A rambling search for an underlying principle
 

My parents were raised on small farms growing vegetables to meet the family needs, selling tobacco, cotton, and a few eggs locally for hard cash.
They met, married and moved to Detroit to work for General Motors. WW II ended and along came the Interstate Highway, and K-POW, the world changed.

My first computer in 1975 cost $3k, had 8K of memory and at each startup the DOS system software had to be loaded from a 3 inch floppy disc.
IBM was the opposite culture with the "big computer in the sky". Along came ethernet, the internet, and K-POW, the world changed.

Many businesses were small, set up as sole proprietorships and partnerships and small corporations that supported our nation's workforce.
Along came the multinational, mega-corporations, and K-POW, the world changed.

So now, we have episodes of contaminations of the entire nation's food chain (e.g., meat, eggs, spinach)
or a single oil spill threatens "just-in-time" inventories and manufacturing, and the polarizing politics brings economic hardships of immense proportions.
Along comes a US Supreme Court decision giving all businesses complete freedom of speech, and K-POW, the world will change.

So what... maybe it all works it's way out in the long run.
But I keep feeling there's a need for better thinking up front.

Isn't there an alternative or an underlying principle hidden in all this "learning by disaster" ?

It is like they think we can have a country without people.

By coincidence, this NY Times article appeared today.

It has a similar tone... great minds run in the same rut

It wasn’t simply that the operation is out of scale with the Iowa landscape. It is out of scale with any landscape, except perhaps the industrial districts of Los Angeles County. What shocked me most was the thought that this is where the logic of industrial farming gets us. Instead of people on the land, committed to the welfare of the agricultural enterprise and the resources that make it possible, there was this horror — a place where millions of chickens are crowded in tiny cages and hundreds of laborers work in dire conditions.

Out of scale with reality. Food prices are insanely low, which is cool if you're on the edge financially or some drone they're feeding... if you're paying a dollar a dozen for eggs though you are begging to be poisoned. Take control of what you can, garden, backyard flocks... let's be humans living in our landscape.

Griff, I think you are very close to where I was headed with this.

There needs to be a balance between "survival-ism" and "corporation-ism".
My wife tries to "buy local" but we get into arguments about whether the label means small and responsible, or is just conglomerate advertising.

I just heard on the news that a feed mill that sells chicken feed has been implicated with the salmonella outbreak. Their feed was infected.

He should be, he's living it.

I just had home grown cantaloupe and eggs for breakfast.

really Griff? That sounds nice. I'm thinking of planting eggs in next years garden. :p:

Keep it up and I'll plant you... :)

I don't think that'll work...I planted bird seed last spring...Not a peep.

Really? My eggplant did pretty well this year.

It was fertilized by chicken poo!

Yes, really. :)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/bu..._r=1&th&emc=th

The inspections, conducted over the last three weeks, were the first to check compliance by large egg-producing companies with new federal egg safety rules that were written well before the current outbreak, but went into effect only last month.

“Clearly the observations here reflect significant deviations from what’s expected,” said Michael R. Taylor, deputy commissioner for food for the F.D.A.

Mr. Taylor said that in response to the outbreak and recall, F.D.A. inspectors would visit all of the 600 major egg-producing facilities in the country over the next 15 months. Those farms, with 50,000 or more hens each, represent about 80 percent of nationwide egg production.

If you have any poultry you have rodents. If you have 50,000 + birds I imagine you'd need a pretty clean operation to minimize mice and rats.

The report on Wright County Egg also described pits beneath laying houses where chicken manure was piled four to eight feet high. It also described hens that had escaped from laying cages tracking through the manure.

Officials last week said that they were taking a close look at a feed mill operated by Wright County Egg, after tests found salmonella in bone meal, a feed ingredient, and in feed given to young birds, known as pullets. The young birds were raised to become laying hens at both Wright County Egg and Hillandale.

The inspection report helped fill in the picture of the feed mill as a potential source of contamination, saying that birds were seen roosting and flying about the facility. (Officials said both wild birds and escaped hens were found at the mill.)

Nesting material was seen in parts of the mill, including the ingredient storage area and an area where trucks were loaded. The report also said that there were numerous holes in bins or other structures open to the outdoors. That included the bin containing meat and bone meal that provided the feed ingredient sample in which salmonella was found.

Officials said last week that they had found traces of salmonella similar to the strain associated with the outbreak in a total of six test samples taken from Wright County Egg facilities. That included the two feed tests and four tests taken from walkways or other areas.

My chickens get cracked corn and whole oats with free access to crushed shells for calcium. Being free-range most of their diet is grass, insects, and berries this time of year. Choose well consumer.

Chickens graze?:eek:

Sure they do, those gizzards will grind up anything.

They eats everything, even little rodents and snakes, but green grass is a preferred food.

Seeds, I could understand, but, I did not know chickens ate grass. And I'm having trouble with it...:redface:

quick search of youtube...

I am moving toward survivalism. I hope to get off the grid or nearly as possible in the next 5 years. By then it may be to late. We love to buy local, but really I don't think there is any proof positive that you get a better product, other than growing and supporting your local economy. A country side stand that I bought "home grown" tomatoes at for years had actually importing them from NC. They still tasted great, but they were not local. You do have to be careful and at least ask before you buy.

Go Solar!

A long personal rant...

I agree about "buying local".
If you can actually (personally) know the grower maybe there's a chance,
but there are a lot of products out there that are taking advantage of the current fad of "green".

I disagree with the idea of survivalism.
Not everyone can go that route, nor should they try.
Can you imagine the situation if they did... it would be back to Dan'l Boone days...
and feuds would not be settled as easily, smoothly, and friendly as they are here in The Cellar :rolleyes:.

In starting this thread (post #1), I was trying to use the idea that stand-alone computers are personally satisfying, but networks make things better for everyone connected.
The problems come when all of the data is stored on "the big computer in the sky", and that big computer is owned by just one or a few individuals who have their own motivations.

It's OK if the owner is a "benign dictator" working for the good of all it's users, but if $ is the only goal... well, you know where that is going. Can you spell BP, Comcast, Koch... ?

My most recent concern is the US Supreme Court's decision to bestow the Right of unlimited free speech on corporations (i.e., any business). That is, they are now legally defined as an "individual" with all the rights of an individual. Advertising, whether political or not, can be done in any form, saying whatever the company desires, in whatever amount the company can afford. So with mega-corporations, well, you know where that is going.
Can you spell BP, Comcast, Koch... ?

Corporations are now individuals equivalent to a person with all legal rights
and enormous coffers of funds to run rampant over the human beings and smaller (vulnerable) businesses.

How can we protect ourselves from:
the big computer in the sky ?
the egg farm distributing tainted eggs with impunity ?
the corporation that mounts overwhelming political advertising that to only benefits their $ bottom line to the detriment of the population?

How can we (humans) protect ourselves from the non-benign dictators ?

I hope that if we find the underlying principle that is working here, it will lead to a beneficial solution.
Otherwise, you get what you... are sold.:sniff:

I try. But it is not as easy as you think, even when you think you are buying local.

That is going to be my approach. I no longer trust the government to do it's job.

It is a fact of our world, just substitute Google, Microsoft, and Apple and you have it.

And my fear is that we have law makers who want to regulate the airwaves and take away the free market forces which have shaped radio, under the guise of "leveling" the playing field, all along the motivations are purely partisan. Let those who want to enter the market do so, and then support themselves with advertising and support of the listeners as others do. If they make it they make it. If they fail they do so by their own failures. I am not a supporter of the SC ruling, but it is what it is. So I guess we have to live with it for now.

I don't know, get off the grid and don't allow it to influence you?

Buy chickens?

It has already been happening for years, since the age and development of the advertising industry.

Revolution? I am about ready to start with this Congress and President.

Agreed.

Libertarians understand that the business of humanity is business. Class-warfare resentment peddlers either forgot that or never knew it in the first place. And they're out for the profit they can get if they succeed.

Business is the engine the drives the country, not government. Government is a poor source of job creation, even when it does so it is a very temporary source of job creation and in the end people just end up where they started. Anything that suppresses business from making reasonable profits will continue to stagnate the economy.

Corporations are now individuals equivalent to a person with all legal rights without accountability for their actions!

Scientists understand that the business of humanity is survival of the species. It is a funny sort of libertarianism that opposes human rights in favor of group (corporate) rights. Slavery to government or slavery to business is still slavery. Read up on your coal country company towns. That is the full expression of your ideas. It may also be a pretty good analog for where our country is headed. The right is fascinated by the prospect of perfected business, while the left is fascinated by perfected government, both are unattainable and create hell on earth.

Hell, individuals are not accountable for their actions any more, what's the difference?

The Market and the energy of the People are the engine. Business is just a passenger on the train. But Business has a First Class Reserved seat, because Government is selling the tickets and always puts his buddy up front.

That is a fine point that needs to be understood.

Merc, that looks like it's just a diversionary argument.

What do you mean ?

Rich individuals, like Soro's can hide behind organizations in an attempt to effect national elections, seems fitting that private corps can do the same thing. Not that I agree with it but they are one in the same to me in their ability to influence elections with millions of dollars.

Why single out Soros?

Why not include people like the Koch brothers who have poured more than $100 million into astroturf organizations to fight health care reform, clean energy legislation, etc...not to mention funding many Tea Party activities:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...0fa_fact_mayer

Again, it seems like your view is anti-libertarian, questioning the right of people to "participate" in the process with their money.

My point was if you are going to bitch about corps you should bitch about Soro's.

Sure ..and the Koch brothers as well.

I'm still not sure where you stand.

Are you for or against the Koch brothers dropping $1 million just this week into the ballot initiative in Cali to suspend the state's climate bill....

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gree...te-change.html

...an initiative funding almost entirely with out-of-state oil money.

Who cares, that convict Soro's made his money overseas, among other places, and he used it to defeat anyone who did not follow the liberal socialist agenda in US elections. I guess that is the way things work now days.

So your answer is that you dont care that about the Koch brothers influencing policy?

I'm just trying to understand your position.

Just Soros?

From Hope To Nope

A November catastrophe for the Democrats brings out the conspiracy theories.


http://www.forbes.com/2010/09/02/bar...schannellatest

I'm still not sure where you stand.

When you said "who cares" does that mean you have no problem with the Koch brothers and Texas oil companies funding a ballot initiative in California?

Or are you now suggesting it is a conspiracy theory to talk about the Koch brothers, but not a conspiracy theory when it is about Soros?

Soro's is a convicted felon. No real conspiracy theory there. I guess I don't think that convicted felons should attempt to influence our election process, but I guess as long as it is legal he has every right to do what he wants within the law.

Damn, you really should look a little more carefully here you put those feet of yours, cuz you keep stepping in it. It really sounds like you are just against money that goes toward liberal/democrat policies. I seriously doubt you care whether the money comes from a convicted felon or not.

Soro's among many other leftists are really worried about the Tea Party people...

http://www.infowars.com/globalist-so...nst-tea-party/

Linking to the ultimate conspiracy site (infowars) to "prove" Soros is behind every organization on the left? :eek:

One might think you are obsessed with Soros.

But only questioning the Koch brothers is a conspiracy?

Koch Brothers = good
Soros = bad

No double standard there.

Regardless of the source, what part of the post is bs?

Prior to the article in the NYer no one ever heard of the Koch bros, who are not supporting republickin causes. Everyone knows who Soro's is and how he has tried to buy his influence in the election process of the US. As I said I guess I just don't trust people who made their money on the failure of the British banking system, who is a convicted Felon, and is an avowed socialist. Other than that he can do what ever the process in the country would allow him to do legally, I guess just as the Koch bros. It is the way our system works.

The link was never designed to "prove" anything. The report in the news came at an interesting time in the general discussion. It was not a specific response to anything you posted. It was merely pointing out the relationship between the convited felon Soro's and his continued attempts to muck with our election process.

I am saying they are at bottom the same -- for corporation voluntarily entered into. Some parts of them might differ in details, but they are yet too inextricably intertwined with individual rights also to part the two to any good effect.

Businesses are a sub-form of the organization of civilization, which works to the survival of the species in a large way. Looking at it this way, I make a point of not retreating into selfishness. I recommend the same to you. There is no such thing as "the collective" as the Leftists invoke it, but this does not obviate free and voluntary association, nor action taken to sustain it to partake of its benefits.

True enough -- but what is inherent in business to require that form of company paternalism that built the coal company towns? I say there's nothing. Recall those towns began as a try at improvement upon what had been before. That they decayed into pervasive dependency is something separate from that. The pessimist may rightly sigh, "People ruin everything." The man of action does not take that as an excuse to do nothing at all about it all, does he?

Well said! -- and it illustrates why society's pendulum never stays at its extremes, but almost always stays within a more middling ambit.

The prime directive for both people and of businesses is survival.
But without people there obviously would be no businesses. The reverse is not true.
So people are at a higher priority, and businesses must remain subservient.

There are two inherent aspects of business that cause imbalance and work to the disadvantage of people.
The first and foremost aspect of business is that it's sole requirement for survival is to make a $ profit.
All other activities in which a business might engage are therefore, by definition, secondary.

Some forms of business (sole proprietorships, partnerships, etc) keep the owners in a position of responsibility for "secondary" activities.
But in the corporation form, the owners (stock holders) only liability is to the extent of their $ investment of the initial stock purchase.
The corporations Board of Directors, officers, managers, and employees are responsible only for the profit-making activity.
Even when a corporation does something illegal, it's BoD, officers and subordinates are rarely found culpable,
and financial penalty on the corporation books is the only remedy.

This inequality is especially true when the secondary activities of a business falls in the area of ethics.
When people are affected negatively by the activities of the corporation then have little or no recourse,
and so business fails in some degree to it's first raison d'être.

Really?

No matter how good or bad it's intentions, without profit, it's gone.

I completely agree - I'm actually waiting to hear tw's reply to that.

The Cellar is the only exception to the rule.

Which is why both GM and Chrysler went down. Both were only concerned with profits. Therefore they had none.

Meanwhile, William Clay Ford changed Ford's objectives. The product was more important. Therefore 10 years later, Ford has profits, an expectable of even better profits, and a management that continues to worry about the products - not the profit.

Management must choose which is important. When the product is always more important than the profits, then record profits result many years later.

What causes a company to lose money? Crap products. Losses always occur when a company does not worry first and foremost about its products. Not immediately. Both AT&T and GM were playing spread sheet games for 30 years. Making crappy products while constantly worrying about profits. Sometimes it takes that long for the spread sheets to report reality - when management uses lies and money games to cash in capital -to create mythical profits.

No, he changed their method. The prime objective was to make a profit, so they could survive, as it always was.

BTW, just traded in my Ford for a new not-a-Ford.