OPEN LETTER TO THE COUNCIL OF CANADIANS. MARCH 15, 2008.
Dear Friends,
As a CoC member from the beginning, may I point out that the time to stop the useless handwringing, the complaints, articles and books on the effects, and start disclosing the real, easily proven, ideologies and theories driven reasons for the ongoing destruction of the Earth, democracy and the human race, is long overdue ?
The scriptures for global colonization and enslavement are being taught in our universities as the “theory of neoclassical market economics”, which has now become the biggest crime wave in history, destroying the Earth, and killing tens of millions every year with the perceived power of imaginary monies, created from the air, yet remains unquestioned and untouchable, while all the screams, protests and other forms of pointless opposition are being directed at politicians and governments, who are nothing more than puppets on strings, controlled by an international power elite.
There's no such thing as “monetary efficiency”. Its presently used definition as the “largest profits for the least monetary inputs”, used by economists and politicians, is a fraud, causing incredible damage. The only humanly and environmentally acceptable definition of economic efficiency is the physical: “The most work done with the least resource/energy inputs”. Yet, by using the false concept of monetary economic efficiency, the pseudo priesthood of economists are now leading the world into self destruction with the distorted quotations of Adam Smith's “invisible hand of self interest” theory , and the worthless and also fraudulent, GDP, Growth and Productivity figures.
With the application of physical efficiency to economics we can easily prove that the long term, lowest, and real costs of products will always be the lowest resource and energy inputs. Also, that human labour doesn't cost anything to economic systems, because it is energy neutral. When human labour is replaced by huge inputs of other forms of energy, to divert the benefits to the artificial entities of shares, real costs are always increased by the reactions caused by the waste of resources and the increased energy inputs. The replaced humans must also find, and governments must supply them, with other resource bases for the survival of their families, resulting in more waste and reactions. .
Real, physical costs can not be cut, only transferred on other sectors, the environment and the future. In the 35-40 years, since “competitive” neoclassical market economics have been forced on the world, living costs have increased by over 1000 percent. We also have destructive global warming, pollution, depletion, daily growing poverty, worldwide starvation, epidemics of cancers, diabetes, and other illnesses, the destruction of countries, democracies, etc., all of them transferred, but unaccounted costs, caused by a worthless, criminal theory, at the intellectual levels of the Rosenberg religion and Mao's Cultural Revolution, designed for global dictatorship under a power elite.
Everything and everybody on Earth exists, survives and bound by unbreakable physical laws.
The science, planning and all forms of production are based on physical laws, therefore economic theories and principles must also follow them.
The textbook definition of economics is: “The science for the management and distribution of scarce resources” . As all resources are physical realities, all economic calculations must be based on physical laws and measurements. Monetary values are, often violence induced, infinitely variable, temporary perceptions, set by speculators to alter and corrupt the physical dimensions of trade goods for the purpose of profits through extortion and theft, therefore can not be used for economic calculations.
The survival of all life forms depends, for every second of their existence, on the conversion of resources into, and the control of certain forms of energy.
Wealth is the temporary control of energy. Wealth can not be created, only taken from other sectors, the environment and the future. This is an unbreakable physical law, not an ideological theory
From the beginning of history, power elites have been brainwashing people with the use of religions and ideologies as economic theories for the justification of violence for colonization, enslavement, and the destruction of ecological systems for the “creation of wealth”, into their own pockets.
The strongest and most dangerous weapon of global colonization is the now deregulated money creation power by banks, in selected countries. With bank deregulation money has become a weapon, and licence, to control energy, issued by a special interest sector for the enhancement of its own powers As many of us have predicted during the fight against the FTA, it had little to do with trade. The main purpose of these treaties, disguised as “agreements”, is the destruction of democracies, resource control and colonization with the free movement of imaginary capital.
The biggest racket, foreign investment, brings nothing to a country, its purpose is to control, colonize and take everything they can lay their hands on. It is not the imaginary money that brings prosperity, but the resources it is created against and brought in to exploit. This means that when you have resources, you have capital and no need to sell yourself, or your properties.
These banks have been creating imaginary capital, from the air, to colonize, expropriate, collectivize and control the world's resources. The power elite that benefited from this theft is now in position to cause a major economic depression, forcing a desperate humanity to beg for dictatorship, as it happened in Germany in 1933, where the economy was “booming” within months after they've put Hitler into power , claiming that democracy was inefficient and not competitive. .
The same powers that put Hitler, and other dictators, into power are now poised to take over the world, collectivizing and destroying independent societies and long standing, efficient economic systems in the name of “competition”, to “cut costs”. If economists and politicians had any brains they'd know that competitive systems are counter productive, because all forms of competition always increase costs with ever increasing input demands to stay on top, until the system burns out and destroys itself.
As JK Galbraith said many years ago: “The purpose of competition is to eliminate competition”. And now we have our economists and politicians forcing us under the control of the so called “ Proto Parliament”, of the North American Competitiveness Council, using the brainwash, scriptures and tenets of the neoclassical theory for the elimination of our countries and our total enslavement, so they can steal the most from the most, while calling it “wealth creation”.
Why the reluctance to point out that the theories, licencing the present destruction, originate in our universities? Academic freedom means the search for solid facts and not the unquestioned sale of criminal theories.
Sincerely, Ed Deak. Membership # 3295.
Stumble It!
Great Point. All the earnest, well-meaning protests, marches and demonstrations are aimed at influencing and trying to change the minds of the first mate and the chief engineer who are only following the orders of the captain. He remains out of sight in his captain's cabin, but none the less gives the orders to his underlings as to which direction to steer and at what speed. The crew knows they must obey the captain (or suffer the consequences), rather than listen to the rabble in steerage demanding a change of course.
Nothing has intrinsic value. If somebody doesn't want something, it has no value economically speaking. A pool of oil below the ground has no value to a nomadic tribe that lacks the technology to drill for and exploit the oil. If that pool were to disappear, its loss costs them nothing, because it has not deprived them of any realistic opportunity.
If you take a bunch of resources, which have a certain market-defined value (remember, something's only worth what people are willing to part with for it) and use them to build something that people want even more, that's called "adding value", and it is the very basis of our economy. What to produce is the most important question in economics, and free-market economies answer that question in the only sensible way. You product what people want, based on what they're willing to pay for.
Human labour is free? Try telling that to the person cutting the paycheques. Human labour is a scarce resource, and the one that is most easily wasted.
Even in Ed's world, products can be produced more or less efficiently (fewer energy and resource inputs), because certain production processes generate more waste than others. Human-centric production processes can be very wasteful of resources, because people are more prone to error than machines in repetitive activities. This is particularly true when this is no pressure on the company to minimize waste and rework, such as in the case of a monopoly with a guaranteed market, where any additional costs can be passed on directly to the consumer.
But competition is evil, Ed says. Try living in an economy full of inefficient monopolies, especially state-owned ones. Ed must remember what that kind of economy is like.
There's more to an economy than just stuff you dig up, stuff you harvest and stuff you burn. Ultimately, it's brainpower, hard work and the meritocracy of competitive enterprise that make an economy work.
EBay owes its existence to want.
http://collage.twws.ws/Money_Matters/Th ... -Ever.html
And as there is no accounting for tastes it appears also there is accounting for opinion
The big “if’ of argument has its foundations based in supposition(s)
Some where in my boxes of books I have a copy of the book spoken of in the article at
http://www.246.dk/38tricks.html
And some how my friend individualist manages to use the all. (so far not all at once though. LOL)
The thirty-eight dishonest tricks of argument described in the present book are the following
(1) The use of emotionally toned words (pp 10-25)
Dealt with by translating the statement into words emotionally neutral
(2) Making a statement in which "all" is implied but "some" is true (pp 27-38)
Dealt with by putting the word "all" into the statement and showing that it is then false.
(3) Proof by selected instances (pp 32-37)
Dealt with dishonestly by selecting instances opposing your opponent's contention or honestly by pointing out the true form of the proof (as a statistical problem in association) and either supplying the required numerical facts or pointing out that your opponent has not got them.
(4) Extension of an opponent's proposition by contradiction or by misrepresentation of it (pp 39-43)
Dealt with by stating again the more moderate position which is being defended.
(5) Evasion of a sound refutation of an argument by the use of a sophistical formula (pp 41-44)
Dealt with by analysis of the formula and demonstration of its unsoundness.
(6) Diversion to another question, to a side issue, or by irrelevant objection (pp 44-48)
Dealt with by refusing to be diverted from the original question, but stating again the real question at issue.
(7) Proof by inconsequent argument (pp 49-50)
Dealt with by asking that the connection between the proposition and the alleged proof may be explained, even though the request for explanation may be attributed to ignorance or lack of logical insight on the part of the person making it.
(8) The argument that we should not make efforts against X which is admittedly evil because there is a worse evil Y against which our efforts should be directed (pp 50-52)
Dealt with by pointing out that this is a reason for making efforts to abolish Y, but no reason for not also making efforts to get rid of X.
(9) The recommendation of a position because it is a mean between two extremes (pp 52-54)
Dealt with by denying the usefulness of the principle as a method of discovering the truth. In practice, this can most easily be done by showing that our own view also can be represented as a mean between two extremes.
(10) Pointing out the logical correctness of the form of an argument whose premisses contain doubtful or untrue statements of fact (p 58)
Dealt with by refusing to discuss the logic of the argument but pointing out the defects of its presentations of alleged fact.
(11) The use of an argument of logically unsound form (pp 58-64)
Since the unsoundness of such arguments can be easily seen when the form of the argument is clearly displayed, an opponent who does this can be dealt with by making such a simple statement of his argument that its unsoundness is apparent. For one's own satisfaction when reading an argument of doubtful soundness, it will often be found useful to make a diagram.
(12) Argument in a circle (p 64)
(13) Begging the question (pp 65-66)
Both 12 and 13 can be dealt with in the same way as 11; by restating your opponent's argument in such a simple way that the nature of the device used must be clear to anyone.
(14) Discussing a verbal proposition as if it were a factual one, or failing to disentangle the verbal and factual elements in a proposition that is partly both (pp 67-77)
This is really an incompetent rather than a dishonest way of arguing. The remedy is to point out how much of the question at issue is a difference in the use of words and how much (if at all) it is a difference as to fact or values.
(15) Putting forward a tautology (such as that too much of the thing attacked is bad) as if it were a factual judgement (pp 71-72)
Dealt with by pointing out that the statement is necessarily true from its verbal form.
(16) The use of a speculative argument (pp 78-83)
Rebutted by pointing out that what is cannot be inferred from what ought to be or from what the speaker feels must be.
(17) Change in the meaning of a term during the course of an argument (pp 88-94)
Dealt with by getting the term defined or by substituting an equivalent form of words at one of the points where the term in question is used and seeing whether the use of this form of words will make true the other statements in which this term is used.
(18) The use of a dilemma which ignores a continuous series of possibilities between the two extremes presented (pp 103-105)
Dealt with by refusing to accept either alternative, but pointing to the fact of the continuity which the person using the argument has ignored. Since this is likely to appear over-subtle to an opponent using the argument, it may be strengthened by pointing out that the argument is the same as saying, "Is this paper black or white?" when it is, in fact, a shade of grey.
(19) The use of the fact of continuity between them to throw doubt on a real difference between two things (the "argument of the beard") (pp 105-108)
Dealt with by pointing out that the difference is nevertheless real. This again may be made stronger by pointing out that application of the same method of argument would deny the difference between "black" and "white" or between "hot" and "cold".
(20) Illegitimate use of or demand for definition (p 109)
If an opponent uses definitions to produce clear-cut conceptions for facts which are not clear-cut, it is necessary to point out to him how much more complicated facts are in reality than in his thought. If he tries to drive you to define for the same purpose, the remedy is to refuse formal definition but to adopt some other method for making your meaning clear.
(21) Suggestion by repeated affirmation (pp 111-114)
(22) Suggestion by use of a confident manner (pp 114-115)
(23) Suggestion by prestige (pp 115-118)
The best safeguard against all three of these tricks of suggestion is a theoretical knowledge of suggestion, so that their use may be detected. All three devices lose much of their effect if the audience see how the effect is being obtained, so merely pointing out the fact that the speaker is trying to create conviction by repeated assertion in a confident manner may be enough to make this device ineffective. Ridicule is often used to undermine the confident manner, or any kind of criticism which makes the speaker begin to grow angry or plaintive.
(24) Prestige by false credentials (pp 115-118)
The obvious remedy for this is, when practical, to expose the falsity of the titles, degrees, etc, that are used. The prestige then collapses.
(25) Prestige by the use of pseudo-technical jargon (pp 116-118)
Best dealt with by asking in a modest manner that the speaker should explain himself more simply.
(26) Affectation of failure to understand backed by prestige (pp 118-119)
Dealt with by more than ample explanation.
(27) The use of questions drawing out damaging admissions (pp 199-120)
Dealt with by refusal to make the admissions. The difficulty of this refusal must be overcome by any device reducing one's suggestibility to the questioner.
(28) The appeal to mere authority (pp 122-125)
Dealt with by considering whether the person supposed to have authority had a sound reason for making the assertion which is attributed to him.
(29) Overcoming resistance to a doubtful proposition by a preliminary statement of a few easily accepted ones (pp 128-130)
Knowledge of this trick and preparedness for it are the best safeguard against its effects.
(30) Statement of a doubtful proposition in such a way that it fits in with the thought- habits or the prejudices of the hearer (pp 133-135 and p 157)
A habit of questioning what appears obvious is the best safeguard against this trick. A particular device of value against it is to restate a questionable proposition in a new context in which one's thought-habits do not lead to its acceptance.
(31) The use of generally accepted formulae of predigested though as premisses in argument (pp 161-166)
The best way of dealing with predigested thinking in argument is to point out good- humouredly and with a backing of real evidence that matters are more complicated than your opponent supposes.
(32) "There is much to be said on both sides, so no decision can be made either way", or any other formula leading to the attitude of academic detachment (pp 166-167)
Dealt with by pointing out that taking no action has practical consequences no less real than those which result from acting on either of the propositions in dispute, and that this is no more likely than any other to be the right solution of the difficulty.
(33) Argument by mere analogy (pp 169-178)
Dealt with by examining the alleged analogy in detail and pointing out where it breaks down.
(34) Argument by forced analogy (pp 178-179)
The absurdity of a forced analogy can best be exposed by showing how many other analogies supporting different conclusions might have been used.
(35) Angering an opponent in order that he may argue badly (pp 146-147)
Dealt with by refusing to get angry however annoying our opponent may be.
(36) Special pleading (pp 154-156)
Dealt with by applying one's opponent's special arguments to other propositions which he is unwilling to admit.
(37) Commending or condemning a proposition because of its practical consequences to the bearer (pp 157-158)
We can only become immune to the effect of this kind of appeal if we have formed a habit of recognizing our own tendencies to be guided by our prejudices and by our own self-interest, and of distrusting our judgement on questions in which we are practically concerned.
(38) Argument by attributing prejudices or motives to one's opponent (p 159)
Best dealt with by pointing out that other prejudices may equally well determine the opposite view, and that, in any case, the question of why a person holds an opinion is an entirely different question from that of whether the opinion is or is not true.
________________________________________
“But competition is evil, Ed says. Try living in an economy full of inefficient monopolies, especially state-owned ones.” individualist says
Well indie, try living outside of the monopoly the central bankers have created.
One either uses their fiat dollars or becomes part of the underground economy.
I have no idea how the smilies got in the body of this post
So please tell me something I don't know about production systems and business, without the boring repetition of ideological cliches sold by brainwashed economists and politicians on the take.
Ed Deak.
The one that gets me most upset is #25, and then I must beware #35, as must we all.
Meanwhile I have a great deal more respect for Ed's opinion than any "econimist" and I suspect in the next couple of years we are about to find out exactly how "valuable" any "assets" that the bankers hold are!
As the movie Forrest Gump showed, first-hand experience in something does not by itself guarantee insight or understanding. You can define "costs" and "efficiency" any way you please. But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept those definitions. I've never seen you "prove" anything on Vive - just repeat your same old assertions ad nauseum, as if they were self-evident truths.
You've never addressed how one can be a "private enterpriser" without competition and not fall into the trap of monopoly, despite my repeated attempts to get you to address that point. In fact, you've never countered or responded to anything I've said without resorting to "argument from authority" based on your supposedly vast experience in business. By the way, what makes small business inherently good and big business inherently bad?
Publish something online other than your repetitive slogans and soundbites and I'll read it. But stop trying to avoid scrutiny of your "theories" by bragging about what a big deal you are. That's just being a blowhard.
They started another business on paper, bought the products of the one they "bought" from me at near bankrupt prices and resold them through the phoney business at full price. When the arbitrators, Coopers & Lybrand, questioned them they threatened to put the business into bankrupcy, unless I take the pennies. The business had a long established name they wanted to keep and it is still going strong 30 years later. This is called "competition", going on all over every day.
The Mexican economy was ruined by NAFTA, with millions of farms and businesses ruined and stolen by a few,who are now among the richest on Earth , while 70% are below poverty levels and 50 million living on less than $3./day.
If you could read, or understand what's written, you might have realized that I have't invented anything, only quote and base my definitions on long established and unbreakable physical laws.
Genuine competition is the search for excellence under controlled conditions and the neutral protection of life and property.
War, crime and economic competition are the forced acquisition of benefits and properties against the owners will.
All forms of competition increase costs physical costs, and also as we can see in the 1000% inflation since the neoclassical market economic theory was forced on us, because of the ever increasing energy demands.
Also, as Galbraith said: The purpose of competition is to eliminate competition.
30 years ago we had hundreds of forest based businesses, contractors, sawmills, etc. here in BC, now we have 6 lumber companies left, with a fraction of the force and incredible energy demands that replaced them. If this is not the elimination of competition and monopolization, what the hell is it?
The Soviets did it with bayonets, the capitalists with the perceived power of imaginary capital, created against and using the value of stolen businesses for collateral.
A free and independent economy should work like a road system, where all users are permitted and their lives and properties are protected by a legal authority, provided they follow strict laws and rules.
The road system of the capitalist economy is based on the "Road Warrior" ideology, where those who damage, ruin and push the most of the road are rewarded and called "efficient".
Human labour doesn't cost anything to an "economy", not businesses, who are not the economy, only part of it. The only legitimate costs are physical inputs. Monetary values are not realities, but often violence induced temporary perceptions.
I explained in my letter how and why physical costs increase? Try to read and comprehend what's written, which could be a difficult, or impossible task for brains filled with ideological claptrap.
Ed Deak.
"If you could read, or understand what's written, you might have realized that I have't invented anything, only quote and base my definitions on long established and unbreakable physical laws."
Which are as relevant to economics as particle physics is to ballet.
"Genuine competition is the search for excellence under controlled conditions and the neutral protection of life and property. War, crime and economic competition are the forced acquisition of benefits and properties against the owners will. All forms of competition increase costs physical costs, and also as we can see in the 1000% inflation since the neoclassical market economic theory was forced on us, because of the ever increasing energy demands."
Good thing you don't just repeat your same old assertions ad nauseum, as if they were self-evident truths. Maybe you should just number them to make their repetition more efficient (oh I forgot, labour efficiency doesn't count).
"Also, as Galbraith said: The purpose of competition is to eliminate competition."
Well, Galbraith was a left-wing twit. You're not going to earn points with me by quoting him.
"30 years ago we had hundreds of forest based businesses, contractors, sawmills, etc. here in BC, now we have 6 lumber companies left, with a fraction of the force and incredible energy demands that replaced them. If this is not the elimination of competition and monopolization, what the hell is it?"
Hate to break it to ya, Ed. But a six-company industry is at most an oligopoly. Monopoly means one company, like Trudeau tried to create with Petro-Kanada but failed.
"The only legitimate costs are physical inputs."
So sez you.
Having said that, some of the things in this thread are dead wrong, including
- NAFTA has not ruined the Mexican economy, and it is specious to quote poverty statistics without making reference to conditions before NAFTA.
- Competition decreases costs, not increases them
- We do not have 1000% inflation since "neoclassical economics was forced upon us." The philosophies of the father of neoclassical economics - Alfred Marshall in no way preclude such an inflation. Instead, inflation has occurred as government has extended control over the fiat money supply.
- JK Galbriath is not God. He was dead wrong about the outcome of the economy when he wrote The New Industrial State in the 1960s.
- The contraction in the forest industry has to do with perverse incentives in political systems throughout the world. It is one of the few industries with low barriers to entry and high barriers to exit. Place this with a parochial US Congress, inefficient mills and a strengthening currency, its no wonder the forest industry has collapsed.
- Its astonishing to say that the only costs are physical inputs and not labour. That belies ignorance of not only basic economics but of basic business.
And I have been competing in many sports, 2 of them internationally, plus in business. Look up the Shell 4000 Car Rally site on google and look for my name. I was rally team captain for Datsun in 1966-67-68.
Economic systems work by the laws of speed, which means ever increasing energy inputs for very small speed gains, because "mass increases with speed"
How many km. or miles, you put on your cars before you have to change tires or cars? When we were competing we wore out 1 or 2 sets of tires per day and our cars were built to last for a week. This is the cost of all competition. The same applies to all production systems.
When monetary competition forces companies to replace human labour with huge inputs of other forms of energy, the physical reactions, pollution etc. will raise costs. Period. I have been working on this with top line scientists for 23 years and have copyrighted the only scientifically correct definition of economic efficiency in 1991, to establish the date, not for monetary reasons.
Indie, when oligopolies control whole sectors of the economy, the likes of Cargill and Monsanto with a few others the world's food supply, it is a conspiracy to defraud, which, for all practical purposes is a monopoly.
Short supplies are supposed to raise prices in the theory of Marshall's econometrics etc. The world's food production topped years ago and it is going downhill fast, with millions starving to death. How is it that farmers and other food producers are receiving the lowest prices that forces them out of business
while prices in the supermarkets are rising every day?
How is it that, with the admitted shortage of beef, ranchers are receiving half the prices of 10 years ago, before the BSE hysteria? Who controls these extortion prices at both ends and who benefits ?
This is "competition" forcing farmers off their lands, so the multinational agribiz mafia, controlled by the same bandits under every ideological flag, can take them over.
If competition doesn't eliminate competition, how is it that some companies are operating under hundreds of names to pretend they're still the old marques? What are mergers, if not the elimination of competition? To the best of my recollection Nestle now controls 800 names, Green Giant 600, 10% of all the monies spent on food in the USA go to Philip Morris.
Governments simply gave the control of the money supply over to the banks, who went wild and licenced the takeover of the world's resources by a few multinationals and their brethren. Now that they're in control, they can crash the world's economy and set up global dictatorship.
By the way, things made in China are not "cheaper", but far more expensive on the long run, because of the energy inputs demanded by their distribution. Right now a scientist friend of mine is on his way on one of his several yearly trips to China, on the invitation of the government, trying to solve their pollution problems, killing them and others all over the world by the millions.
All these are "transferred and unaccounted costs", that still raise the fraudulent GDP figures. How is it that economists are to stupid to see this ?
As far Luddism is concerned, here's the last paragraph of my 1991 Efficiency Principle:
12. Our economic systems are based on the misuse of words, concepts, mathematics and accounting. No sane person wishes to go back to primitivism or musclepower, but there must be new, democratically controlled determination of when , how far and for whose benefit convenience may, or must overrule the concepts of true efficiency, within the recovery capacity of teh environment and humanity.
In other words, the determination can not continue to be done on the basis of profits for a few, or global life control by Monsanto through the patenting of genes.
Ideologies and all economic theories are are dead, or have to be killed if humanity wants to save itself from self destruction by the biggest crime wave in history, pushed by miseducated economists, bought politicians and the brainwashed faithful..........
Now read what my letter says and try to use your brains, instead of repeating tired propaganda cliches..........
Ed Deak.
Economic systems work by the laws of speed, which means ever increasing energy inputs for very small speed gains, because "mass increases with speed"
Frankly, I have no idea why one would make an analogy of a combustion engine to an economy, since they are two separate discreet entities. Why not the economy and heavy metal music? Seems as relevant.
The idea that more and more energy is required to generate a given level of economic input is simply wrong. In fact, it is the exact opposite.
How is it that, with the admitted shortage of beef, ranchers are receiving half the prices of 10 years ago, before the BSE hysteria? Who controls these extortion prices at both ends and who benefits ?
They aren't. Agricultural commodities are hitting all-time highs and farm income is soaring.
Wheat
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CW/M
Corn
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CN/M
Soybeans
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/SB/M
Where on Earth are you getting your figures? From some advertising agency like the Fraser and CD Howe racketeers ? Millions of Mexican farmers have been wiped out by NAFTA alone, and pushed into mega city cardboard shacktowns. On an average, 10% of Canadian farmers quit every year. The number of US farmers is about 1/3 of what it was 30 years ago.
Here in Canada, old farmers can't get their children to take over and have to sell out, or in our case, we simply gave our land away to people who're helping us and will look after us to the end. Our children didn't want any part of the land, only the money. Now they won't get anything.
I happen to be in small scale organic ranching. Calf prices are 50-60% of what they were 10 years ago. We averaged .75 cents/lb last year, and prices are lower now, if anything. I know ranchers with thousands of acres and 800 heads who have used up their savings long ago and living on loans, hoping for miracles.
The same is going on all over the world. Indian farmers are committing suicide by the thousands every year. It is estimated that the EU is wiping out 4 million Polish farms, something not even the communists could do.
As far you chart is concerned, again it must have been calculated by neoclassical economists on the same fraudulent principles used for GDP and other meaningless, junk calculations.
Have you ever heard of the principle of overcapitalization, older textbooks used to warn against, which at that time was calculated at 1 wage year per worker?
What happened to this simple principle today, when there are no limits to investment?
Here, in the forest industry, there used to be 5 independent mills in the neighbouring town 30 years ago. Today the mills are still there but owned by 2 mega corporations and employ half the labour force, replaced by huge inputs of electric power into automated machinery. The investment per worker is now about 60 plus, wage years. Is this not overcapitalization?
With a small sawmill, 2 people can make good living from about 50 truckloads of timber per year. The automated mills use up to 400 loads per worker to maintain the service costs of the imaginary capital. But small mills can't get the timber, with the government in the pocket of the transnationals.
Justified, of course with Adam Smith's " invisible hand of self interest". So what did Smith really say and what do they teach on this in the universities? The same crap what Milton Friedman quotes?
Have you ever read Veblen, Odum and especially William Edwards Deming's works on the subject of competition?
I spent 45 years of my life fighting communism, and intend to spend the remainder fighting its twin brother in crime, neoclassical capitalism, in the name of human freedoms and enterprise.
There ain't no political left and right, only the predators and victims. And the predators are always the same people under every flag, ideology and religion and I've known them all and studied their methods through history, for over 60 years now.
How about microchipping people at birth, some of the big boys are now planning?
What are the participants at the top secret, no records, protected by police forces, Bilderberger, Trilateral and WEF conferences talking about? What are their plans for the human race? Or are they just deciding of how to "compete" against each other?
How about little Tom d'Aquino, the unelected PM of Canada for the past over 20 years. Why is he denying the existence and plans for the SPP, NAU and NAFTA superhighway when the plans are ready and are being negotiated in secret even now ?
Wake up man, before it is too late. You're not talking to some kid amateur, but an old British trained pro.
Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.
The Editor, Williams Lake Tribune. February 18, 2008.
Dear Mr. Editor,
The destruction of the family farm, and of real private enterprise, started after WW2 with the Austrian School theories of Friedrich von Hayek, taken by Milton Friedman to the Chicago School of Economics as the “neoclassical market economic theory”, to become the biggest crime wave, colonizing and collectivizing the whole word under the dictatorial oligopoly of a few multinational corporations.
In the fifties, US Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson, declared to farmers: “Get big, or get out”. In 1970, US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, declared: “Control oil and you control nations, control food and you control people”, and “tame” politicians have been selling their farmers off ever since.
The large majority of independent farms have now been ruined, and the world's diminishing food supply is now under the control of a few corporations, who depress prices to the remaining producers, while raising them to consumers. There's a growing, global shortage of beef, yet prices paid to our ranchers are half of what they were ten years ago, while prices in the stores are going up every week.
The feedlots, controlled by mega corporations, are their main weapon of collectivization, setting the prices at both ends, while pumping the animals up with stinking tallow, falsely called, “marble”, the North American public became, incomprehensibly, addicted to.
The feedlots are environmental disaster areas, with tens of thousands of animals up to their knees in muck, poisoning the land and water tables for large areas, while wasting incredible amounts of water for the infrastructure for small weight gains.
The animals are shot full of antibiotics, hormones, steroids, etc, fed with grains, and then, as an article in the Western Producer pointed it out some years ago, this whole racket is repeated every time they're moved to other lots, in some cases 5-6 times, before their adulterated meat is sold to the public, while governments shed crocodile tears over people getting fat and down with an epidemic of diabetes.
The best weapon against exploitation and dictatorship is self sufficiency, a concept abhorred by economists and politicians on the take. Unless producers take matters into their hands they'll all be wiped out and the control of food will be collectivized into the hands of the multinationals on agribiz kolkhozes, using imported Mexican labour, the mining industry is also dreaming about.. The public must be shown what junk they're forced to eat and then supplied through a producer controlled marketing system, bypassing the feedlots and middlemen, as it is already done to a great extent in the Maritimes and many parts of the world, with the selling of clean, wholesome, healthy, grassfed meats.
Contrary to propaganda, it is easy to prove that many organic products, especially meats, can be produced and sold at much lower, sometimes for half the price of the feedlot junk, when the control of billionaire middlemen is removed from the system.
With this letter I'm also delivering several packages of beef to the Tribune staff, from a calf that has never had any shots and never ate anything else but milk and grass, with the question to be answered in the paper: Have they ever had more tender and better tasting meat ?
Ed Deak,
PS: The editorial staff loved the organic veal as the tenderest and tastiest.