Club of Lefty Crud

[Leoreth]

You can attribute that rise in part to dumb lefties who wanted to save the planet by planting biofuels and instead starved their fellow man

What about attributing it to first world big businesses who own African soil and produce non-food there which forces African population to rely on the world market where bio-fuel influences the prices in the first place?

Nah, better take an unfounded jab at dumb lefties instead.

I don't think that spike tracks terribly well with food prices specifically. Probably more likely the global financial crisis causing the 100m spike in 2009.

Yeah, iirc the food market became home to a lot of speculation from capital that fled the directly affected sectors.

 

[peter grimes]

Well, thank you. I try to be annoying to conventional thinkers.
Oh course it is. And one day the sun will burn out. What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

I want to thank you for the graph. It demonstrates the simple fact that the vast majority of people have absolutely no clue about the astonishing nature of the world we live in. There will not be a collapse. Quite the opposite. We are living in the most amazing incredible time in the history of the earth with the possible exception of the moment when the first molecule discovered how to reproduce itself. And no one even notices what is happening.

Nothing here explains why you think that growth is able to continue forever. You have pointed to some major leaps in the energy available for individual consumption, but you haven't explained why you think we're going to see another monumental leap in the near future.

It's one thing to throw out a few buzz words like 'genetic engineering' and 'nanotech', it's quite another to show how those things will translate into available energy at the individual level.

The reason the graph above is drawn as a spike is because of some principles laid out in the blog post he referenced. You should take the 15 minutes required to read it - it's very interesting stuff. And there's a lot more where that came from

 

[Quackers]

I don't think you really can. You might be able to attribute some, absolutely, but nowhere near all. It's honestly a worrying trend. We'll see, because the policies encouraging biofuels are phasing out, but the trends causing increased fuel prices are going to continue for some time. I'd think that the food trends will more closely track to fuel prices than anything else.

What about attributing it to first world big businesses who own African soil and produce non-food there which forces African population to rely on the world market where bio-fuel influences the prices in the first place?

Nah, better take an unfounded jab at dumb lefties instead.

Thanks guys, I did say "in part". Which means I'm not saying thats the ONLY reason for rising food prices. Gosh maybe you should read my posts.

 

[Leoreth]

Any particular reason for naming this "part" specifically, while subsuming the rest under "in parts"?

I could only conclude that you wanted to take a cheap jab at the left. Adding "in parts" may increase your deniability, but it doesn't diminish the implication.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, in defense, the thread's point is cheap shots at the left.
It's just amusing when the shots are incorrect to the point where the OP disproves himself.

 

[Leoreth]

I don't consider Abegweit's posts "cheap shots". At least Quackers formulated coherent criticism instead of endless railing and slurs against everything that doesn't agree with him.

 

[aelf]

I don't consider Abegweit's posts "cheap shots". At least Quackers formulated coherent criticism instead of endless railing and slurs against everything that doesn't agree with him.

Coherent?

Well, endless railing slurs against everything is frankly more entertaining to read than perpetual reminders of the failures of the British education system.

 

[Leoreth]

Coherent?

As in I could immediately identify his trail of reasoning.

 

[Murky]

The Club of Romes doesn't consider themselves "left-wing" they just getting labeled that by right-wing conspiracy theorist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

I searched for anything tying COR to left-wing groups and could only come up with right-wing conspiracy sites.

 

[dutchfire]

Hint: I would not be talking about 40-year old retards if there weren't tons of modern retards who lap up the same nonsense.

It is called recycling, them hippies love it.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

This week is the fortieth anniversary of the Club of Rome's garbage tract entitled "The Limits to Growth". They said that world would be enveloped in a downward spiral which would result in mass hunger and mass death. They said it would happen somewhere in the late 1970s.

On the contrary, a smaller percentage of people live in fear of hunger than at any time in the history of the our race. More than that, the number of people who live in fear and hunger declines every year, even as the numbers of us continue to increase.

So tell me, why were the fear-mongers so incredibly wrong? More people has not lead to hunger and death. Quite the opposite; it has led to riches and vibrant diverse life.

Tell me, how does the path the world has taken since the 1970s make you feel, as an anarchist?

 

[Quackers]

Any particular reason for naming this "part" specifically, while subsuming the rest under "in parts"?

I could only conclude that you wanted to take a cheap jab at the left. Adding "in parts" may increase your deniability, but it doesn't diminish the implication.

What are those implications?

 

[Berzerker]

What about attributing it to first world big businesses who own African soil and produce non-food there which forces African population to rely on the world market where bio-fuel influences the prices in the first place?

Nah, better take an unfounded jab at dumb lefties instead.

the policies and subsidies came first

 

[Leoreth]

What are those implications?

That you don't care about the big picture and just want to blame dumb leftists.

the policies and subsidies came first

Sorry, how does that relate to my post?

 

[Quackers]

Everything I said is accurate, you think it is "unfounded". Which is totally false:

However, a World Bank policy research working paper released in July 2008[50] says that biofuels have raised food prices between 70 to 75 percent.

So yeah random german on the internet or the world bank - who am i going to believe?

 

[Leoreth]

I didn't disagree with your comment (although I somewhat doubt these World Bank numbers, but whatever. That could be the subject of an entirely new thread, and I'm rather opposed to bio fuels anyway).

What I objected to is that you refused to look at the big picture when making this comment, out of the apparent desire to blame political opponents.

Most people who are starving live in Africa. Africa is easily capable of feeding its own population. Bio fuels affect world market prices. Why does Africa need to rely on the world market, I ask you?

 

[peter grimes]

From the little I have read, I seem to recall that the globe produces more than enough food to feed everyone plus a healthy surplus. Starvation is not an issue of food scarcity prima facie, it's an issue of food distribution failings.

Don't know if that's helpful to the discussion

 

[Murky]

From the little I have read, I seem to recall that the globe produces more than enough food to feed everyone plus a healthy surplus. Starvation is not an issue of food scarcity prima facie, it's an issue of food distribution failings.

Don't know if that's helpful to the discussion

It'd probably help if we didn't feed so much of the grain to livestock or use it to make fuel. I used to be for bio fuels but with this drought and the increasing likelihood of drought it doesn't make sense to go that route with food crops. It would also help if people growing non-food crops like tobacco would switch to a growing something people can eat. Too much of our land, water and energy resources to go towards things that people can't eat and in some cases cause a lot of damage.

 

[aelf]

I still have no idea why biofuels and leftists are so conveniently associated, but I'm pretty sure there is no real explanation for that, just stupidity.

 

[Quackers]

It's quite a common and correct assumption to make that most enviromentalists are on the left.
Didn't you know that? Jesus...