Browsed it quickly. Just a bunch of anti-capitalist fluff and something about farming your own food instead of relying on businesses. Notning worthwhile in it imo.
The second part? circular flow? i tried using economic theory to leave out the super-rich... thanks for the fluff comment, i see that. it's more of an entertainment factor i guess... any tips on making it more realistic would be nice.
Well it will never stand up to intellectual scrutiny because you don't understand economics very well. As an entertainment piece it's fine, but if you want it to have real substance, regardless of your conclusions, you'll have to do more economic research. For example, you want more people to grow local food, correct? Well there really is no economic reason for that. Food falls under the same forces as all goods, i.e., it's production is helped by specialization, not hindered. The argument for local production fails to incorporate specialization, not only of labor but of land also. By land I mean it in the economic sense, meaning all natural resources in a given area. Because of specialization, efficiency is increased. If one single nation is best suited to specialize in one fruit or crop, it's better that they do it. This frees up labor and land in other areas to focus on what they would produce best. In this way goods and services of all kinds increases and becomes available to an ever expanding number of people at ever shrinking costs. Reversing this process to focus on local production has the opposite effects, i.e., rising costs, decreasing output, and wasted resources.
Yes, but the specialization of our food like it is a manufactured commodity is not a realistic comparison to make because the inputs to growing food are from the sun and Earth, not drawn from industrial labor. And the cost is not what I am trying to reduce, I'm trying to reduce the need for money to be circulated at all because our mammal bodies can survive completely fine without currency, but hunger and poor health are problems that are both economic and social which are not being handled properly by the current system. It's more about holding our own subsistence than producing goods.
Pretty much, but this type of thing is advocated even among professional "economists". It's pretty widespread. It's the same fallacy as the "outsourcing is evil", "Chinese are taking our jobs", and other various protectionist/mercantilist outcries.
Food is an economic good just like any other. Labor is an essential ingredient to its production. Capital equipment is also required, e.g., tools and machines used for prepping soil, digging holes, watering, etc. You are proposing to solve the problem of hunger by using a system that will produce less food. You don't see the contradiction there?
Yes, but the specialization of our food like it is a manufactured commodity is not a realistic comparison to make because the inputs to growing food are from the sun and Earth, not drawn from industrial labor. And the cost is not what I am trying to reduce, I'm trying to reduce the need for money to be circulated at all because our mammal bodies can survive completely fine without currency, but hunger and poor health are problems that are both economic and social which are not being handled properly by the current system. It's more about holding our own subsistence than producing goods. </blockquote> I understand if you want to end a system of reliance/slavery on a corrupt system. But you are a little off on the solution. Specialization of food crops means skilled farmers growing the correct food for the climate and using specialized tools to make it easier. There is no reason to end specialization and return to individual self sufficiency. Not from a society standpoint anyway. Lots of people like utilizing their land for free food/extra income and that's a good thing. But a computer programmer in a small apartment who spends all his tike programming just wants to trade his skill.for food. He wouldn't have time to grow stuff. And he would much prefer cheap mass produced conventiinaly farmed food. The problems we have today with food are many. But big farms are not one of them. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Labor specialization is the variable that I am proposing we encourage more in this system because food is a very versatile product that is able to grow anywhere we cultivate it, and it does change with climate but the entire world is a food-producing climate. If that is true, then the barriers that cause hunger are completely economic, and it seems stupid to have the inputs available practically everywhere yet no social programs to make the outputs happen. Isn't it true that when supply increases, price goes down? What if we were able to make the food supply increase to huge quantities by specializing labor without spending tons on inputs, given that sunlight and water are pretty much free? yes, capital technology is required, but poverty stricken nations use archaic tools to grow their food, and they can reach subsistence in many places. I realize more labor would have to be educated and employed to meet this goal, but if people cared more about food and less about money then that wouldn't be a problem.
And you would like our country to model ourselves after those poverty stricken nations? Those countries don't specialize or save enough. You really are proposing we undo progress. Why? I don't know. Do you produce all of your own food?
Those tools in big farms are only necessary because they are just monocropping corn all day long, so when flocks of locusts come in they need industrial tech to fix the problems they've created. Specialization on the industrial level means pesticides, GMOs, huge expenditures of oil and water, and antibodies, all while employing only like six people to do the work because it's cost efficient. That isn't socially efficient for our health or for the laborers, who typically don't like their jobs. A hundred people growing better food in unison would do more social good for the community, and specializing those people with education is the main variable that increases yields.
why would i suggest that? we don't need to model ourselves after them, but their existence is living proof that it's possible to go on living without having big industry process everything. the cost for having technology that is better than those poverty-stricken nations is an affordable one if the community really wanted to supply it. I will in a couple years, but no i eat the same crap everybody does haha
I have no desire to debate this. You asked for opinions on what you wrote, and I gave mine. You need to learn economics before trying to form a solution to any economic problem, that's my advice. Take it or leave it.
If you'd like a friendly suggestion, research the benefits of specialization and trade. Read some basic econ stuff. Yes, it's possible to survive by growing your own food. The above subjects (if you read about them), will let you know why so few people choose to do so in prosperous places.
i got a 3.9 and 3.7 in micro and macro, i understand these concepts but think they are just continuations of a broken classical lineage of theories with no respect for actual happiness
So if people didn't prefer specializing, why would we do it? Why do you think you know what will create happiness for other people more than they themselves do? Why do you get to define happiness?
I'll take you up on that, and we'll debate again in the future We specialize to save having to do unnecessary work and using resources efficiently so cost is reduced. I don't get to define happiness, because if that were so then I would be happy. I want to be happy, and going through the process of writing that article made me feel pretty secure in learning what that means, which is forgetting about money and doing what Gaia does. I knew that putting this into economics would piss everybody off because it's the most humane of all sciences, and the one most responsible for the unhappy things going on today. it's just a draft, and i'm just a kid, but I know that eating the shitty processed food from big companies is what's causing a lot of depression and poor health in this country. people in impoverished nations are sometimes much happier than people here cuz they eat good food and they know where it comes from. why do you think happiness and sadness exist? is there any real way to define it, or is it just experience?