Free Trade Agreement not likely

tejasmarcos says on May 17, 2008, 08:55:

less police, less security = more illegal guns in the cities, more incidents of gun violence

trying to walk a straight line on sour mash and cheap wine...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gator says on May 17, 2008, 09:19:

!!!Democrats Love Free Trade Like Vampires Love Garlic !!!!

"Credidi pretio parvo emere et magno vendere tibi in animo fuisse!" .

0 funny, 0 helpful.

OneHappyBoy says on May 17, 2008, 09:26:

I don't think the Democrats are going to totally divest itself in Colombia, nor will it totally cut off funds for assistance. If there is ever a bright spot in our foriegn policy, it is Colombia. We have provided foriegn aid, which Uribe has invested WISELY into security and economic development, and military assistance in fighting FARC and the paramilitaries. THAT, I don't think, will change. It maybe less money, but money will still go to Colombia.

The change will be in less economic growth for Colombia.My vision, get rid of NAFTA, with Mexico and Canada, (neither country really needs this agreement with us, and it just fuels illegal immigration from Mexico), and look towards Central America, and Northern South America for economic partnership. I think THAT would tone down that crazy Chavez, and benefit our hemisphere, much like the European Union has for Europe.

In fact, as far as I am concerned, we have more in common with South American Countries, like Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, And Chile, than Mexico. The Mexican Governments biggest export is cheap illegal labor. i swear nobody in the country has any desire to grow a healthy economy that Mexicans can be proud of! I think the average South American WANTS a strong South America and they know it comes from pride in their respective countries. Yes, there are some challenges with left leaning governments, but all in all, South American's love being South Americans and that is where the US needs to invest in free trade agreements.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

poco says on May 17, 2008, 09:33:

Hi Larry:

I see you were a member in 2006. Have you not been reading this forum?

Quote: With the large national debt the US is going to need to tighten the belt and I have a feeling all this money they are spending here in Colombia (which gets the most funding from the states outside of the war in the middle east) is going to be drastically cut.

Gosh Larry,, you think? I mean,, would a new regime in the U.S. turn their backs on one of their allies,, throw them to the wolves so to speak ? Larry,, what do you believe happens to the U.S. dollars sent to Colombia NOW ? Do you suppose the 35% drop in the exchange rate has an effect ? Would reducing funding ANOTHER 30%,, or even 100% drop have an effect,, well yes but this appears what the congress,, especially a Democratic Congress with the potential of a Democratic President wants to happen.
====================
Quote: How do my PBH friends feel the lack of the free trade agreement between the states and Colombia not being renewed will affect Colombia?
Larry: There NEVER was a free trade agreement,, nope,, never,,, so there was NOTHING to renew. Right now,,, the U.S. allows approx. 90% of Colombian produced goods in the U.S. TARIFF FREE.
======
Quote: Basically, the Democrats said they are against the FTA since it will cut "jobs from Americans". Obviously, Bush has tried again last month to push the agreement but it failed.

Not correct Larry,,, that was not the main reason,, The REAL truth is that IT WOULD INCREASE JOBS,, yes,, more jobs for Americans. There is NO DOUBT about this.

Larry,, the ignorance of the average American is astounding,, the ability of the average U.S. union member to allow their fearless leaders to SHOOT them,, the rank and file,, in the foot,, while they cheer should make the History books.

"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy." Quote - General Tommy Franks

0 funny, 0 helpful.

durito says on May 17, 2008, 09:33:

It's a non-issue until at least next year.

The spineless congress people will never vote on such an issue in an election year.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on May 17, 2008, 09:51:

Most Colombian imported goods into the US enjoy little or no tarrif. Most US goods imported into Colombia enjoy crushing tarriffs. Some here predict if there was free trade between the US and Colombia, that Colombia would see an influx of crappy American foodstuffs that would put Colombian food producers out of business. I see this point, but I don't think it would be that dramatic. But fine, let's say that is true. Then keep taxes on US food products, and drop the tarriffs on all the other things like heavy equipment, computers, etc. Regardless, I can't rationally find anyway that a free trade agreement with Colombia would hurt the US. I can appreciate the concerns, looking at it from a Colombian perspective; but from a US perspective .... I just don't get the resistance to an FTA. I must be dense.

--"I believe in making the world safe for our children. But not for our children's children, because I don't think that children should be having sex." - Jack Handy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

rocinante says on May 17, 2008, 09:59:

Thanks Poco. You saved me a great deal of typing.

TLC screws Colombia and is good for the US.

"World economic indicators point to a democrat winning 2008. It will surely be Obama. Peso 1400 by November" Feb 5, 2008

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tejasmarcos says on May 17, 2008, 10:33:

you are a piece of work, poco.

trying to walk a straight line on sour mash and cheap wine...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

jarhead says on May 17, 2008, 10:45:

I was at the Camara de Comercio at Corferias the other day, iquiring about "plan Vallejo" for my company, and I got into a conversation with one of the "advisors" there, she was commenting how bummed she was that the aproval of the FTA had be delayed yada, yada, yada....and I commented to her that the best thing that can happen to Colombia in the short term is for the FTA not to be approved, considering that 90% of Colombian products get into the U.S. without paying any taxes, or tariffs, I went on to explain to her how, in my view, Colombia is in no way, shape, or form prepared to compete with the U.S. commercially, and will not be prepared for god knows how long, needless to say, she feels that the FTA is a godsend for Colombia, how is this so????I just don't see it....the FTA is a win, win situation for the U.S., not Colombia............

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on May 17, 2008, 10:59:

"the FTA is a win, win situation for the U.S., not Colombia............"

until the american public realizes how many colombian goods enter this country, and demands parity.

for me, it speaks to the intelligence of the rank/file union members, that they would allow their leadership to sodomize them so thoroughly. with the weak dollar, who knows HOW many export-related jobs would be created for union members, with an FTA passage.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tomtom33 says on May 17, 2008, 11:24:

And you see that rapid deterioration in the short time that NAFTA has been in effect?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

rocinante says on May 17, 2008, 11:29:

yes, yes you can

"World economic indicators point to a democrat winning 2008. It will surely be Obama. Peso 1400 by November" Feb 5, 2008

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on May 17, 2008, 11:30:

I don't think that much has changed in Mexico with respect to the food production sector. Rather, Mexicans are getting a little wealthier, they're getting more sedentary and they're eating more convenience foods and, in general, making bad food choices. Happens in a lot of places.

Here's an example. There are 5600 convenience stores owned by Oxxo (which in turn is owned by FEMSA - the No. 2 brewer in Mexico and the dominant Coca Cola bottler in Latin America). They are building HUNDREDS of new stores each year. That puts junk food within easy reach but doesn't have much (anything?) to do with NAFTA.

http://www.oxxo.com/oxxo/tiendas_fastfood.html


FEMSA STOCK PRICE CHART

If Mexicans want to gorge on rice, lard, Doritos, Coca-Cola (highest per capita consumption in the world), crap from Bimbo and junk food from convenience stores, that's their decision and they are responsible for their declining health status.

Check out the stats - people are getting fat in India and diabetes is becoming a big problem. India still has a relatively closed economy with respect to food imports and foreign retailers and they don't have a big free trade agreement with the US. More wealth, more sedentary lifestyles, more convenience/junk food -- the cause and effect isn't rocket science.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

miamimike says on May 17, 2008, 12:22:

Robert Jorge says on May 17, 2008, 09:51: flag

Most Colombian imported goods into the US enjoy little or no tarrif. Most US goods imported into Colombia enjoy crushing tarriffs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RJ-- the Question should be is ------How Congress here in the USA ever allowed such a Lopsided, one-wayed agreement favoring one side( Col in this case) to ever pass in the First place. Should have been equal and fair trade from the Get-Go which obviously it(trade) was not since 1992(approx) . Its been a screw-job for the US and its workers from Day One who foot the Bill for the monies sent to Col for Plan Colombia.

SLguy-I doubt it wasn't just "Rank&File" union workers who gave the go ahead for this agreement in the early 90s or their "lack of Intelligence" but more at fault of those in Congress who came up with this idea. And don't forget, many times Congress inserts Riders onto Larger bills at the last minute then, Congress in a hurry to get home, signs off on the whole bill and finds out later the damage done by these riders. Happens hundreds of times a year in our Congress. At any rate, the Andean Trade Accord passed in the 90s didn't have the USA's Best Interest at heart when they penned the Bill when that part allowed for one contry to export duty free while the other country was slapped with import tariffs hitting 30% or better. Do you think Congress publicized all of the downside to the Public when they were debating the Points of this Andean Trade Bill? Hardly,,,

"Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4-a-gallon gas? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that." -- Feb. 28, 2008 --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

miamimike says on May 17, 2008, 12:30:

Take the Rose Trade for example and BTW, the workers in US Farms growing Roses are Not Union Workers yet they certainly were affected:


.US. growers claimed that Colombian exports were jeopardizing their businesses because they were dumping their roses at unfair prices on the U.S. market, and were receiving special concessions. According to a report by the Floral Trade Commission the number of rose growers in the U.S. fell from 323 in 1971 to 213 in 1993 while foreign imports rose to 61.7% of the U.S. market from 0.2% in 1973 [Ambrus, 1994]. U.S. growers from across the country argued that the industry had declined because they could not compete with foreign imports.

The tariffs set by the 1994 resolution were eventually removed, thus enraging U.S. growers. U.S. growers are upset over a section of the Andean Trade Preferences Act that allows Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru to sell flowers duty-free to the U.S. as a way of helping these countries develop alternatives to cocaine production. At present, the countries listed above account for 75% of the $8 billion U.S. flower market [Lee, 1A]. U.S. growers argue that cheap blooms from Colombia are devastating their industry, and that Colombian authorities have not kept their part of the bargain. U.S. growers state that Colombia has done enough to combat the drug trade and cocoa crops in Colombia continue to flourish. According to William R. Carlson, executive director of the Floral Trade Council in Haslett, Michigan, "We've [U.S. growers] become the economic poster child for the damages of unfair trade practice. [Ortiz, 1997]"


AsPaul Harvey crowed, "And Now you have the other side of the story",,,
http://www.american.edu/TED/rose.htm

"Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4-a-gallon gas? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that." -- Feb. 28, 2008 --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on May 17, 2008, 12:34:

There was an article in the leading local daily about how NAFTA bankrupted Mexican corn growers when US genmanipulated, dirt-cheap corn flooded the markets. I don't have the story for it was quite a while ago I read it. I can see this same scenario happenin Colombia and besides, the US manipulated corn tastes godawful sweet and unpleasant. I ate recently some fresh corn imported from another country and what a diffference in the taste.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on May 17, 2008, 12:47:

Corn in Mexico is a complex subject. It's so tied up in their national/indigenous identity and it's forever been a highly subsidized core part of their diet. I have no doubt that some farmers got out of the business due to increasing amounts of imported corn, but it's been a gradual thing -- they had 14 years to prepare their micro farms (the average plot is something like 10 acres) for the changes.

I don't know what the answer is, but I can assure you Mexico did not have a thriving, market driven corn industry prior to NAFTA and they don't have one now. If I recall, Subcomandante Marcos and his motley crew began their advocacy on the part of impoverished farmers and indigenous people on January 1st, 1994, the day NAFTA went into effect. NAFTA didn't make them poor; they were already barely scratching out a living.

Also, check out the stories over the last year or two about higher global corn prices, subsidized tortilla prices, and the monopolist Mexican boogeyman GIMSA (www.gimsa.com) in the middle of it all.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on May 17, 2008, 12:56:

"....An estimated 1.5 million agricultural jobs have been lost since NAFTA went into effect in 1994.

Tariffs protecting beans and corn, including the white corn Mexicans use for tortillas, which make up a third of their diet, are to end in January 2008. That is exposing Mexican corn farmers -- two-thirds of whom subsist on 12 acres or fewer and 90 percent of whom lack irrigation -- to competition with U.S. farmers who are so highly mechanized they can produce a metric ton of corn with a half-hour's labor, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

American corn exports to Mexico -- now one-fifth of the corn consumed there -- have more than tripled in NAFTA's first 10 years, and the USDA predicts they will double again in the coming decade. ..."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/31/MNGIVK8BHP...

...
"Sin maíz no hay país is the resounding clarion call given by Grassroots International’s Mexican partners, grantees and their allies in rolling out the National Campaign in Defense of Food Sovereignty and the Revitalization of Rural Mexico.

Corn is indigenous to Mexico, and the alliance of peasant, farm worker, indigenous peoples, fisher, consumer, environmental and human rights groups and other organizations that came together to declare sin maíz no hay país are making the point that corn is intrinsically tied to the very idea and identity of Mexico.

The urgent nature of this campaign is clear as we near January 1, 2008, when the last remaining protections that Mexican peasants and indigenous peoples have preventing the flooding of their country with subsidized U.S. corn and beans, the two staples of the Mexican diet, will be erased. And so, on November 18, 2007 they will undertake a national mobilization to call attention to this looming disaster.

When the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed by the United States, Canada and Mexico in 1994 over the widespread opposition of Mexico’s rural poor and indigenous peoples, some time-limited tariff protections were put in place to prevent U.S. exports of these two foods from deluging Mexico and causing economic upheaval. The immediate and long term impact of such a deluge might well be much larger than the recent floods caused by Hurricane Noel in Tabasco and Chiapas states.

Since the implementation of NAFTA, and even with these limited protections, millions of Mexicans, particularly from rural communities, have been hard hit. More than 2 million rural people have been displaced from the countryside and forced to emigrate to cities or to the North in search of a means for survival—an endless supply of cheap labor for maquiladoras on the border or low wage jobs in the United States....."
http://www.grassrootsonline.org/news-publications/articles_op-eds/naft...

There's a lot about this issue to be found when you google nafta corn mexico.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on May 17, 2008, 13:05:

"SLguy-I doubt it wasn't just "Rank&File" union workers who gave the go ahead for this agreement in the early 90s or their "lack of Intelligence" but more at fault of those in Congress who came up with this idea. "

i was referring the union bosses' current loud, semi-truthful proclamations about the proposed FTA. not historical behavior, but current histrionics.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

guacharaca says on May 17, 2008, 20:27:

I am afraid that poco is correct. An FTA would increase jobs for Americans, but they would be low paying, chit jobs. We do not need those Unions keeping the high paying jobs for Americans. What good would that be? Hell, we might as a well build all the car factories in Colombia and export cars to America. Yes economic theory demonstrates the benefits of FTAs for both countries, but it is not that clear on the distribution of wealth or the protection of the worker.

Colombianos: Las armas os han dado independencia, las leyes os daran libertad. (Santander)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Monpirri says on May 18, 2008, 10:12:

There are a lot of countries that have benefit from NAFTA, Canada and Mexico.
If you live in the states and you visit a local supermarket you will find out all kind of produce and other foods products from Mexico. We are talking a great deal of Mexican products in US stores. You have to live in the states and check out the food isles and produce section..
Chile also enjoys a trade treaty with USA and there are other countries in the same or similar treaty.

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

0 funny, 0 helpful.

rocinante says on May 18, 2008, 15:46:

"I don't know what the answer is, but I can assure you Mexico did not have a thriving, market driven corn industry prior to NAFTA and they don't have one now. If " Tinto

It's not about the thriving market driven corn industry. It's about the people who no longer have jobs. Don't look at it as numbers on a balance sheet.

"World economic indicators point to a democrat winning 2008. It will surely be Obama. Peso 1400 by November" Feb 5, 2008

0 funny, 0 helpful.

BillBigD says on May 19, 2008, 20:35:

I think the fruit from Chile is pretty darn good and comes from a lot further than 80 miles

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on May 19, 2008, 22:13:

"I think the fruit from Chile is pretty darn good and comes from a lot further than 80 miles"


yea, well....you don't know what you're talking about, obviously. ;)

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on May 19, 2008, 22:40:

Ninety-nine percent? That's a recipe for a) brown gruel, b) malnutrition, c) blandness/sameness, d) starvation in the big cities and e) destroying our fisheries. The local (80 mile, 100 mile) movement/fad is popular with some right now, but the 99% goal is ridiculous.

No chocolate, coffee, tea, spices or tropical fruit for you, but if you're lucky, you might find some salt in that radius.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tomtom33 says on May 20, 2008, 02:38:

Come on, Rubi, quit dissing my additives. Taste is an acquired sensation. I prefer the taste of bananas that I buy in Wisconsin to the taste of the bananas that I buy in Colombia.

I don't do farmers markets. I much prefer supermarkets. I never found any carts at farmers markets.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on May 20, 2008, 07:40:

No, I wasn't talking about Colombia. I was talking about the world in general because I'm a big picture kind of guy. Haha.

While "eat local" is a good idea the percentage you advocate is impractical/impossible and has been since the days of Marco Polo, Cristobal Colon and the ancient spice and salt traders.

No argument on the fisheries, there's probably not a fishing bed in the world that's not at risk.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on May 20, 2008, 07:50:

I wanna know how to grow citrus on a commercial scale within 80 miles of NYC. Or Toronto. I haven't figured out how to get tuna and other mackeral family fish to live in the central US either.

--"I believe in making the world safe for our children. But not for our children's children, because I don't think that children should be having sex." - Jack Handy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on May 20, 2008, 08:24:

It's a little scary but I was going to answer RJ a little bit along those same lines...
It's a question about learning to like what's grown locally, what's available in your neighbourhood, the product of the land. It's a different mentality and it may not be possible for most people to re-set their preferences and priorities to a sustainable pattern.

(I was thinking about this same thing while driving my Gringa niece and her boyfriend all around the town from one store to another because the one nearby did not store their prefferred US junk food snack. I paid 10 times the price of the garbage in gas plus contaminated the environment just because I wanted to be a gracious hostess.)

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on May 20, 2008, 08:26:

This is an interesting subject, but when you imply it's part of an entitlement mentality for a Siberian to want a banana or an orange in the middle of a depressing winter, I think you're going off the deep end. If you don't think tropical products should be exported, the economies of Colombia and and many other countries in the tropical zone are headed straight for the toilet.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on May 20, 2008, 08:30:

Desi - What was the junk food they were craving?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on May 20, 2008, 08:43:

Tinto...I don't recall the exact brand any longer. Something that ended on _itos. Everything had to be a certain brand...their cigs, their diet soda, gods I felt relief when I didn't have to shop for a special toilet paper for them.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on May 20, 2008, 08:53:

Sounds like a Pepsico/Frito Lay product - Cheetos, Doritos or Tostitos.

I can understand trying to track down something if you really like it and haven't had it for a long time, but on a one or two week vacation I've never sought anything from home except for the Wall Street Journal and a decent cup of coffee (I once rode a single speed girl's bike through 10 miles of Phoenix suburbs to buy the Wall Street Journal - pre-internet, of course).

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Monpirri says on May 20, 2008, 08:56:

Where the heck this 80 miles formula was developed? "we eat should come from within 80 miles of where we are. If we don't follow that, we will pretty much NEVER be healthy."
No wonder bananas from Colombia, grapes from Chile and beef from Japan imported to the US taste so unhealthy.
Based on this new formula all fruit exports and why not beef as well should be banned from exporting. Now I get it, that does explain why there are so much unhealthy people in the world because the import/export above the 80 miles statute.

Annette Taddeo for US Congress 2008

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on May 20, 2008, 09:03:

rubito, are you simply incapable of making a point w/out your signature vulgarities?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

sanandressi says on May 20, 2008, 10:32:

Uribe and friends want this agreement to encourage foreign investment. You will not see a whole lot of factory or heavy industry starting up with this FT with Colombia because the cheapest labor is in China not Latin America and Mexico is right next to the US.

There is a fear that the US might slap tariffs on the flowers you see being grown right next to Bogota's airport. This is the industry that the US government set up to supposedly help end drug trafficking. It destroyed California's rose industry giving you cheaper flowers at Wal-mart. "Set up to end drug trafficking but grown next to El Dorado airport in Bogota?" Yeah right!

This is the one FT deal the Congress should approve and I think this is why Uribe extradited those right wing para's last week. To silence leftist groups like HRW, Amnesty Internatiional and labor unions by showing that Colombia will be tough on both FARC and paras....

The damage to American industry is already done with CBI, NAFTA, CAFTA and with CHINA the cheapest and easiest to pollute so why go to Colombia? But this FT deal sends a message to Chavez, Correa and the other leftists that the US will support Uribe.

The United States is slowly losing what it gained in WW2. Unfortunately for we Americans, we have politicians who are not nationalists but can be bought and sold and so are our corporate leaders. 50 years ago Chavez would have been deposed by US marines. Not ethical but that is the way it was.

I am not for these FT deals and why are so many Mexicans crossing our borders 14 years after NAFTA? NAFTA was supposed to end illegal immigration. Create jobs so Mexicanos would stay in querido Mexico. Mexico has the first or second richest man in the world. 60BN yet 2,000 or so cross the border each night (UNIVISION).

This deal should pass but with the election who knows. Both countires will survive with or without the deal. If Colombia gets lots of foreign investment it could be good IF the wealth ever gets to the poor and the countryside. In Latin America I doubt it greatly. (How do the Costa Ricans do it?)

America is already pretty much gone because the CEO's and Wall Street have sold us out to China for a quick profit. Hell, our own government gives a $100BN air force tanker contract to Airbus France over our own Boeing. ????

Free Trade = cheap labor and easier to pollute!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tomtom33 says on May 20, 2008, 13:42:

SL, fuck yeah.

Tinto, that's our Rubi. Off the deep end.

SA, politicians are generally cleaner today than they were 50 years ago. You think a few bucks weren't made on WW2?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

BillBigD says on May 20, 2008, 18:39:

FUCK THE ECONOMY-This is the same clown that has been bragging about selling at the high of the market in NYC and now has made 60% on his place in Colombia.
Been to many farmer's markets but I do enjoy fruits in the dead of winter.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on May 21, 2008, 21:31:

Well, according to Rubi's 80 mile theory, I should be living off of beef and poultry raised here. I can't drink milk though, because I don't think there is any dairy in this area. (I could be wrong) Shrimp and fish would be a staple, since they couldn't be exported more than 80 miles. Pine tea would be about the only drink. There aren't many veggies grown around here, but we do have crawdads (crayfish). I guess gator tail would be utilized more also. So, pretty much no vegetables, no fruit, no milk, lots of critters, and pine needle flavored tea. I also never dreamed I would be labeled as "entitled" because I like to eat cold water fish and fruit.

--"I believe in making the world safe for our children. But not for our children's children, because I don't think that children should be having sex." - Jack Handy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on May 21, 2008, 21:41:

amazing, the stuff one can learn, eh, RJ? ;)

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on May 21, 2008, 21:49:

Crayfish are great eating. You could have a crayfish party every day!
RJ, time to start a vegetable garden in your backyard/balcony, whatever place you got. Paprika, tomatoes, zucchini, cucumber grow almost without any effort from your part.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on May 21, 2008, 22:18:

rubito, please forgive us our density. not everyone can follow your semi-rational rants consistently. hell - i can't even follow my own, a good portion of the time.

why rant about impossible stuff like eating stuff that doesn't exist??

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on May 21, 2008, 23:24:

Whatever his original intent was, Rubito is still making up numbers and has an idealized vision of Colombian agriculture that's far from reality.

Reality:
-Colombia imports all of its wheat - 1.3 million metric tons per year
-Colombia imports about two thirds of its corn - 2.5 million metric tons
-Colombia imports almost all of its soybeans - about 500,000 metric tons
-Colombia imports almost all of its soybean meal - about 600,000 metric tons
-Colombia imports virtually all of its (drinkable) wine
-Colombia imports large quantities of fresh fruit from Chile
-Colombia imports large quantities of dried fruits and nuts and even gets fresh apples from Washington state
-Colombia imports large quantities of dried, canned and processed food from the US (including junk food) and moderate quantities of meat and meat by-products
-The list goes on...

Add up all the calories in the MILLIONS of tons of imported food (human) and imported feed (for animals) and it should be clear that nowhere close to 99% of the average Colombian diet comes from within an 80 mile radius of Mr. or Mrs. Average.

The fact is that since the apertura in 1991 coupled with more wealth, more urbanization and more desire for convenience foods, the Colombian consumer has access to pretty much the same stuff the rest of us do. The genie left the bottle a long time ago...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on May 21, 2008, 23:41:

I won't argue about the average Bogotano eating more food from close to home than the average American, but where are you getting your information about the share of food from supermarkets vs. traditional/farmers markets? I'd be interested in seeing that.

I don't worry one bit about running out of food in 10 to 20 years. Malthus was wrong 200 years ago, Erlich was wrong 40 years ago and I'd bet that whoever the Chicken Little is in 2008 will be wrong too. Between unused land (there are millions of acres of what is probably the best farmland in the world, even surpassing Iowa, in the Ukraine), land that would be far more productive under better management, and technological improvements, we'll be fine. That's not to say everyone can eat like fat, rich Europeans or North Americans, and we'll probably be eating less beef because cattle are so inefficient, use so much water and generate a lot of greenhouse gas.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on May 22, 2008, 00:00:

rubito, i admire your passion, but you're completely out of your league, debating tinto.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on May 22, 2008, 00:09:

I read something the other day - "Famines don't happen in free-market democracies." It reminded me of the line from Thomas Friedman that "there has never been a war between two nations that both have McDonalds."

So, if Africa and the Middle East can become more democratic, Latin America can maintain its democracies and we all support McDonald's, the future will be alright.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on May 22, 2008, 00:14:

Sure, cattle eating grass on well-managed but marginal land (not suitable for intensive agriculture) can produce protein more efficiently, and they can get a lot of their water from the grass, but they still fart, fart and fart some more. Someone, somewhere is probably working on a way to capture all that methane.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on May 22, 2008, 08:51:

I forgot pigs. We have lots of pigs up here in the panhandle. Eglin AFB actually encourages people to hunt them.

I agree with Rubi's take on the rail system. It would be great to see the railroads get utilized more in the US.

--"I believe in making the world safe for our children. But not for our children's children, because I don't think that children should be having sex." - Jack Handy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

gatogris says on May 22, 2008, 11:20:

Unfortunately, the realities of globalization create complications for debates about the environmental impact of local food vs. imported food. As usual the truth lurking behind certain easy suppositions is a little more complicated. A summary of the most recent scientific studies on this subject is as follows:

Apples imported from New Zealand to Northern Europe or New York often have a lower carbon footprint than apples raised fifty miles away. Adrian Williams of the Natural Resources Department of Cranfield University, in England, explains: “In New Zealand, they have more sunshine than in the U.K., which helps productivity enormously." This means you get more good apples per acre, and the manmade energy required to grow the crop is therefore lower. New Zealand also has many renewable energy sources to put into play in its agriculteral complex that have little or no carbon impact.

Lamb raised in New Zealand and shipped to England or Colorado has one-fourth the carbon footprint of lamb raised and consumed in England or Colorado. Lambs in New Zealand feed on pastures that generally require less fertilizer than grazing land in the U.K., and fertilizer has a huge carbon impact.

Importing beans from Uganda or Kenya to Europe and the U.S. is less carbon-intensive than growing beans in Europe. The farms in Uganda and Kenya are small, rarely use tractors, and fertilize the crop with manure, while European andf U.S. farms often require energy-dependent irrigation systems.

Roses grown in the U.S. have a seed-to-store carbon footprint six times that of roses air freighted from Colombia. That’s because the U.S. roses almost always are grown in energy intensive greenhouses, as opposed to Colombia, where a greenhouse is basicly just a piece of platic sheeting and a perferated hose.

Now these are the results of studies, but obvious inferences can be made about other countries, particularly in Latin America, where agribusiness is less heavily mechanized and fertilizer-intensive than in the West.

While I agree with Rubito that ideally we 'should' all revert back to an imaginary past of peaceful, self-sufficent, agrarian homespun unisex hemp skirts, and that for an insignificant proportion of the world's Western privileged youth such a thing is even an option (see the 'back to the land' movement in the 70s in U.S. and Canada), I agree with Tinto (and it would seem, also with Rubito) that the world we live in is in every meaningful way outside of this possibility.

So we live in an imperfect world, what's new. It is a lazy, self-serving fallacy to suppose that any individual action we make is meaningless in the face of these massive indicators of global consumption, that growing a garden or limiting your carbon footbrint as an individual is a waste of time.

As Michael Pollan writes: "It’s hard to argue with Michael Specter, in a recent New Yorker piece on carbon footprints [from which I culled some of the above data], when he says: “Personal choices, no matter how virtuous, cannot do enough. It will also take laws and money." So it will. Yet it is no less accurate or hardheaded to say that laws and money cannot do enough, either; that it will also take profound changes in the way we live. Why? Because the climate-change crisis is at its very bottom a crisis of lifestyle — of character, even."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on May 22, 2008, 12:08:

Good post, Gatogris. On a similar theme, the NY Times has been running an interesting and informative series called "The Food Chain"

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/series/the_food_chain/inde...

I believe one of the articles said that for a person living in NYC, buying wine from France is "easier" on the planet than wine from California. Though much debate remains over the whole concept of being able to model a carbon footprint, it would appear that food from far isn't necessarily a slam-dunk bad thing.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on May 23, 2008, 18:04:

Awesome post gatogris. Very well written.

--"I believe in making the world safe for our children. But not for our children's children, because I don't think that children should be having sex." - Jack Handy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on May 23, 2008, 18:46:

" Look at what happened in the Middle East, that was all once part of the "fertile crescent"."

yep. those pesky mesopotamians and their strong dishwashing detergents reallyyy screwed that area up! ;)

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tomtom33 says on May 24, 2008, 02:47:

"There is some good evidence to suggest that the Sahara desert is the cause of bad farming practises by humans even."

Really? The Nile River valley was surrounded by desert in the time of the Pharaohs. When, exactly, did these human practices cause this?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tomtom33 says on May 24, 2008, 07:12:

That's nice. The Sahara Desert covers the northern part of Africa. Ethiopia is mostly south of the Sahara.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on May 24, 2008, 07:32:

"According to many ancient texts, Ethiopia was described as being lush and green from one end of it to the other"

rubito, you crack me up sometimes. you read some bullshit somewhere, think "hmmmm...i can use this bullshit!", then post it here - like anyone here is buying that in your spare time, you're perusing "ancient texts".

then, if no one calls "bullshit" on you, you use the first BS as the foundation for another ripe piece. and so on, until someone finally calls BS on you.

you must be grinning ear to ear.;)

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

gatogris says on May 24, 2008, 07:56:

Rubito's point, if the logic is a little slapdash, remains entirely valid.

Pulitizer Prize winner Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" is about exactly this, and is chock full of meaty historical evidence. It begins with the tales of a number of historical collapses in different civilizations, including the extinction of the Easter Islanders, remembered now for the wierd stone heads they left behind on their Pacific island; the fall of the Mayan cities that were once the bustling core of the New World's most developed indigenous civilization; and the continues with the mysterious vanishing of the Viking colony on Greenland after having survived for 450 years as Europe's most remote outpost. In all these cases, Diamond diagnoses a similar pattern of ruin caused by civilization: environmental destruction (usually following the pattern of deforestation leading to soil erosion, food shortages, caused by Rubito's 'poor farming practices,' and eventually social and political crises), worsened by other factors like climate change, shifting trade patterns and shortsighted or greedy leadership.

Diamond shows that these ancient examples may hold a lesson for our environmentally challenged world today. He argues that current environmental problems include the same ones that I listed above, plus four new ones: "human-caused climate change, buildup of toxic chemicals in the environment, energy shortages and full human utilization of the earth's photosynthetic capacity." Many of these problems, he adds, are expected to "become globally critical within the next few decades."

"Much more likely than a doomsday scenario involving human extinction or an apocalyptic collapse of industrial civilization," he writes, "would be 'just' a future of significantly lower living standards, chronically higher risks and the undermining of what we now consider some of our key values. Such a collapse could assume various forms, such as the worldwide spread of diseases or else of wars, triggered ultimately by scarcity of environmental resources."

Already, he argues, social and environmental problems have dovetailed into a collapse in some abused and damaged third-world countries. He shows that environmental problems and resulting land and food shortages (again, 'poor farming practices') played a key role in fueling the nightmarish bloodletting that turned Rwanda in the 1990's into an abattoir, and that environmental destruction, including 'poor farming practices' was a major contributer to Haiti's scorched earth devolution.

So hey, maybe Rubito is out there perusing many 'ancient texts,' muttering to himself and thumbing the crackling vellum parchment like a true wise old scholar, thinking profound thoughts about the Queen of Sheba and the land of Punt (thought by some scribes to be ancient Ethiopia).

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on May 24, 2008, 08:07:

jajajaja

or maybe i was correct.

btw..i didn't necessarily mean his bullshit's always wrong...there can be factual bullshit, too.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on May 24, 2008, 18:37:

honesto, rubito...i wasn't attacking you. for the most part, until your bluster meter pegs, i enjoy both your posts and your POV. we all can learn from each other, no?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on May 24, 2008, 18:42:

You guys were on a roll this morning and I missed it!! good reading.

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.