc. to out-compete the new businesses?

Because they get complacent, lazy and/or depend upon the govt to protect them.

I see new products on supermarket shelves all the time. Some from big companies, some from small. Sometimes the small companies earn their niche like Jones Soda.
deepsand
2.2 / 5 (26) Jul 05, 2013
Sandy, what monopolies exist without the force of state protection?

Your claim, your burden of proof.

Hint: Study history.

Translation, you have no examples of monopolies that exist without state protection.

Translation: Yours are naked assertions, lacking any substantive support.
deepsand
2.1 / 5 (24) Jul 06, 2013
t Governments should repeal antitrust legislation

Yes

What is the practical difference between a cartel and a monopoly?


Cartels are attempts of by individual business entities to control a market. They always fail unless protected by the state.

Proof of claim required.

Monopoly is a business whose competition is banned by the state.

A patently false definition of "monopoly."

ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (22) Jul 06, 2013
A patently false definition of "monopoly."


I am still waiting for examples of a monopoly that is NOT protected by the govt.

SteveS
5 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2013
Monopoly is a business whose competition is banned by the state - ryggesogn2

A patently false definition of "monopoly." - deepsand

I am still waiting for examples of a monopoly that is NOT protected by the govt. - ryggesogn2


A monopoly is not a business whose competition is banned by the state, a monopoly is a situation that is specifically banned by law. The government enforces antitrust legislation to prevent monopolies forming and to ensure free trade and fair competition. Consider the company store and the truck system.

http://en.wikiped...k_system
http://en.wikiped...ntitrust
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (21) Jul 06, 2013
A monopoly is not a business whose competition is banned by the state,

Still waiting for examples of any monopoly that is not protected by the state. Protected means the state bans competition
Clinton attacked Microsoft basically because Gates didn't lobby.
"There is a long history of firms that have lost out in the marketplace seeking a different outcome through the courts. Microsoft is the latest victim of such political entrepreneurship. ."
http://www.indepe...ewsID=27
"Bill Gates resisted the notion that a software company needed to hire a lot of lobbyists and lawyers. He didn't want anything special from the government, except the freedom to build and sell software. If the government would leave him alone, he would leave the government alone.

At first, this was regarded (at least in Washington, D.C.) as naive. Grown-up companies hire lobbyists. What's this guy's problem?

Read more: http://www.politi...html#ixz
SteveS
5 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2013
Still waiting for examples of any monopoly that is not protected by the state


Why do you keep repeating this nonsensical demand. Are you trying to say that there are no monopolies so we don't need antitrust laws? Have you considered that there are no monopolies because we have effective antitrust laws?
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (22) Jul 06, 2013
There was no need for the Sherman Act.
And the attack on Microsoft, among others, show how anti-trust laws are used to promote socialism (crony capitalism).
"common knowledge among antitrust scholars that in practice the antitrust laws restrain output and the growth of productivity have contributed to a deterioration of the competitive position of U.S. industry, and are routinely used to subvert competition. "
"Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe the Sherman Act as an anti-price-cutting law. "
"It appears that one function of the Sherman Act was to divert public attention from a more certain source of monopoly-government. ...In fact, evidence exists that a major political function of the Sherman Act was to serve as a smoke screen behind which politicians could grant tariff protection to their big business constituents while assuring the public that something was being done about the monopoly problem. "
https://mises.org/daily/331
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (22) Jul 06, 2013
"The Sherman Act won legislators votes and campaign contributions from farmers and small businessmen who thought antitrust regulation would protect them from their more efficient competitors, and the tariff bill was supported by all U.S. manufacturers, both large and small. In a political sense, then, the Sherman Act was very efficient. Congress itself seems to have been one of the principal special-interest groups to benefit from antitrust legislation. "
"Robert Bork might not have been exaggerating when, writing in his book, The Antitrust Paradox, he remarked that if government were to somehow force the economy into "competitive equilibrium," it would have approximately the same effect on personal wealth as several strategically placed nuclear explosions. "
https://mises.org/daily/331
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (23) Jul 06, 2013
Steve, why do you trust legislators, who are heavily lobbied by special interest groups, will support real competition?
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (24) Jul 06, 2013
"consider a sick economy, one that has succumbed to the pathology of privilege. In this economy, entrepreneurs busy themselves in what economist William Baumol has called "unproductive entrepreneurship." Instead of devising new ways to create value for customers, they devise new ways to obtain government-granted privileges: new legal gambits to hobble their competitors, new regulations that will help them secure market share, new ways to ingratiate themselves to politicians handing out favors."
http://neighborho...-growth/
Govt granted privilege like crop subsidies, tariffs, ....
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (28) Jul 07, 2013
A patently false definition of "monopoly."


I am still waiting for examples of a monopoly that is NOT protected by the govt.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam
SteveS
4.7 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2013
Steve, why do you trust legislators, who are heavily lobbied by special interest groups, will support real competition?


Because I believe in Democracy, Governments are ultimately answerable to the people. Who are the Corporations answerable to?
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (23) Jul 07, 2013
Because I believe in Democracy, Governments are ultimately answerable to the people. Who are the Corporations answerable to?


Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. In a democracy, 50%+1 can force the rest to do what ever it want them to do.
A democracy is only answerable to the majority.
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
― Alexis de Tocqueville
The US is republic, not a democracy so the rights of the minority are protected from the power of the majority.

Corporations are answerable to their share holders if they are a public company and to their customers, assuming the corporation is not protected by some govt regulation and lobby.
Again, if not protected from the govt, a corporation must compete for customers and for capital to earn a profit and survive in the marketplace.
And a corp is answerable to a legitimate govt for theft, fraud and liability.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (22) Jul 07, 2013
Governments are ultimately answerable to the people.

How many govt employees in the Regulatory State have been fired for failing or illegal activity?
How are they answerable to the people they are supposed to serve?
'Just following orders' is not an excuse for govt agents violating the law.
deepsand
2.5 / 5 (28) Jul 07, 2013
How any misdirecting posts will Rygg make in an effort to avoid the fact that monopolies are not dependent on government for their being? Or, that the populace does not have sufficient power in its own right to defend against all monopolies?
nowhere
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 08, 2013
ryggesogn2 how would an emerging business, without state regulation, be able to enter a market when on all accounts it is at a disadvantage?

Ask Five Guys Burgers or the hundreds of other companies the do it every year.
Why wouldn't the existing business utilise their greater knowledge of the market, their greater financial capability, larger customer base, existing supplier relations, etc. to out-compete the new businesses?

I see new products on supermarket shelves all the time. Some from big companies, some from small. Sometimes the small companies earn their niche like Jones Soda.

I assume you are referring to American businesses and products(five guys burger), but that is an example of how state regulation helps prevent monopolies, as America has state regulations. Where is your free market, no state regulation example?
nowhere
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 08, 2013
Why wouldn't the existing business utilise their greater knowledge of the market, their greater financial capability, larger customer base, existing supplier relations, etc. to out-compete the new businesses?

Because they get complacent, lazy and/or depend upon the govt to protect them.

So in a purely free market system, natural monopolies do not occur because all businesses are incompetent?
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (24) Jul 08, 2013
natural monopolies do not occur because all businesses are incompetent?

Depends on the nature of the natural monopoly.
Remember what IBM stood for? International Business Machines. How many typewriters has IBM manufactured lately? If they did not changed their business model they would not be in business.
Or rare earth mining. People were fretting over China's apparent monopoly in rare earths. But then a mine near Las Vegas began producing rare earths and I here the Japanese are mining the seabed for rare earths.
how state regulation helps prevent monopolies,

What does Five Guys have to do with state regulation of monopolies?
monopolies are not dependent on government for their being?

Show me a monopoly that is NOT dependent upon govt protection.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (23) Jul 08, 2013
You know it's much easier to find a list of monopolies the govt has broken up.

"Preventing collusion and cartels that act in restraint of trade is an essential task of antitrust law. It reflects the view that each business has a duty to act independently on the market, and so earn its profits solely by providing better priced and quality products than its competitors. The Sherman Act §1 prohibits "[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce."

-Monopoly is the natural goal of any true freemarketeer. Govt restrictions on monopolies is therefore an unfair attack on property rights and freedom to WIN.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (24) Jul 08, 2013
of monopolies the govt has broken up.

Well?
Even the boogy man Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly and was loosing market share to competitors.
And what do we have now? Oil companies are being reintegrated, just as Rockefeller did with Standard Oil.
And do you know how Standard Oil got its name? The company standardized kerosene to the customer so it would burn cleanly and not explode like competitors.
What an evil company! Selling a safer product at lower cost. I can see why a 'progressive' govt had to step in and stop that.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (23) Jul 08, 2013

So in a purely free market system, natural monopolies do not occur because all businesses are incompetent?


"Indeed, AltaVista's decline began after it expanded to become more like Yahoo, offering a bevy of online services instead of sticking solely with search. By the time the site reversed course, it was too late. Its finances were sinking and Google was on the rise.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
nowhere
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 09, 2013
natural monopolies do not occur because all businesses are incompetent?

Depends on the nature of the natural monopoly. IBM[...]producing rare earth[...]


Rather give an example/explanation that is based in a purely free market, and instead of showing businesses entering new untapped markets, demonstrate them entering saturated markets.
how state regulation helps prevent monopolies,

What does Five Guys have to do with state regulation of monopolies?

They are your example of how a business can compete against monopolistic tenancies with the aid of state regulation.
nowhere
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 09, 2013

So in a purely free market system, natural monopolies do not occur because all businesses are incompetent?


"Indeed, AltaVista's decline began after it expanded to become more like Yahoo, offering a bevy of online services instead of sticking solely with search. By the time the site reversed course, it was too late. Its finances were sinking and Google was on the rise.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Here we see how quickly monopolies can form (Google) and how difficult it is to oppose them. Is it ineffective business practices, or all the regulations, that allow other companies to scarcely compete with Google?
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (24) Jul 09, 2013
They are your example of how a business can compete against monopolistic tenancies with the aid of state regulation.


What regulation?
Did Five Guys get some state or federal govt leg up to begin competing?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (19) Jul 09, 2013
Well?
Well what? GOOGLE the quote. Do a little work.
Even the boogy man Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly and was loosing market share to competitors.
And what do we have now? Oil companies are being reintegrated, just as Rockefeller did with Standard Oil
The markets have changed. Companies have to be larger to compete globally. Govts ensure this is possible.
And do you know how Standard Oil got its name? The company standardized kerosene to the customer so it would burn cleanly and not explode like competitors
Uh huh. Free markets produce dangerous products and limiting competition is a way of making them safer.
What an evil company! Selling a safer product at lower cost
Well they could afford to couldn't they?

Tell me - what did it take to get them to stop polluting (so much)? Did they do this voluntarily or did the govt have to spend a billion to force them? Do I have to look this up for you too?
nowhere
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 09, 2013
They are your example of how a business can compete against monopolistic tenancies with the aid of state regulation.


What regulation?
Did Five Guys get some state or federal govt leg up to begin competing?

Do they not conduct business in America? Does America not have regulations imposed on its various markets and business practices?
freethinking
1.6 / 5 (20) Jul 09, 2013
To help Obama so that he can help..... lets just repeal the bill of rights.

http://www.youtub...e0cqHH20
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (24) Jul 09, 2013
Do they not conduct business in America? Does America not have regulations imposed on its various markets and business practices?


How do regulations ensure Five Guys can open a franchise next to McDonald's?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (21) Jul 09, 2013
okok I'll give it a try

"In 1950, Chevron was one of three large oil companies that were charged and convicted of criminal conspiracy for their part in the General Motors streetcar conspiracy. The scandal involved purchasing streetcar systems throughout the United States and dismantling and replacing them with buses, in order to increase their sales of petroleum, automobiles and tires.

"Chevron was found to have evaded $3.25 billion in federal and state taxes from 1970 to 2000 through a complex petroleum pricing scheme involving a project in Indonesia."

-What? Oh yeah, pollution...

"In Ecuador Texaco Petroleum Company (TexPet) discharged 18 billion gallons of oil into Amazonian rainforests"

"The Richmond refinery has generated 11 million pounds of toxic materials and caused 304 accidents. The refinery has paid $540,000 in 1998 for illegally bypassing waste water treatments and not notifying the public"

-Well that 5 minutes was not wasted.
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (28) Jul 09, 2013
Show me a monopoly that is NOT dependent upon govt protection.

Do your own homework; look up "natural monopoly."

deepsand
2.3 / 5 (27) Jul 09, 2013
To help Obama so that he can help..... lets just repeal the bill of rights.

You lack the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and have all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (23) Jul 09, 2013
Show me a monopoly that is NOT dependent upon govt protection.

Do your own homework; look up "natural monopoly."


Give some examples of a 'natural' monopoly that is exploiting their customers.
I mentioned how China has been trying to hoard rare earths and the response has been a mine opening in NV, Japan mining the oceans and alternatives being developed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (22) Jul 09, 2013
Give some examples of a 'natural' monopoly that is exploiting their customers


Well

"The Richmond refinery has generated 11 million pounds of toxic materials and caused 304 accidents. The refinery has paid $540,000 in 1998 for illegally bypassing waste water treatments and not notifying the public"

-Just think what they would be trying to get away with if they were a monopoly. Do you think they would suddenly become all-good or something?

YOU have some serious disconnects there ryggy.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (23) Jul 09, 2013
What is a Richmond refinery?
But as you mentioned refinery, there has not been a refinery built in the US for over 30 years. But its not for lack of trying.
'Natural' monopoly is not quite the right term when the govt and the watermelons prevent refineries and pipelines from being built.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (24) Jul 09, 2013
Do you think they would suddenly become all-good or something?

How many lawsuits were filed for violating neighbors property rights?
Maybe they were protected by various govt agencies that failed to do their job?
Every hear of how the Cuyahoga river caught fire from up stream pollution? The federal govt has jurisdiction on all navigable rivers so down stream sufferers can't sue.
deepsand
2.1 / 5 (27) Jul 09, 2013
Show me a monopoly that is NOT dependent upon govt protection.

Do your own homework; look up "natural monopoly."

Give some examples of a 'natural' monopoly that is exploiting their customers.

Not going to play your childish games.

You made the false claim that all monopolies are dependent on government for their existence.

That's the subject; Stick to it or resign.
nowhere
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2013
Do they not conduct business in America? Does America not have regulations imposed on its various markets and business practices?


How do regulations ensure Five Guys can open a franchise next to McDonald's?

Anti-competitive regulations help all business in their respective markets, except those in a position to dominate said markets.
nowhere
3.9 / 5 (11) Jul 10, 2013
Show me a monopoly that is NOT dependent upon govt protection.

Do your own homework; look up "natural monopoly."


Give some examples of a 'natural' monopoly that is exploiting their customers.
I mentioned how China has been trying to hoard rare earths and the response has been a mine opening in NV, Japan mining the oceans and alternatives being developed.

Give an example of a purely free market no regulation country, and I'll give you examples of natural monopolies.

Your example is flawed. China's dominance of rare earth market was due to low demand vs high operation cost. Now that demand has substantial increased, we see new businesses entering this unsaturated market. Try giving an example of an emerging business entering a completely saturated market, without the aid of antitrust regulations.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (24) Jul 10, 2013
You made the false claim that all monopolies are dependent on government for their existence.

I have yet to find any monopoly that does not require state protection.
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (23) Jul 10, 2013
You made the false claim that all monopolies are dependent on government for their existence.

I have yet to find any monopoly that does not require state protection.

Then you are blind by choice.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (18) Jul 10, 2013
What is a Richmond refinery?
What, do I look like GOOGLE to you?
But as you mentioned refinery, there has not been a refinery built in the US for over 30 years
Let me try to read ryggys mind... Youre saying this is because of regulations? The big bad govt didnt want them to dump millions more pounds per refinery into the environment? Is that it? So rather than comply, they thought they would just choke off supply in order to drive the price up. Make sense to you?
But its not for lack of trying
Not for lack of trying to make a profit you mean? SURE it is.
How many lawsuits were filed for violating neighbors property rights?
So. In ryggys world things happen like this: Big business comes in and steals the peoples property or trashes it, and the people have to sue to get compensation. Can they sue in equador?
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (24) Jul 10, 2013
"According to natural-monopoly theory, competition cannot persist in the electric-utility industry. But the theory is contradicted by the fact that competition has in fact persisted for decades in dozens of US cities. Economist Walter J. Primeaux has studied electric utility competition for more than 20 years. In his 1986 book, Direct Utility Competition: The Natural Monopoly Myth, he concludes that in those cities where there is direct competition in the electric utility industries:

Direct rivalry between two competing firms has existed for very long periods of time — for over 80 years in some cities;

The rival electric utilities compete vigorously through prices and services;"
http://mises.org/daily/5266/
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (24) Jul 10, 2013
Can they sue in equador?

Doubt it. It's a socialist 'paradise'.
Big business comes in and steals the peoples property or trashes it,

How can this be done if a govt protects property rights?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (23) Jul 21, 2013
Anti-trust is anti-customer:
"Federal District Judge Denise Cote ruled that Apple Inc. was guilty of collusion and of fixing the price of e-books."
"At the time Apple entered the e-book market, Amazon held a 90% share of the market and sold e-books for $9.99. After Apple entered the e-book market, Amazon's market share fell, as did prices of e-books."
"the key point to grasp is that the federal government is not the friend and defender of the consumer,"
"Punishing Apple for having lowered prices of a popular consumer item is typical of the perverse application of American antitrust law. "
"If government really wants to lower the cost of living for us, it should abolish antitrust laws, eliminate tariffs and taxes on businesses, let free market competition determine prices, and end legal tender laws so as to introduce competition and freedom of choice into the market for money."
http://www.forbes...deral-go
deepsand
2.2 / 5 (19) Jul 23, 2013
"According to natural-monopoly theory, competition cannot persist in the electric-utility industry. But the theory is contradicted by the fact that competition has in fact persisted for decades in dozens of US cities. Economist Walter J. Primeaux has studied electric utility competition for more than 20 years. In his 1986 book, Direct Utility Competition: The Natural Monopoly Myth, he concludes that in those cities where there is direct competition in the electric utility industries:

Direct rivalry between two competing firms has existed for very long periods of time — for over 80 years in some cities;

The rival electric utilities compete vigorously through prices and services;"

Your citation fails to prove that it was even sometimes, somewhere the case that electric companies were directly competing for end-point delivery of electric service to the same customers.

Even were that the case, it does not prove that no natural monopolies exist.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (24) Jul 24, 2013
Even were that the case, it does not prove that no natural monopolies exist.

Prove the existence of natural monopolies.
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (12) Jul 24, 2013
But what are these so called "ObamaPhones" anyhow?

In a nutshell, they are a non-issue. They are not purchased by the government, and the Obama Administration does not provide them to consumers.

These phones are provided at low cost to low income individuals who otherwise would not have access to a telephone. The program is called "lifeline" is privately funded by the telephone companies themselves, and was active long before the Obama Administration came to power.

So once again what we see coming from RyggTard and his Tea Tard brothers in crime, is nothing but Lies... Lies... Lies...

And then more lies.
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (14) Jul 25, 2013
But what are these so called "ObamaPhones" anyhow?

In a nutshell, they are a non-issue. They are not purchased by the government, and the Obama Administration does not provide them to consumers.

These phones are provided at low cost to low income individuals who otherwise would not have access to a telephone. The program is called "lifeline" is privately funded by the telephone companies themselves, and was active long before the Obama Administration came to power.

So once again what we see coming from RyggTard and his Tea Tard brothers in crime, is nothing but Lies... Lies... Lies...

And then more lies.

About which, of course, they tell more.
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (18) Jul 25, 2013
Even were that the case, it does not prove that no natural monopolies exist.

Prove the existence of natural monopolies.

Since the existence of natural monopolies is denied only by you and at best an exceedingly small number of others, the burden of proof of your assertion to the contrary is yours to bear.

Stare decisis.
nowhere
5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2013
Even were that the case, it does not prove that no natural monopolies exist.

Prove the existence of natural monopolies.

Give us an example of your utopian free market no regulation country and we'll show you natural monopolies.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (22) Jul 25, 2013
Some socialists understand they can't plunder all the time:
"China scraps taxes on small firms to boost economy"
http://www.terrad...999.html

Sandy asserted the existence of natural monopolies but refuses to prove his assertions, therefore he can't and therefore natural monopolies do not exist.
JohnGee
3.8 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2013
Your entire ideology is untested in reality and untestable in the lab. Why should anyone listen to your mad ramblings? Why don't you hold yourself to the same standards you expect others to meet?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (22) Jul 25, 2013
untested in reality and untestable in the lab

Socialism has been tested in the real world lab and has been demonstrated to fail.
If 'natural monopolies' exist and are so prevalent, then it should be very easy to point them out.
If a monopoly is natural, there would be no need for the state to protect it from competitors.
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (14) Jul 25, 2013
untested in reality and untestable in the lab

Socialism has been tested in the real world lab and has been demonstrated to fail.
....

That was YOUR ideology that was untested in reality and untestable in the lab. You refused to answer JohnGee's concern, instead misquoting him to change the subject, in exactly the way we've observed. Dishonest and pathetic.
His orginal comment: "Your entire ideology is untested in reality and untestable in the lab. Why should anyone listen to your mad ramblings? Why don't you hold yourself to the same standards you expect others to meet?"

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (23) Jul 25, 2013
Free markets have been demonstrated to be wildly successful.
So successful the communist Cubans and Chinese and Scandinavians must resort to them to survive.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (21) Jul 25, 2013
Closest real world example of a "free market"; Switzerland, or would it be Singapore? Doesn't matter, they are both prospering.

Real world example of socialism; Detroit!

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (21) Jul 25, 2013
Believe it or not, Hong Kong is still high on the list.
John Stossel was able to open a kiosk in a Hong Kong mall in the morning and by the afternoon he was selling ABC merchandise.
""India has tremendous economic and human potential," Friedman commented. "The human tragedy is that in India that potential has been stifled by the straightjacket imposed by an all-wise and paternalistic government. Central planning has condemned India's masses to poverty and misery." What counted most for Friedman was that people should be free to try innovative ideas and succeed ... or fail.

"The free market enables people ... to trade with whomever they want; to buy in the cheapest market around the world; to sell in the dearest. ... (B)ut most important of all: If they fail, they bear the cost." "
http://www.creato...ose.html
Buffet is pulling his money out of India because of onerous and conflicting state regulations.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (21) Jul 25, 2013
"Buffett isn't alone. Walmart, ArcelorMittal and Posco are pulling back on investments that they had announced with great fanfare. What's scaring foreigners away? A rampant political dysfunction that has stopped India's progress cold."
"The problem is an Indian government that won't get out of its own way. The long debate over foreign-investment limits says it all. In September 2012, Manmohan Singh's government passed a law allowing big retailers to open stores directly, yet no one has. Reasons are legion: too many prerequisites; constraints on whom goods can be purchased from; a raft of regulations limiting franchise models and factory construction; and the hairpulling need to negotiate separately with each of the states."
http://articles.e...hathaway
barakn
4.4 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2013
Closest real world example of a "free market"; Switzerland, or would it be Singapore? Doesn't matter, they are both prospering.

Real world example of socialism; Detroit!


How ignorant. Capitalists built Detroit to exploit cheaply available iron and coal resources. After the resources became harder to obtain, the capitalists did what they always do, they abandoned it.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (21) Jul 25, 2013
Capitalists built Detroit to exploit cheaply available iron and coal resources.

Of course they did and made cars that people could afford.
But then the socialists killed the golden goose.
The socialists are not just the unions they are the cronies who depended upon tariffs and import restrictions to limit competition from Germany, Japan and Sweden.
It hit the fan in the late 70s as Detroit made poor quality, inefficient cars people did not want to buy.
But US companies are not the only ones impacted by their unions. BMW, VW, MB all make cars in the SE USA in states that have right to work laws.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (21) Jul 25, 2013
A recent article from MIT asserts riots are correlated with food shortages. RSA riots spiked when US food prices rose from ethanol mandates.
Unfortunately, the author says nothing about how Mugabe destroyed farming in Zimbabwe and how other socialist policies around the world limit agriculture.
deepsand
2.4 / 5 (17) Jul 26, 2013
Socialism has been tested in the real world lab and has been demonstrated to fail.

Free markets have been demonstrated to be wildly successful.

Where, Rygg, can we get passage to your alternate universe?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (22) Jul 26, 2013
Sandy can't defend his socialism. I can't either so at least we agree there.
One little point about how anti-socialist policies have been used in an attempt rescue socialist states.
Sweden repealed its wealth tax in hopes to attract wealthy Swedes back to Sweden.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (22) Jul 26, 2013
Another example from Cuba, people in Havana now have permission to have a garden and sell excess produce.
The USSR began a similar program not long before they collapsed.
deepsand
2.5 / 5 (19) Jul 27, 2013
Sandy can't defend his socialism.

Rygg either has low reading comprehension skills or deliberately misrepresents the positions of those who challenge him.

My bet is heavily on the latter.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (22) Jul 27, 2013
Why wont' socialists defend socialism? If state control was so great, then it should be quite easy.
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (18) Jul 28, 2013
Why does Rygg evade rebuttal by attempting to employ a false dichotomy?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (22) Jul 28, 2013
Why does Rygg evade rebuttal by attempting to employ a false dichotomy?

Sandy now acknowledge socialism is indefensible.

I understand now why 'liberalism' leads to mental disorders. If one is a theist they know people are not God, not angels and can never have perfect morals.
Atheists have no belief in God and might just believe people can have perfect morals (because atheists define their own morality).
For socialism to succeed, its leaders and participants must have perfect morals (if the objective of socialism is to create a prosperous, egalitarian society).
The conflict created for the socialist theist is that people aren't perfect, but socialism requires perfect people to participate.
For the socialist atheist, there are no perfect people regardless of how athesits redefine morality.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (22) Jul 28, 2013
"A basic problem for liberals is their rejection of and discomfort with reality. "
"They do not like the fact that self-interest is the prime motivator in human decision making."
"For liberals "profits" is a four letter word. They would prefer people to be motivated strictly by charitable impulses and altruism." {'Liberals' expect people to be perfect.}
" George Stigler called competition "the patron saint of consumers." It's difficult, perhaps impossible, to like reality if you don't like competition."
"Their denial and disregard of evidence is another reflection of their dislike of reality. Evidence is about reality; intentions are about fantasizing and self-indulgence."
"If you don't like reality one response is to deny that it exists. " {Hence the mental disorder."
http://spectator....-problem
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (15) Jul 28, 2013
Why does Rygg evade rebuttal by attempting to employ a false dichotomy?

Sandy now acknowledge socialism is indefensible.

I understand now why 'liberalism' leads to mental disorders. If one is a theist they know people are not God, not angels and can never have perfect morals.
Atheists have no belief in God and might just believe people can have perfect morals (because atheists define their own morality).
For socialism to succeed, its leaders and participants must have perfect morals (if the objective of socialism is to create a prosperous, egalitarian society).
The conflict created for the socialist theist is that people aren't perfect, but socialism requires perfect people to participate.
For the socialist atheist, there are no perfect people regardless of how athesits redefine morality.

No, you apparently have not met an informal logical fallacy you don't like.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (22) Jul 28, 2013
"It's only that I can't help feeling that, at some profound or superficial moral level, we also played our part in the tragedy as a society; that this was the last, most tragic episode of a decade of oversized dreams, fast money and fast trains. But maybe that's just me moralising to fill the emptiness that comes with grief. After all, like the train driver said: we're all humans."
http://www.guardi...an-error
The Spanish rail accident is just another example of the failure of central planning and denying reality.
deepsand
2.4 / 5 (17) Jul 29, 2013
Sandy now acknowledge socialism is indefensible.

Rygg again demonstrates that he is either intellectually incompetent or an inveterate liar.

I understand now why 'liberalism' leads to mental disorders. If one is a theist they know people are not God, not angels and can never have perfect morals.
Atheists have no belief in God and might just believe people can have perfect morals (because atheists define their own morality).
For socialism to succeed, its leaders and participants must have perfect morals (if the objective of socialism is to create a prosperous, egalitarian society).
The conflict created for the socialist theist is that people aren't perfect, but socialism requires perfect people to participate.
For the socialist atheist, there are no perfect people regardless of how athesits redefine morality.

Rygg overlooks the fact that his capitalistic laissez faire market requires perfect people if it is to avoid deleterious excesses.
deepsand
2.4 / 5 (17) Jul 29, 2013
"It's only that I can't help feeling that, at some profound or superficial moral level, we also played our part in the tragedy as a society; that this was the last, most tragic episode of a decade of oversized dreams, fast money and fast trains. But maybe that's just me moralising to fill the emptiness that comes with grief. After all, like the train driver said: we're all humans."
http://www.guardi...an-error
The Spanish rail accident is just another example of the failure of central planning and denying reality.

Once again Rygg disembles.

The driver admitted that he exceeded the speed limit by 100%, which is hardly a "failure of central planning."
nowhere
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2013
Free markets have been demonstrated to be wildly successful.
So successful the communist Cubans and Chinese and Scandinavians must resort to them to survive.

No one objects to free markets, only free markets without regulations.
nowhere
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2013
Rygg asserted the existence of 'no regulation free markets' but refuses to prove his assertions, therefore he can't and therefore 'no regulation free markets' do not exist.

nowhere
5 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2013
For socialism to succeed, its leaders and participants must have perfect morals (if the objective of socialism is to create a prosperous, egalitarian society).

For pure capitalism with no state regulation to succeed, corporation leaders and participants must have perfect morals. Corporations however have no obligation to the people, as the state would have, but only have an obligation to generate as much profit as possible. Therefore such a system, even at it's ideals, is a system of greed and exploitation.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (23) Jul 29, 2013
corporation leaders and participants must have perfect morals

No, they don't.
Only socialists expect people to be perfect and are surprised when they are not.
Free markets EXPECT people will act in their self interest.
Self interest is NOT selfish interest.
The butcher is not in business to be a slave and provide meat for you. People are in business to earn a profit for themselves by making a product or service available that benefits the self-interest of others.
Regulation is provided by the customers and competitors. If you are cheated by a business will you go back? Will you tell others?

Regarding the train in Spain, if you do some research you will find that a high speed train was a political decision not an economic one. The failure of a centrally planned system is not a surprise.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (23) Jul 29, 2013
capitalistic laissez faire market requires perfect people if it is to avoid deleterious excesses.

Prove it or apply some logic to support your fantasy.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (24) Jul 29, 2013
No one objects to free markets, only free markets without regulations.

Free markets are ALWAYS regulated by the participants in market.
What socialists object to is 'free' markets without GOVT regulation.

For a time in recent history in Somalia, there was no govt, yet somehow Somalis overseas were able to transfer money via their cell phones to their relatives in country.

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (24) Jul 29, 2013
How many of you 'liberals' who assert free markets need govt regulations buy illegal drugs?
If so, are you satisfied with your dealer? If not do you look for others or if you are screwed by one dealer do you tell all your friends to avoid him and look out for another?
Now from the dealer side, they want to act like crony capitalists and use force to control their competition. This force is more likely less subtle than onerous EPA regulations, but it is still force.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (22) Jul 29, 2013
"what do the intellectuals get out of it? Intellectuals are the sort of people who believe that, in the free market, they are getting paid far less than their wisdom requires. Now the state is willing to pay them salaries, both for apologizing for state power, and in the modern state, for staffing the myriad jobs in the welfare, regulatory state apparatus. "
"What we are taught, therefore, from all official channels, is something like the following. For the sake of mankind's well-being and improvement, some individuals need to exercise power over others. On our own, we would have little if any philanthropic instinct. We would commit the vilest of crimes. Commerce would grind to a halt, innovation would cease, and the arts and sciences would be neglected. The human race would descend to a condition too degraded and appalling to contemplate. "
{Sounds like so many socialists here.}
http://mises.org/...-Paradox
Gmr
1 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2013
In answer to the article title:
To the other nine billion?
Howhot
3.8 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2013
R2 says;
How many of you 'liberals' who assert free markets need govt regulations buy illegal drugs?


You tell me! You must know more than I do. I think you just trying to be a ass, since you know that a true capitalist would have his way with you all over the place.

deepsand
2.4 / 5 (17) Jul 30, 2013
capitalistic laissez faire market requires perfect people if it is to avoid deleterious excesses.

Prove it or apply some logic to support your fantasy.

It's your fantasy that free markets are sufficiently self-regulating so as to avoid excesses.

Prove it.
nowhere
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2013
Regulation is provided by the customers and competitors. If you are cheated by a business will you go back? Will you tell others?

No, regulation is provided for the customer by competition. Therefore competition is bad for a businesses as it threatens profits. By engaging in cartels, making deals with suppliers and buying out or merging with competitors, competition is removed or severely limited while often leaving the illusion of choice with the consumer.
nowhere
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2013
Self interest is NOT selfish interest.
The butcher is not in business to be a slave and provide meat for you. People are in business to earn a profit for themselves[...] If you are cheated by a business will you go back? Will you tell others?

The butcher earns more profit when his 100% beef mince is actually part goat. In this case his self interest is a selfish interest. Is it still cheating when the customer you're cheating doesn't know they're being cheated? How does an honest butcher compete when his genuine 100% beef mince costs more than his cheating competitors?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (22) Jul 30, 2013
competition is removed or severely limited while often leaving the illusion of choice with the consumer.


Yes, when business colludes with regulatory agencies creating regulations that put their compeiton out of business.
Your concern for 'free market' cartels, cartels with no support from the state, is unwarranted as thew quickly collapse.
The butcher earns more profit when his 100% beef mince is actually part goat.

I have heard the highly regulated markets in Europe are selling horse meat as beef. And in the US, the highly regulated markets are selling cheaper fish for the more expensive.
How do you stop it?
Customers who demand proof and won't buy if they don't get the proof.
Organic producers hired a private agency to certify their products to earn the trust of their customers.
Honest butchers compete by asserting his product is better. Oscar Mayer did that and wrapped his product with a yellow ribbon. Customers agreed and kept him in business.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (22) Jul 30, 2013
free markets are sufficiently self-regulating so as to avoid excesses.

Before govt regulators stepped in Rockefeller lowered the cost and improved the quality of kerosene people used to light their homes.
He standardized the oil refining process, created efficiencies and produced products, at a profit, and charged customers a lower price than the competition.
Real, free markets are messy to the socialists as creativity and innovation creates new markets and puts old markets out of business so fast the socialists can't create new laws fast enough to regulate them and they keep lobbyists out of work.

ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (22) Jul 30, 2013
How govt kills:
"Milton Friedman was quick to remind people that government stimulus spending is taxation and a prosperity killer. Governments don't create resources; they redistribute resources.

While tax rates were raised during the Great Recession, they were raised a lot more during the Great Depression, which explains the difference in severity between the Great Depression of the 1930s and the modern Great Recession.

To push this point home, the highest marginal income-tax rate in 1931 was 25% and by 1938 it was 83%. Whoever heard of an economy being taxed into prosperity?

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.inves...aWwYcDKN
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
"
deepsand
2.4 / 5 (17) Jul 31, 2013
competition is removed or severely limited while often leaving the illusion of choice with the consumer.

Yes, when business colludes with regulatory agencies creating regulations that put their compeiton out of business.

No such collusion is required in order for businesses to have their way in an unregulated market.

Your continued pretenses to the contrary are most juvenile.
nowhere
not rated yet Jul 31, 2013
Your concern for 'free market' cartels, cartels with no support from the state, is unwarranted as thew quickly collapse.

"mean duration of discovered cartels is from 5 to 8 years. However, one private cartel operated peacefully for 134 years before disbanding.[7] There is a danger that once a cartel is broken, the incentives to form the cartel return and the cartel may be re-formed."
5 to 8 years, with over a century at maximum is not quick enough. Even when they collapse they simply reform again.
nowhere
not rated yet Jul 31, 2013
I have heard the highly regulated markets in Europe are selling horse meat as beef. And in the US, the highly regulated markets are selling cheaper fish for the more expensive.

Failure to enforce a rule does not negate the validity of the rule. In this case a law has been broken and there is accountability, in your free market there is no accountability and so cheating is the accepted market practice.

How do you stop it?
Customers who demand proof and won't buy if they don't get the proof.
Organic producers hired a private agency to certify their products to earn the trust of their customers.

But who can the consumer trust besides themselves? How are they to verify all the multitude of products they buy are genuine? Your suggestions is to have unregulated business be regulated by other unregulated business. ...but then who regulates the regulator?
nowhere
not rated yet Jul 31, 2013
Honest butchers compete by asserting his product is better. Oscar Mayer did that and wrapped his product with a yellow ribbon. Customers agreed and kept him in business.

"In 1906, Oscar Mayer & Co. was among the first to volunteer to join the newly created federal meat inspection program"
No, he allowed the federal government to assert his product was to standard.
nowhere
not rated yet Jul 31, 2013
free markets are sufficiently self-regulating so as to avoid excesses.

Before govt regulators stepped in Rockefeller lowered the cost and improved the quality of kerosene people used to light their homes.
He standardized the oil refining process, created efficiencies and produced products, at a profit, and charged customers a lower price than the competition.
Real, free markets are messy to the socialists as creativity and innovation creates new markets and puts old markets out of business so fast the socialists can't create new laws fast enough to regulate them and they keep lobbyists out of work.


To defend free market without regulation against claims that it leads to monopolistic tenancies, you reference a business that, before regulations, became, using anticompetitive tactics, an industry wide monopoly? Explain how one could have competed with this monopoly without resorting to similar tactics?
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (16) Jul 31, 2013
I don't buy your premise at all about Standard Oil.
Rockefeller's tactics were not 'anti-competitive'. They were pro-efficiency.
BTW, did you know the father of the muck raking 'journalist' who attacked Standard Oil was once a competitor of who eventually joined with Standard Oil?
SO made its fortune efficiently processing clean, consistent (standard) kerosene and, finding uses for by-products like gasoline, that others discarded.
SO put the sperm whalers out of business by selling cheap, clean kerosene.
Edison's light bulb began the demise of kerosene for lighting.
By the time of SO's breakup, its market share had declined and the competition was adopting SOs efficiency practices.
SO had NO monopoly and made tremendous profits by improving efficiencies.
But socialists hate competitor and efficiency so anyone who produces a product a lower costs, AND can earn a profit, is a socialists enemy.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (15) Jul 31, 2013
Failure to enforce a rule does not negate the validity of the rule

Really?
n your free market there is no accountability

Of course there is.
one private cartel operated peacefully for 134 years before disbanding

What cartel?
he allowed the federal government to assert his product was to standard.

Did Mayer have a choice? Mayer and others had been producing quality products for years before the creation of the FDA, supported by the large meat packers to put competitors like Mayer out of business.
Your suggestions is to have unregulated business be regulated by other unregulated business

Govt can be the ONLY regulator? Govt has NO conflicts of interest?
Underwriter's Laboratory was created by insurance companies to stop electrical fires from new appliances.
The IIHS, another insurance funded business, crash tests cars more strictly than the DOT. Why? They have a vested, profit based interest, in auto safety. The govt interest is ONLY power.
nowhere
not rated yet Aug 01, 2013
I don't buy your premise at all about Standard Oil.
Rockefeller's tactics were not 'anti-competitive'.
SO had NO monopoly.

"In less than four months in 1872, in what was later known as "The Cleveland Conquest" or "The Cleveland Massacre," Standard Oil had absorbed 22 of its 26 Cleveland competitors."

"If they refused his offer, he told them he would run them into bankruptcy and then cheaply buy up their assets at auction."

"It kept oil prices low to stave off competitors, made its products affordable to the average household, and, to increase market penetration, sometimes sold below cost if necessary."

"By the end of the 1870s, Standard was refining over 90% of the oil in the U.S"
nowhere
not rated yet Aug 01, 2013
Failure to enforce a rule does not negate the validity of the rule

Really?

Yes.
n your free market there is no accountability

Of course there is.

Only for failing to generate a profit, not for cheating the customer.
one private cartel operated peacefully for 134 years before disbanding

What cartel?

Sonora Cartel
he allowed the federal government to assert his product was to standard.

Did Mayer have a choice? Mayer and others had been producing quality products for years before the creation of the FDA, supported by the large meat packers to put competitors like Mayer out of business.

Mayer and others must have been gratefull to the FDA for allowing their quality products to be distinguished from those who cheated customers.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (14) Aug 01, 2013
"By the end of the 1870s, Standard was refining over 90% of the oil in the U.S"

What was the price for the consumers?
It's interesting 'no' is so worried about the competitors and says nothing about the price paid for the product by the consumer.

"In 1885, John D. Rockefeller wrote one of his partners, "Let the good work go on. We must ever remember we are refining oil for the poor man and he must have it cheap and good"
During the 1870s, the price of kerosene dropped from 26 to eight cents a gallon and Rockefeller captured about 90 per cent of the American market. This percentage remained steady for years. Rockefeller never wanted to oust all of his rivals, just the ones who were wasteful and those who tarnished the whole trade by selling defective oil. "Competitors we must have, we must have," said Rockefeller's partner Charles Pratt. "If we absorb them, be sure it will bring up another."

http://www.fee.or...xzz2akMF
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (14) Aug 01, 2013
"The Sherman Act was supposed to prevent monopolies and those companies "in restraint of trade." Yet Standard Oil had no monopoly and certainly was not restraining trade. The Russians, with the help of their government, had been gaining ground on Standard in the international oil trade. In America, competition in the oil industry was more intense than ever. Over 100 oil compa-nies-from Gulf Oil in Texas to Associated Oil in California—competed with Standard. Standard's share of the United States and world markets had been steadily declining from 1900 to 1910. Rockefeller, however, took the decision calmly and promised to obey it."
"Before he died, he had given away about $550,000,000, more than any other American before him had ever possessed. I

Read more: http://www.fee.or...akOOIEOE
Socialists hate the last part, how much money was donated and not plundered by the govt.

More news stories

Melting during cooling period

(Phys.org) —A University of Maine research team says stratification of the North Atlantic Ocean contributed to summer warming and glacial melting in Scotland during the period recognized for abrupt cooling ...

Robotics goes micro-scale

(Phys.org) —The development of light-driven 'micro-robots' that can autonomously investigate and manipulate the nano-scale environment in a microscope comes a step closer, thanks to new research from the ...

Biologists help solve fungi mysteries

(Phys.org) —A new genetic analysis revealing the previously unknown biodiversity and distribution of thousands of fungi in North America might also reveal a previously underappreciated contributor to climate ...