Into the Night
Verified User
RQAA. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy.
California overtakes Japan to become world’s fourth-largest economy
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
ZenMode
Well-known member
I'm not assuming. Again, YOU chose to not support your claims.
Not my issue.
Bring something relevant or stop wasting my time.
Into the Night
Verified User
RQAA. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
christiefan915
Catalyst
Are you really trying to say that the environmental Left, aka "tree huggers," want to chop down forests?
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Your chart only backs what I was getting at. The Left hates energy sources that are cheap, clean, and work. They want insane, unworkable ones that are an environmental disaster.Are you really trying to say that the environmental Left, aka "tree huggers," want to chop down forests?
View attachment 49148
christiefan915
Catalyst
The Right doesn't care about people or the environment, it's only about money to them.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Sure, they do, the difference is they want what works and is reasonable and affordable. The Left gloms onto an idea, no matter how idiotic, unworkable, expensive, and unrealistic it is, like some 2nd grade classroom full of six-year-olds, and fixates on it throwing a tantrum when the adults in the room tell them "No."
christiefan915
Catalyst
I wonder how much the government's paid out in black lung benefits over the decades.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
I wonder how stupid you can be to think that safety and health regulations and laws have always been what they are today in what is usually called an historian's fallacy.
There's too much temptation for people to choose profit over the safety and welfare of other people, absent an enforceable system of regulation.
The default conservative position seems to be to gut regulation and trust companies to just do the right thing.
With the industrial revolution, almost all famines have happened to farmers and rural people. Urban industrial people almost never have famines. The one exception is when there is a war, or some other sort of violent government action to cut off food from the cities. So if trump has the army surround NYC and cutoff food, there will be starvation. Other than that, NYC will find the food somewhere.
The reason for this is that when farmers do not produce enough food to even feed themselves, they also do not produce enough food to sell, and buy food for themselves. Meanwhile, only a small part of the money that urban dwellers have goes to food. If that doubles, or even triples, it is painful, but they can still do it. Even if they lose their economic production, they have decades worth of food buying assets stored up.
If red states are no longer able to produce food, blue states will just buy the food from other sources. Transportation is cheap and efficient, so blue states can buy from anywhere in the world. The Chinese are also doing this. They are buying from other countries.
There is a new saying among economists that "a bean is a bean is a bean." It is much easier to replace agricultural products than intellectual property products. Beans from Brazil are basically the same as beans from Kansas. Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Wall Street, etc. would be much harder for Brazil to replace.
So without red states, blue states would not starve. In fact, given that almost all the technologies that allow increased farming production come from educated liberals, I wonder whether red states would starve without us.
But I do disagree with this claim that Republicans are all farmers. About 2% of the labor market is in farming. Many of those are illegal aliens, legal aliens, temporary aliens, poor farm laborers, etc. Let's say 1% of them are your Republican farm owners, that would be a high number, and let's say 40% of Americans are Republicans, that would mean 97.5% of Republicans are NOT farmers.
The vast majority of rural Republicans are not farmers. Even beyond that, most do not even have neighbors who are farmers. They live on marginal land that could not support agriculture.
They are people who want to live somewhere cheap. I can not begrudge them that, but I certainly am not dependent on them for food. Those that live off government checks should be thanking me for paying taxes to support them. Those that live off investments should be thanking me for keeping the financial system going. Those that live off jobs should be thanking me for keeping money flowing into the economy.
And even those that are farmers should be thanking me for being a customer willing to (or forced by the government to) pay a lot more for the food that they sell than would be required by the international market, and also willing to pay taxes to subsidize them.
But people need food, right? Californians can use all their money to buy food from anywhere on Earth, while Kansas would have to beg other states for money to buy food.
You will keep hearing 40 acres given as the size for a pre-industrial one family farm. The Amish speak of needing 40 acres to survive in a purely Amish farming way. Freed slaves were given 40 acres. English peasants wanted 40 acres each.
When you go above 40 acres, it is always many families having to work the land. Most of those families are usually slaves, peasants, or sharecroppers.
The point is the trucks stop running, there is no way to produce on a full modern farm, and very quickly farmers are in real trouble. They can no longer produce soybeans on 4,000 acres, and do not eat much soybeans anyway. That means they have to try to produce food they can eat on more like 40 acres. And somehow pay the mortgage on 4,000 acres when they have no income.
And that is when the starving starts.
The reason for this is that when farmers do not produce enough food to even feed themselves, they also do not produce enough food to sell, and buy food for themselves. Meanwhile, only a small part of the money that urban dwellers have goes to food. If that doubles, or even triples, it is painful, but they can still do it. Even if they lose their economic production, they have decades worth of food buying assets stored up.
If red states are no longer able to produce food, blue states will just buy the food from other sources. Transportation is cheap and efficient, so blue states can buy from anywhere in the world. The Chinese are also doing this. They are buying from other countries.
There is a new saying among economists that "a bean is a bean is a bean." It is much easier to replace agricultural products than intellectual property products. Beans from Brazil are basically the same as beans from Kansas. Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Wall Street, etc. would be much harder for Brazil to replace.
So without red states, blue states would not starve. In fact, given that almost all the technologies that allow increased farming production come from educated liberals, I wonder whether red states would starve without us.
No, but it is clear they are not economically worth as much as Blue States. Who is to say what people are worth beyond economics.
But I do disagree with this claim that Republicans are all farmers. About 2% of the labor market is in farming. Many of those are illegal aliens, legal aliens, temporary aliens, poor farm laborers, etc. Let's say 1% of them are your Republican farm owners, that would be a high number, and let's say 40% of Americans are Republicans, that would mean 97.5% of Republicans are NOT farmers.
The vast majority of rural Republicans are not farmers. Even beyond that, most do not even have neighbors who are farmers. They live on marginal land that could not support agriculture.
They are people who want to live somewhere cheap. I can not begrudge them that, but I certainly am not dependent on them for food. Those that live off government checks should be thanking me for paying taxes to support them. Those that live off investments should be thanking me for keeping the financial system going. Those that live off jobs should be thanking me for keeping money flowing into the economy.
And even those that are farmers should be thanking me for being a customer willing to (or forced by the government to) pay a lot more for the food that they sell than would be required by the international market, and also willing to pay taxes to subsidize them.
Exactly, Blue States produce a lot of food, but also a lot of everything else. Farming is 2% of California's economy. If they have a severe famine, and lose half of that, they will not even have a recession. They will outgrow that minor loss. Meanwhile, if Kansas lost half its agriculture, it would be in a deep depression.
But people need food, right? Californians can use all their money to buy food from anywhere on Earth, while Kansas would have to beg other states for money to buy food.
An acre of land is about the amount of land that a plow and horse team can plow in a day. 6 days a week for 5 weeks gets you 30 acres. Throw in a few extra acres that are either fallow that year, or used for other things, and you get 40 acres.
You will keep hearing 40 acres given as the size for a pre-industrial one family farm. The Amish speak of needing 40 acres to survive in a purely Amish farming way. Freed slaves were given 40 acres. English peasants wanted 40 acres each.
When you go above 40 acres, it is always many families having to work the land. Most of those families are usually slaves, peasants, or sharecroppers.
The point is the trucks stop running, there is no way to produce on a full modern farm, and very quickly farmers are in real trouble. They can no longer produce soybeans on 4,000 acres, and do not eat much soybeans anyway. That means they have to try to produce food they can eat on more like 40 acres. And somehow pay the mortgage on 4,000 acres when they have no income.
And that is when the starving starts.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Soooo...do you support unity or division?
I support unity, even if I believe I am contributing more than average. I am grateful to the USA for giving me the opportunity to have more to contribute.
I do question why those with the most to lose are stoking division and destruction. People who we are supporting want to destroy the order that is supporting them.
Picture some Republican living off government checks out in the middle of nowhere on marginal land. I am fine with supporting them. It is actually cheaper than you would think supporting them. But then throw in their demands I thank them for feeding me, and "threats" they might stop producing food. THEY DO NOT PRODUCE FOOD!!! If they stop getting money from me, I am better off. They are poor, because they are poor, not because I am richer. I would be overjoyed if they got educations and became my coworkers.
I support unity, but there is an outer limit to it all where I just agree to let the least productive people just leave.
Japan's debt is 255% of GDP, while our's is 122%. I guess "enormous" is subjective.
Anyway, the problem with debasing our debt is that it means our debt service payments go up. Economics works like that.
it also means we are sharing our burden with poverty stricken nations. it is a bullshit tactic used by progressive brats that always demand more and more
Into the Night
Verified User
See the current electrical collapse in France and Spain, caused by 'green energy'.
Into the Night
Verified User
Irrelevant.
Into the Night
Verified User
You're getting quite good at identifying the correct fallacies here and calling these losers on it. You are exactly right.
Today, coal mining is much safer. It burns very cleanly too, using modern furnaces. Even the impurities like sulfur in it are caught and extracted and sold as a commercial source of sulfur.
The idiot keeps thinking of old style coal plants that put out a lot of soot, such as are found in China (still!). Soot is wasted fuel.
Into the Night
Verified User
You hate capitalism. Companies that want to stay in business will do the right thing.
A company stays in business by serving their customers, Sybil.
BTW, safety codes are usually written by industry, NOT the government.
Example: The National Electrical Code (NFPA 70) is maintained by the National Fire Protection Association, but is written by electricians and fire safety personnel themselves.
Indeed, the entire building code is exactly the same, combining codes written elsewhere by various industries.
In other words, companies do the right thing. They impose this code upon themselves so there are standards to follow resulting in safe products and services.
Government just goes along with it.
A typical county government will simply quote the code year to use, and maybe add a few small addendum of their own.
You really are clueless BECAUSE you hate capitalism, and don't understand what it is or why it works.
Last edited: