Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This has nothing to do with the topic, but are you seriously arguing that freedom exists as some preordained fact and hasn't been subject to revision over the centuries? That the concept of freedom, and freedom is a concept, is the same today as it was 10 centuries ago?
Don't you think the Farm Stand is closer to the ideals of freedom than it is socialism?
How exactly did you manage to compare "freedom" to "socialism"? You surely can't be using the words freedom and capitalism interchangeably. Perhaps we could try to see if the Farm Stand follows the Edmund Burke ideology or the Thomas Paine model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
This has nothing to do with the topic, but are you seriously arguing that freedom exists as some preordained fact and hasn't been subject to revision over the centuries? That the concept of freedom, and freedom is a concept, is the same today as it was 10 centuries ago?
Correct. The avenues of freedom may have expanded (or contracted) but not the concept. When someone demanded freedom a few centuries ago, it meant freedom the way it would mean today.
This is a great example of how controlled our thinking is today. This article is about pure free market capitalism, yet most people think it is liberal or socialist economics and the government managed, crony corporatist economy is called (usually derogatorily) free market capitalism. Ugg.
" I can barely hide my amusement. I am engaging in an enterprise that is the essence of pure capitalism while surrounded by those to whom the very word "capitalism" is one of the greatest of obscenities. It is voluntary exchange; it is a relationship where everyone feels as if they have won. Isn't that the essence of the free market?"
I didn't care much for the article. His opinion is based on this big stereotype, about how anyone who shops at the C.S.A. must be some kind of liberal anti-capitalist. I guess I missed the part where he proved that shoppers of C.S.A. were against capitalism.
In reality he was writing this about Charleston, South Carolina, square in the middle of fiscal conservative territory. The sort of people I imagine shopping at a place like that are not communist hippies, they are simply people who are very particular about the quality of the food they eat.
How exactly did you manage to compare "freedom" to "socialism"? You surely can't be using the words freedom and capitalism interchangeably. Perhaps we could try to see if the Farm Stand follows the Edmund Burke ideology or the Thomas Paine model.
Capitalism as in the means of production being privately owned.
Freedom, voluntary exchange.
Socialism either state owned and capitalized where everyone has an equal share.
Or a voluntary Socialism, an exchange where everyone has an equal share.
Capitalism as in the means of production being privately owned.
Freedom, voluntary exchange.
Socialism either state owned and capitalized where everyone has an equal share.
Or a voluntary Socialism, an exchange where everyone has an equal share.
The farm stand leans closer to the first two.
Does the farm stand subscribe to Edmund Burke or to Thomas Paine ideology? Or, do you not see a difference between the two?
As for voluntary exchange, I'm flying internationally on a socialized airline next week. The decision was based on a voluntary exchange that was based solely on my needs as a consumer, not based on who profits from it. Is that not freedom?
It is difficult to discuss a topic with individuals who have depreciated reading skills...
Again, from the article:
"To join a Community Supported Agriculture program, you buy a share of the farm's produce each season, which entitles you to a weekly box of locally grown vegetables and fruit. In a sense, members are not purchasing produce per se, but the rights to a certain proportion of produce should it be successfully delivered."
What part of "you buy a share of the farm's produce each season," do you not understand? You don't purchase land, you don't purchase capital, you do not share a fiduciary responsibility for any tortuous acts, you do not share any fiduciary risks for debts incurred by the farmer all of which equity partners/share holders share with the principle entity. In short, a member of the CSA is not an equity partner, they are members of a buyer's coop.
What are you talking about? You absolutely purchase land. You purchase land with a stipulated time period. You have ownership over a portion of land for the duration of your contact. You also absolutely have a fiduciary responsibility. You get nothing in return for your purchase if you mismanage in any way. the CSA as a whole 100% depends on the actions of it's owners in any given stipulated period of time.
Quote:
How on earth can you discuss this topic without discussing the financial model of the scheme upon which it rests? How absurd.
I agree, and I sincerely wish you understood the model on which the CSA program was based. It seems to be over your head.
Quote:
I already did, and at quite length, but since you can't seem comprehend a simple sentence
Then please explain to me what a market is. You don't seem to understand that concept.
Quote:
"To join a Community Supported Agriculture program, you buy a share of the farm's produce each season, which entitles you to a weekly box of locally grown vegetables and fruit. "
I am not surprised that you missed the entire argument.
Again - thank you for proving my point. You purchase a share of land to produce every season. You exchange money for a good (land and time) with no external intervention. That is the definition of a free market. Do you have any clue what a free market is? Obviously not.
Quote:
Let's compare your rebuttal above to the following and let others decide who has a degree in economics from Cornell University and who is talking out of their ass:
The author argues that Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program is akin to purchasing stock in a company. If that were the case, each member of the CSA would in effect would become an equity holders, owners, in the farm/company, In this case the "investors" are not equity share holders, they have no legal ownership of the land, or the equipment, just the farmers produce. By pooling their resources they have in fact become a buyers cooperative whereby they can exert greater buying power of the farmer's produce (much like Walmart). In some years this can reap greater price savings while in other years it could result in much higher prices based upon the yield of any given years harvest. The farmer interestingly enough, bares no financial risk for a poor quality harvest, nor does he realize greater profitability during bountiful ones. The program is what it says that it is, a market stabilization program that insulates local agriculture from market forces by insuring that they will have the capital to bring produce to market and a guaranteed buyer for that produce.
so now Cornell is an impressive school for economic thought?
The market in question when viewed as a microcosm in and of itself is a free market arrangement. The economist from Cornell is incorrect. the farmer absolutely bears financial risk for poor quality harvests, and the farmer absolutely reaps the gains of bountiful harvests. The farmer exchanges money for time and land in hopes of gaining vegetables over a set period. The vegetables received are the payout. The number and quantity of vegetables is the 'financial' gain or loss in this market.
With respect to whomever you quoted, they are very incorrect
Quote:
There are a myriad of reasons for regulation of business that encompasses far more than monopolistic behavior, some examples, the National Labor Relations Act, the National Occupational and Safety Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act and others. So, please enough at that feeble ad hominem attacks you just aren't up to it.
Of course those exist. They should not, however. That was my point. My point was (I will repeat it so you can hopefully get it this time) that breaking up monopolies and oligopolies should be the only reason for government interaction in free markets.
Pick up an economics book. ANY book. Please. It is obvious you have never done that. I can't hold an intelligent conversation about free markets with someone who does not know the basics of an economic system.
Do you actually know anything, or are you only able to cut and paste from websites? With all due respect, you don't seem to understand what you are saying beyond an explanation you read in a 30 second google search.
Socialism either state owned and capitalized where everyone has an equal share.
I don't wish to debate the merits of socialism vs capitalism but it is important that terms be correctly defined.
"Socialism" does not a priori call for state ownership or capitalization, nor does it a priori call for equal shares of ownership. What socialism does call for is worker ownership of the means of production. Period. How compensation is to be divided amongst the collective owners is another matter all together.
Using the CSA as an example, the same group could come together and purchase the same amount of goods, which they would in turn sell themselves. In this case the CSA becomes either a wholesale or retail workers cooperative.
This would be no different that what is euphemistically referred to as an employee stock ownership where all the workers are owners of the company and share the profits amongst themselves. A perfect example would be the Publix chain of food stores.
Ownership in what, the farm or a product produced by the farm?
Quote:
Renting is a capitalistic market!
Yes it is. But, we have established several times that the CSA is not renting anything. They are not share croppers; renting a portion of land to farm.
Quote:
There is no time limit on ownership in a capitalistic free market.
In the context of this debate, I have no idea of what you are trying to say, unless you are still trying to argue that being a member of the CSA makes you an owner of Farmer Browns farm even if it is for for some limited time, because the article makes it readily apparent that this is not the case.
The only thing that membership in the CSA entitles you to is a percentage of Farmer Brown's produce nothing more, nothing less.
Quote:
You seem to be simply unable to understand that just because the timeframe for ownership is set to one year does not negate the free market model.
The reason why I am unable to understand it is because it does not exist. The only "market" activity is between the CSA and its members, which in turn exchanges a set amount of money to Farmer Brown for his up coming crop. The only thing free about the arrangement is that individuals are free to join the CSA, Farmer Brown is free not to enter into a relationship with the CSA none of which have much to do with "free markets" because there is no activity in which price determination is based upon supply or demand!
Market price setting is the hallmark of a Free Market.
As I've stated, the only thing free about this market is the freedom to join the CSA, the freedom of the CSA to enter in an agreement with Farmer Brown and Farmer Brown's freedom to decide whether he wants to participate in the whole scheme or not.
The problem with CSA as an example of free markets is that it acts to distort the market because there are no market pressures. Supply is whatever Farmer Brown produces in a year, but because he has been prepaid for for his produce regardless of its supply or quality. Supply plays no role in price setting so the price is inelastic. Supply can rise of fall yet price stays the same. The same goes for demand, it plays no part in price setting because as a member of the CSA, you get whatever portion of Farmer Brown's produce he brings to the CSA. If the demand for strawberries is higher than the demand for lettuce it doesn't matter, you get what you get.
This is important because this not only distorts the market for CSA members it distorts the market for produce on the whole. As you should have learned in Econ 100, we assume that the larger the supply, the lower the price. That being the case, in a year of a bumper crop in strawberries Farmer Brown is insulated from price variations because his crops have been purchased at a set price prior to harvest. In this case, Farmer Brown doesn't have to lower the price for his strawberries due to excess supply and because the supply has already been purchased, it reduces the total aggregate supply of strawberries on the open market. Farmer Jones who isn't a participant in the CSA is then also affected as are Farmer Jones' customers. Instead of having to lower his price to compete with Farmer Browns bumper crop of strawberries, he can now raise his price by some marginal amount, since we have to assume that not every citizen of Free Market Valley and beyond are members of the CSA (if they were that would produce a whole other set of distortions). For those buyers of strawberries they will have to spend more for strawberries than they would have if Farmer Brown's strawberries were sold on the open market, and because they spend more on strawberries they spend less on some other commodity, because of the market for strawberries has been distorted.
Again - thank you for proving my point. You purchase a share of land to produce every season.
I cannot debate with those who cannot read.
"To join a Community Supported Agriculture program, you buy a share of the farm's produce each season, which entitles you to a weekly box of locally grown vegetables and fruit. "
Let me repeat from the article in question:
"YOU BUY A SHARE OF THE FARM"S PRODUCE!!!!"
Your claim that you are "purchas[ing] a share of land to produce every season, implies that you, yourself, are going to Farmer Brown and working some portion of his land to produce some portion of the total agricultural production of his farm. This is simply not supported by the article as demonstratively pointed out in the above quotation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
