The Occupy Movement

[InvokerofTime]

1. you are probably right
2. you are ignoring my point about countries restricting exports of food. though tbf u are prob right due to OPEC, thinking about it
3.the farmer is not the owner of the land, they are the people who grow the crops,and u are right but i am talking about the second category. 50% of US farmers farm all the land they own (n.b. flawed stat as some farmers who farm and rent probably own more land. source)
4. pls answer, does it make ppl think me troll?

[Mazoku]

.the farmer is not the owner of the land, they are the people who grow the crops,and u are right but i am talking about the second category. 50% of US farmers farm all the land they own (n.b. flawed stat as some farmers who farm and rent probably own more land. source)

What i mean is that he is a tiny portion in the production chain. You need a person that provides you with seeds, fertilizer as well as a person with some degree of knowlage to predict the outcome. Once stuff grows you need to pay for transport and harvest (i asume you aint going to pay for a couple of machines that cost 2 millon dollars just to use them twice a year) before planting again.

4. pls answer, does it make ppl think me troll?

No.

[InvokerofTime]

Originally Posted by Mazoku

What i mean is that he is a tiny portion in the production chain. You need a person that provides you with seeds, fertilizer as well as a person with some degree of knowlage to predict the outcome. Once stuff grows you need to pay for transport and harvest (i asume you aint going to pay for a couple of machines that cost 2 millon dollars just to use them twice a year) before planting again.

not disputing that, but what i am saying, is that the farmer decides the world grain output. The others, have such large 'fixed costs' that they have to operate at maximum production, farmers can, and do, scale back.

[Mazoku]

not disputing that, but what i am saying, is that the farmer decides the world grain output. The others, have such large 'fixed costs' that they have to operate at maximum production, farmers can, and do, scale back.

Not necesarily, you might get a % of the total production (wich is often the case) so that the farmer minimizes risk and does not go bankrup in a bad season!

In the end, both have large fixed costs!

[InvokerofTime]

Originally Posted by Mazoku

Not necesarily, you might get a % of the total production (wich is often the case) so that the farmer minimizes risk and does not go bankrup in a bad season!

In the end, both have large fixed costs!

yes, so the farmer does not need to maintain full production in order to keep his family fed, further allowing the farmer to vary his production. I know, most farmers can't reduce production, but they can put off investment, and the few who can lower their production, will do so. Also, if farmers think they will get a lower price, they will be more sparing with fertiliser etc as they get a lower rate of return on them, which ALL farmer do.

[Mazoku]

yes, so the farmer does not need to maintain full production in order to keep his family fed, further allowing the farmer to vary his production.

Same aplies to pretty much every investment. Thing is you shouldnt leave aside the oportunity cost as the land is worth a lot. Suddenly when you take into acount that your view of things is not "well at least i can feed my family" but "OMG im loosing a lot of money". This is probably what detonates the Bandwagon efect most of the time.

It will just take a crisis to see if the bandwagon efect takes place or not.

[InvokerofTime]

That's not what i am saying, what i am saying is that the farmer can vary the output, e.g. buy planting less intensively so that he uses less fertiliser, lowering his costs AND output, and if he thinks the price is low, he WILL do this

[Mazoku]

That's not what i am saying, what i am saying is that the farmer can vary the output, e.g. buy planting less intensively so that he uses less fertiliser, lowering his costs AND output, and if he thinks the price is low, he WILL do this

It isnt any diferent from any other person involved in the production chain.

[InvokerofTime]

Yeah, but farmers are the ppl who can scale back production fastest, fertiliser makers (etc) have large fixed costs, and they store their product for later use, as they will sell as much as they can at a fixed price, farmers have to sell their crop as it spoils, so pay more attention to production, the rest of the supply chain follows their lead

[Mazoku]

Yeah, but farmers are the ppl who can scale back production fastest, fertiliser makers (etc) have large fixed costs, and they store their product for later use, as they will sell as much as they can at a fixed price, farmers have to sell their crop as it spoils, so pay more attention to production, the rest of the supply chain follows their lead

Farmers have insanely high fixed costs. Dunno what you are talking about.

[DoomSlayers]

A bit off topic... The US GOP is quite interesting. Just how low can the Mainstream Media fall?

I'm actually happy about it. I can now identify which sources are somewhat reliable and which sources are to be ignored.

I didn't read the every page so I don't know how it got to the farmer and food producer. Are we talking about autonomy?

[K2SO4!Archangel]

I agree with and support most of the grievances of OWS. To be honest I think the OWS movement, given its limitations and lack of an organization or coherent, sound-bite worthy message, has succeeded beyond anyone's reasonable expectations: It has dragged the elephant in the room, namely income inequality and the unholy marriage of corporation and government, into the focus and discussion of national politics. Politicians and pundits are talking about the 99% vs 1% as legitimate concerns and not just dismissing it as communism (Fox News doesn't count). That's a huge success on itself. I think there's a real danger that the movement might overreach and do more harm to its goal by being disruptive and violent (or at least, allow the media to paint them as being disruptive and violent). Banks are crony and corrupt, yes, but you aren't going to get anyone to listen to you when you block a bank's entrance.

[DoomSlayers]

Originally Posted by K2SO4!Archangel

I agree with and support most of the grievances of OWS. To be honest I think the OWS movement, given its limitations and lack of an organization or coherent, sound-bite worthy message, has succeeded beyond anyone's reasonable expectations: It has dragged the elephant in the room, namely income inequality and the unholy marriage of corporation and government, into the focus and discussion of national politics. Politicians and pundits are talking about the 99% vs 1% as legitimate concerns and not just dismissing it as communism (Fox News doesn't count). That's a huge success on itself. I think there's a real danger that the movement might overreach and do more harm to its goal by being disruptive and violent (or at least, allow the media to paint them as being disruptive and violent). Banks are crony and corrupt, yes, but you aren't going to get anyone to listen to you when you block a bank's entrance.

Touching banks is a big no-no. You'd get arrested faster by trying to block a bank than harassing the President (puppet).

[InvokerofTime]

Originally Posted by DoomSlayers

A bit off topic...


I didn't read the every page so I don't know how it got to the farmer and food producer. Are we talking about autonomy?

occupy grievances=>america's future growth=>food prices

Originally Posted by K2SO4!Archangel

I agree with and support most of the grievances of OWS. To be honest I think the OWS movement, given its limitations and lack of an organization or coherent, sound-bite worthy message, has succeeded beyond anyone's reasonable expectations: It has dragged the elephant in the room, namely income inequality and the unholy marriage of corporation and government, into the focus and discussion of national politics. Politicians and pundits are talking about the 99% vs 1% as legitimate concerns and not just dismissing it as communism (Fox News doesn't count). That's a huge success on itself. I think there's a real danger that the movement might overreach and do more harm to its goal by being disruptive and violent (or at least, allow the media to paint them as being disruptive and violent). Banks are crony and corrupt, yes, but you aren't going to get anyone to listen to you when you block a bank's entrance.

I don't know much about american media, but it doesn't look like anyone (bar fox) was ignoring the plight of the poor, only the tea party did that. As for the communism part, its been dead for 20(18) years, people have started to get that it is finished (bar china). The other thing was that I think people understood what they were getting at, and when something strikes a nerve you'd be surprised at what the effects are.

I think the movement has already overreached, as it can't sustain media interest in itself for long, the only way it can get publicity back is something dumb by the banks (e.g. another bailout) in which case, it will probably weaken 'serious opposition' by depriving it of air-time. or getting violent.

It wasn't the banks who were 'crony and corrupt' that was the mortgage lenders and estate agents ('realtors' in American i think pls correct) who let all the dodgy loans happen.

Originally Posted by DoomSlayers

Touching banks is a big no-no. You'd get arrested faster by trying to block a bank than harassing the President (puppet).

O,o Although thinking back, this was also an attack on a bank wasn't it?

Originally Posted by DoomSlayers

A bit off topic... The US GOP is quite interesting. Just how low can the Mainstream Media fall?

I'm actually happy about it. I can now identify which sources are somewhat reliable and which sources are to be ignored.

Yeah i am not american, is GOP = Good Old Party (republicans)?

[DoomSlayers]

Originally Posted by InvokerofTime

occupy grievances=>america's future growth=>food prices


I don't know much about american media, but it doesn't look like anyone (bar fox) was ignoring the plight of the poor, only the tea party did that. As for the communism part, its been dead for 20(18) years, people have started to get that it is finished (bar china). The other thing was that I think people understood what they were getting at, and when something strikes a nerve you'd be surprised at what the effects are.

I think the movement has already overreached, as it can't sustain media interest in itself for long, the only way it can get publicity back is something dumb by the banks (e.g. another bailout) in which case, it will probably weaken 'serious opposition' by depriving it of air-time. or getting violent.

It wasn't the banks who were 'crony and corrupt' that was the mortgage lenders and estate agents ('realtors' in American i think pls correct) who let all the dodgy loans happen.



O,o Although thinking back, this was also an attack on a bank wasn't it?



Yeah i am not american, is GOP = Good Old Party (republicans)?

I don't really want to derail the thread, but I guess I could reply.

GOP is indeed the republican party. I find it particularly entertaining because I do not live in the States. If I did, I would be quite worried (I already have a thousand and one reason to be worried). It's amazing to see how MSM (Main Stream Media) attempts to control the "public opinion" (public opinion is just another tool to control the population).


Didn't watch the video, but I think it was about the planes that hit WTCs. There's plenty of conspiracy theory out there and I won't add mine to them. All I will say is that it certainly filled the pockets of special interest and the military complex was very happy. We (Occidental) wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein for years, and finally got a pretext to take him out.

Anyway, 9/11 was a big mess. Planned? I don't know. Knew the potential threat (that it was coming) and did not respond appropriately? Absolutely. It's really just another (big) false flag operation...