Asian farmers flocking to Monsanto and Chinese GM crops. Total acreage of biotech has trebled since - Polidicks

[QUOTE=imptastick;40797569]Also they are creating super pests, which is in the long run a much bigger issue.[/QUOTE] As if this is an issue that Monsanto isn't free from? Pests have been doing this shit since the 1800s. Why do you think they kept (and still do) making new pesticides all the time?

I swear Sobotnik, if I was willing to waste five dollars, I would give you the wittest fucking title the world has ever seen, because arguing with you is like arguing with a brick with FREE MARKET I HEART CAPITALISM written on it assembled in China where the more competitive market is lifting billions out of poverty.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40797666]As if this is an issue that Monsanto isn't free from? Pests have been doing this shit since the 1800s. Why do you think they kept (and still do) making new pesticides all the time?[/QUOTE] So therefore lets use super chems to make super pests. Then we can get ultra chems to make ultra pests and eventually ultimate chems to make ultimate pests. Soon: [img]http://fallout3.nexusmods.com/images/4673944-1350176591.jpg[/img] [editline]26th May 2013[/editline] Mole rats march on at the pace of capitalism.

[QUOTE=Reds;40797717]I swear Sobotnik, if I was willing to waste five dollars, I would give you the wittest fucking title the world has ever seen, because arguing with you is like arguing with a brick with FREE MARKET I HEART CAPITALISM written on it assembled in China where the more competitive market is lifting billions out of poverty.[/QUOTE] [quote]Since the start of far-reaching economic reforms in the late 1970s, growth has fueled a remarkable increase in per capita income and a decline in the poverty rate from 85% in 1981 to 13.1% in 2008 (poverty being defined as the number of people living on < $1.25/day).[/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China[/url] [editline]27th May 2013[/editline] Whenever you dudes like it or not, Capitalism has already won. Give up.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40797094]That is competition in action. The less efficient farms are shut down. They then move to the cities to work in industry or services. This is the industrial revolution continuing sir.[/QUOTE] Monsanto has terrible business practices. Slap lawsuits to beat down farmers, bribes, corruption, lawsuits for seeds blowing onto other farmers property, etc. There are dozens of documentaries and articles that can be easily found on the subject. Nobody here from what I have been reading is arguing that GM foods be banned.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40797752][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China[/url] [editline]27th May 2013[/editline] Whenever you dudes like it or not, Capitalism has already won. Give up.[/QUOTE] And the only ones being left poor are the ones being used by Apple and all the other major Cash-corporations. Also lets not even mention how that means that anyone making slightly more than 1.25 a day is now 'not poor'. Lets just add the second part of that paragraph from wikipedia to the info-pool. [quote]At the same time, however, income disparities have increased. The growing income inequality is illustrated most clearly by the differences in living standards between the urban, coastal areas and the rural, inland regions. There have also been increases in the inequality of health and education outcomes. Exact statistics are disputed, as there have been reports of China's underestimating the poverty rate[/quote]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40797666]As if this is an issue that Monsanto isn't free from? Pests have been doing this shit since the 1800s. Why do you think they kept (and still do) making new pesticides all the time?[/QUOTE] Monsanto has amplified the problem to ridiculous proportions. Even if you ignored their contributions on that front; They, as you alluded to above, drive small farms out of business (often directly through unjustifiable lawsuits) which creates a situation in which only industrialized factory style farms are able to survive. Which is far worse for the environment and in the long run the consumer. Even the remaining large companies can not make ends meet in the current system so they beg/bribe for subsidies so that we the tax payers carry the farms while Monsanto rakes in record profits because of their monopoly on modern agriculture.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40797788]And the only ones being left poor are the ones being used by Apple and all the other major Cash-corporations. Also lets not even mention how that means that anyone making slightly more than 1.25 a day is now 'not poor'.[/quote] Despite the fact consumerism is exploding in China? [quote]Lets just add the second part of that paragraph from wikipedia to the info-pool.[/QUOTE] You would have everyone poorer if it meant they were more equal. [editline]27th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=imptastick;40797797]Monsanto has amplified the problem to ridiculous proportions. Even if you ignored their contributions on that front; They, as you alluded to above, drive small farms out of business (often directly through unjustifiable lawsuits) which creates a situation in which only industrialized factory style farms are able to survive.[/quote] This is actually good. Agriculture must be industrialized for the future generations. [quote]Which is far worse for the environment and in the long run the consumer.[/quote] Despite the fact that the total land under cultivation declines when more productive farms emerge. [quote]Even the remaining large companies can not make ends meet in the current system so they beg/bribe for subsidies so that we the tax payers carry the farms while Monsanto rakes in record profits because of their monopoly on modern agriculture.[/QUOTE] Then eliminate these subsidies.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40797799]Despite the fact consumerism is exploding in China? You would have everyone poorer if it meant they were more equal. [/quote] You know, yeah, I think if the top .001% of our population was a bit less rich, and that money was spent on the interests of the people, then yeah maybe I would have that. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM[/media] But don't listen to me, I'm just a evil commie who hates capitalism.

[QUOTE=Reds;40797717]I swear Sobotnik, if I was willing to waste five dollars, I would give you the wittest fucking title the world has ever seen, because arguing with you is like arguing with a brick with FREE MARKET I HEART CAPITALISM written on it assembled in China where the more competitive market is lifting billions out of poverty.[/QUOTE] hold on let me see if my paypal validation has come through

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40797878]You know, yeah, I think if the top .001% of our population was a bit less rich, and that money was spent on the interests of the people, then yeah maybe I would have that. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM[/media] But don't listen to me, I'm just a evil commie who hates capitalism.[/QUOTE] This is a video about America, not China. [editline]27th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Generic Monk;40797886]hold on let me see if my paypal validation has come through[/QUOTE] "Bourgeois capitalist" in bold and colourful letters might be apt.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40797799] This is actually good. Agriculture must be industrialized for the future generations. Despite the fact that the total land under cultivation declines when more productive farms emerge. Then eliminate these subsidies.[/QUOTE] I have a feeling you have not studied the affects of industrialized agriculture. Absolutely industrialized farms are worse despite taking up less land. Unlike on in traditional farming industrial agriculture is not cyclical, so waste is a major problem and the land needs constant chemical treatment to remain fertile. Plus massive monocultures lead to all sorts of problems. Also even if you could just "eliminate the subsidies", despite the massive corruption that leads to them, unless you first take actions to reform agribusiness it would cause more problems. You remove the subsidies the farmers all stop making profits and the price of food and gas (ethanol relies on corn subsidies) will skyrocket. You then will see the collapse of most farms, followed by massive food shortages. You would be crippling the farmers and starving the people.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40797895]This is a video about America, not China. [/quote] Just... stop. [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/01/20/the-china-miracle-a-rising-wealth-gap/[/url]

Capitalism is pretty okay in my book. It's when there's no regulatory body preventing infringements on human rights that there's a problem. There's no way to ignore the vast amount of development occurring in the third world due to market reforms. That isn't to say that these things won't come with environmental consequences - all we can really do is play the right cards with sustainable development and hope for the best.

[QUOTE=imptastick;40797925]Also even if you could just "eliminate the subsidies", despite the massive corruption that leads to them, unless you first take actions to reform agribusiness it would cause more problems. You remove the subsidies the farmers all stop making profits and the price of food and gas (ethanol relies on corn subsidies) will skyrocket. You then will see the collapse of most farms, followed by massive food shortages. You would be crippling the farmers and starving the people.[/QUOTE] Then import food. Also the subsidies can be phased out, instead of suddenly being rid of.

you can use header tags in titles right?

[QUOTE=Generic Monk;40797974]you can use header tags in titles right?[/QUOTE] I believe so.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40797955]Then import food. Also the subsidies can be phased out, instead of suddenly being rid of.[/QUOTE] Solving a food shortage is not as simple as importing more, also corruption makes it very unlikely that corn, soybean, etc. subsidies are going anywhere. How about instead we stop companies from placing patents on forms of life and start cracking down on monopolies in the agricultural sector. We should allow for competition to grow within the agricultural supply industry.

done [editline]27th May 2013[/editline] aw the headers didn't work - no matter it's easier to read like this

[QUOTE=imptastick;40798010]Solving a food shortage is not as simple as importing more[/QUOTE] It actually can be. Britain once imported most of its food.

[QUOTE=Generic Monk;40798024]done [editline]27th May 2013[/editline] aw the headers didn't work - no matter it's easier to read like this[/QUOTE] Aww, you didn't mention his raging hardon for capitalism.

[QUOTE=Reds;40798055]Aww, you didn't mention his raging hardon for capitalism.[/QUOTE] there's a character limit and I had to get the base elements down!

The title is smaller than the previous one, which is an improvement.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40798069]The title is smaller than the previous one, which is an improvement.[/QUOTE] you're like ian huntley to me [editline]27th May 2013[/editline] <3

[QUOTE=Generic Monk;40798075]you're like ian huntley to me [editline]27th May 2013[/editline] <3[/QUOTE] I would have preferred bourgeois capitalist.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40798069]The title is smaller than the previous one, which is an improvement.[/QUOTE] Of course it's smaller, it means we don't have to look at your posts as much. But yeah, giant titles suck, it's why I changed my title.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40798098]I would have preferred bourgeois capitalist.[/QUOTE] Ok, Mr.Bourgeois Please Address how the massive wealth gap isn't a problem to capitalism. Because in most of these threads you are ignoring points directed at you and continue about your opinion unabated.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40798118]Ok, Mr.Bourgeois Please Address how the massive wealth gap isn't a problem to capitalism. Because in most of these threads you are ignoring points directed at you and continue about your opinion unabated.[/QUOTE] I don't see a problem with wealth inequality (unless it is exacerbated by rent-seekers).

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40798133]I don't see a problem with wealth inequality (unless it is exacerbated by rent-seekers).[/QUOTE] Survival of the richest. Makes sense, fuck the poor, they should get jobs. Also rent-seekers... [quote]A simple definition of rent seeking is spending resources in order to gain by increasing one's share of existing wealth, instead of trying to create wealth. [/quote] What part of that isn't descriptive of Banking practices? But, do you seriously not see any problem with having the top 1% having over 40% of all a nations wealth? Because if you don't, I fundamentally don't think there is anything anyone can say to you that will make you change your mind. The reason should be almost self evident.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40798208]Survival of the richest. Makes sense, fuck the poor, they should get jobs.[/quote] I actually think the poor should have a minimum income. [quote]What part of that isn't descriptive of Banking practices? But, do you seriously not see any problem with having the top 1% having over 40% of all a nations wealth?[/quote] Yes, it tells me the state is corrupt. [quote]Because if you don't, I fundamentally don't think there is anything anyone can say to you that will make you change your mind. The reason should be almost self evident.[/QUOTE] Inequality should exist, but not on excessive levels.