That is interesting. The issue, however, was not small/big, but capitalist versus not so. I assume these farms in the states are capitalist.

(Sometimes businesses get bigger, sometimes smaller, in a given sector. For instance, the early 80′s was a time of big multi-nationals growing and amalgamating, after that was a time of them getting split up, don’t know about last decade. This stuff – leaders in a sector getting bigger, then smaller – happens.)

Will respond to other stuff when I have time, a bit busy today.

@Dark H:

1) Gini: I am pretty sure about this.
http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/papers/pdfs/World_Income_Distribution_QJE.pdf
More/other sources available if you do not buy this one. (Look at the graphs and stats at the back). So what exactly do you question? And based on what empirical evidence?

Will respond to other stuff when I have time.

“we need to go nuclear” ???

‘THE CODE KILLERS: AN EXPOSE ‘

Alternate title: Nuclear Power, Nuclear Weapons, Corrupt Government, Corporate Greed, Mass Hysteria, General Ignorance, and Your DNA: A Dangerous Mix? A look at the Data

by Ace Hoffman

First published: 2008

Available free from:

http://www.acehoffman.org

Increase in localisation and small farms in USA:

“This trend toward localization is reflected in the recent rise in the number of farms in the United States, which may be the reversal of a century-long trend of farm consolidation. Between the agricultural census of 2002 and that of 2007, the number of farms in the United States increased by 4 percent to roughly 2.2 million. The new farms were mostly small, many of them operated by women, whose numbers in farming jumped from 238,000 in 2002 to 306,000 in 2007, a rise of nearly 30 percent.”

Full report: ‘Localisation of Agriculture’ by Lester R Brown

http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/book_bytes/2009/pb4ch09_ss5

Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa urges leaders to resist massive corporate land grabs

http://allafrica.com/stories/200911300709.html?viewall=1

Case in point……study science as it is a proven fact that water holds more CO2 at cooler temperatures than warmer temperatures. As such, the additional CO2 being measured in the atmosphere may well be the result of global warming and not the cause!!!!!!!!

Until someone explains what caused the past global warming events (I come from California where the whole San Joaquin Valley was under water), it is wrong to attribute global warming soley as a cause of humans using fossile fuels and reducing vegatation.

Whether you admit it or not, global warming will happen without man emitting any CO2 as it has happened in the past. As such, you should not put all your faith in solutions associated with reducing CO2 emissions (or methane, etc.).

Again, warm water (think vast oceans here) holds less CO2 in soltuion than in cold water. Accordingly the increase in CO2 emissions is somewhat attributable (the resultant along with many other factors) to global warming but not necessarily the cause of global warming.

Academia can be helpful……even the ‘soft’ sciences as expressed here. But, it is the natural sciences which can help find the true cause and effects through experimentation, analysis and factual observations.

Don’t send a a philosophist to do a scientist’s work!!!!

The only real hope is to entertwin these.

I find it interesting how people always have a problem with some method or manner but propose no alternative solution.

As for energy, we need to go nuclear until we have the breakthroughs needed to make solar, wind, etc. economic. As for nuclear waste, there are solutions and zoning concepts.

As for global warming, this will happen and has happened without mankind so mankind stopping all their activities is not the answer. The world has been through these cycles before and will again regardless of man.

Being pragmatic, I would propose a solution of building sea walls and berms around rivers to deal with the melting of the ice caps. This is one of the few real solutions as 1) global warming will occur even if mankind stops CO2 emission 2) it allows each nation to protect themselves as even if the USA gives up its way of life and CO2 emissions, we don’t control the world and the actions of all.

Note the jobs potential in sea walls and berms for those bent on creating jobs for jobs sake (increased efficiency is what increases our standard of living; not just creating jobs).

Comments?

1) Re: “The gini does sometimes get worse in specific places, but the overall trend is in the other direction” Did you get that from the same economic textbooks that claim in the free market wealth trickles down? I seriuosly question both assumptions/theories/beliefs.

2) My guess is 75% of the global food supply is produced by small farmers and peasants. Take the combined population of the third world (Southern and Eastern block) and compare it to the combined population of the Western industrialised world. The NGOs that worked on the Food Sovereignty Now Declaration probably did their homework.

3) It is critical we realise one economic model does not fit all. The World Bank and IMFs structural adjustment programmes imposed on fairly successful mixed economies suited global corporations and Wall Street financiers but robbed the people in those countries of their joint economic capital and livelyhoods.

4) Each countrys economic policy should be determined by its inhabitants depending on needs. Some countries need tarriff barriers, others do better without. Cheap agricultural produce from highly subsidised industrial countrys dumped on Africa forces peasant farmers off the land and exacerbates famine on the continent.

Good document to read: “The Mexican Farmers’ Movement: Exposing the Myths of Free Trade”
http://www.ifg.org/analysis/wto/cancun/mythtrade.htm

Reference 49 million Americans suffer food insecurity
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091116/ap_on_bi_ge/us_hunger_report

Average GDP is not a good measure, you can have a few very wealthy people and billions of poor people and the average GDP looks ‘acceptable’.

The Legatum Prosperity Index is more representative of quality of life. The 2009 Legatum Prosperity Index is based on 79 different variables analysed across 104 nations around the world. The 79 variables are grouped into 9 sub-indexes which are averaged using equal weights.

The 9 sub-indexes are:

Economic Fundamentals
Democratic Institutions
Health
Governance
Social Capital
Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Education
Safety and Security
Personal Freedom

I also think we must move our mindset away from Marxism vs capitalism. It is no longer relevant. Marxism can be used as an analytical tool but it ain’t gonna work as a political or economic system. Capitalism as we currently practice it does not work either.

Suggest contact the ‘People’s Food Sovereignty Now! Declaration’ organisers for a reference for 75% number.

What you will probably find is communal farming does not work, but where farmers are responsible for their own plots, whether they own them or not, they can be very productive if they have the knowledge. Small scale agriculture is more productive per hectare than large scale.

One problem with giving small scale farmers in the third world land ownership, is they can be bought out by large entrepreneurs and the peasants end up destitute in slums in mega-cities with no means of production.