I can’t see any contradictions here. It seems you have difficulty equating organic farming with entrepreneurship. I have no such difficulty nor do I insinuate anything of the kind; however, I think it is true that most of your average Cuban’s tucker comes from organic food grown on urban farms. Yes, it is out of necessity, but so what. When has necessity been such a dingleberry? I don’t get the knee jerk reactions and dismissive attitudes. What’s wrong with successful organic farming?[/quote]
Fox, when you say “tucker” are you referring to food in general, or do you just mean fruit and vege?
Cuba does not represent a useful example for proponents of urban farming. Interesting, yes, but pretty much irrelevant to democratic free market societies like the ones we come from and currently live in.
The political and economic situations are so different. The government controls virtually all economic activity. The vast majority of Cubans work for the state for a pittance. They get a paltry food ration. Poor and hungry, it’s quite easy to get them interested in urban farming if the state provides the incentives. By allowing some profit making from the farming, not only can the Cubans supplement their rations but they can earn several times their salary. The land is state-owned – and I don’t think farmers need to pay rent.
Actually, this reminds me of what happened in China in the 1980s. More a triumph of free enterprise than anything else I would say.
Anyway, I’m off to the farm to do some weeding and pick some tomatoes.
Fair enough. However, the fact remains that they grow an abundant amount of food, most of which is organic. Clearly, it is possible to use such methods to feed a large stable population effectively – though that’s been going on since ancient times. I’m not sure why you poo-poo the methods when they evidently work, except perhaps on ideological grounds. However, people have a right to be legitimately concerned about toxins in food or other externalities of food production. If you think that big companies wouldn’t poison the population to turn a buck let me introduce you to Phillip Morris.
[quote]Fox, when you say “tucker” are you referring to food in general, or do you just mean fruit and vege?
Cuba does not represent a useful example for proponents of urban farming. Interesting, yes, but pretty much irrelevant to democratic free market societies like the ones we come from and currently live in.[/quote]
I’m not sure if you can say that. Taiwan itself has a lot of urban plots. Not so much in Taipei but they do exist here and in regional cities they are a plenty. To some extent, I think the issue here is class. People look down on farming. In general, it is not venerated. The Taiwanese are very aspirational consumers. On the other hand, it would be interesting to know to what extent fruit and vege consumption here is provided for by local market gardens. I’d say the level would be high. I think there is definitely a place here for the reliable methods used in Cuba. I also think they’d find an appreciative population. I can’t see why such methods that have proven productivity levels cannot be used in other countries because of political ideologies. That seems incongruous to me. And anyway there are umpteen successful organic farms and businesses in capitalist countries. Why wouldn’t there be? And if the issue remains that such methods cannot feed a large population then that’s not true either. Every great civilization since the dawn of time was farming pretty much organically. They had the labour, of course, which takes me back to the first point I made about the Taiwanese and cultural perspectives on farming.
Funny. I have this friend in Taidong who is making driftwood furniture. Before that he owned a school in Taipei. He’s trying to get a craft-market started at the Sugar Factory in Dulan. Along the way he’s been selling his furniture here in Taipei and at roadside stalls. He thinks it is a pretty interesting thing to be doing. One day, he was recognized by a parent from his Taipei school. She was curious about what a downward spin his life had taken from Lao-Ban to old bum. He was fortunately rescued from such a humiliation by one of his aboriginal mates, “Oh. He’s just watching the stall for a friend.”
I can and I will repeat it - the Cuban experience is pretty much irrelevant to our societies. It could be relevant to some apocalyptic post-industrial world but not our societies.
Organic urban agriculture is not going to happen on a large scale. It’s a question of politics and economics. Why are so many people choosing to do this farming in Cuba? They like gardening? They’re concerned about global warming? They’re worried about chemicals in their food?
No, they’re hungry and poor and forced to do so.
Let’s try and imagine you’re a Cuban.
You work for the state as a teacher and make US$25 a month. You get a paltry ratio of rice and beans but you can’t feed your family on that for more than a week. You can’t afford to buy enough food. Shit, you can’t afford very much at all.
But under the new regulations you can farm on a plot, sell the food at good prices and keep most of the profit. The prices are good and the government prevents competition by not allowing imports. You can make three times your teaching salary by working on the land in the evenings and on weekends. The government lets you use the land for free.
In normal countries, the economic equation is a bit different. People like me who enjoy gardening will do this but it really is a lot of hard work for relatively little financial saving on the food bill. I wonder what it would work out as an hourly rate.
Fox, how much time (hours per month) do you think you’d have to put into a plot of land to provide half of your family food needs?
Pretty much what Almas John has said and the fact that countries that do go that way tend to do it because food and fertilizer can not be bought on the open market.
Cuba is a God damned shithole for the Cubans, but great if you’re a tourist with lots of US dollars. I grew up with the Soviet Union as a mortal threat. I’ve heard all that leftist BS before only to see it all swept under the rug once it collapsed. The term ecocide was coined from Soviet atrocities to the environment. It will be the same for Cuba someday.
Fox, for the record, the most dangerous corporate entities are governments. Philip Morris looks like a piker compared to the self enriching efforts of the Zimbabwean govt. It’s as cute as watching people who would argue against first world farm subsidies argue for green energy subsidies. I wouldn’t rate farmers as a high socio class, but a very high political class.
Chewy, what’s your facts behind that claim about a government’s inability to “pick a winner”? AFAIK, the US government via the NIH and CDC has done the majority of R&D into the production of most new life-saving medicines and cures (from the US anyway), which they then turn over to the pharmaceutical corporations for production, who then reap huge profits. The R&D that the corporations do is usually for lifestyle drugs, copycat/generic drugs, and OTC drugs. If that’s true, that is definitely government subsidization of an industry, and by definition it only picks winners i.e. drugs that work in some way (or else they wouldn’t get mass produced). Could you provide some examples of picking losers? I would argue that “picking a loser” would not only require that the government subsidize an industry that didn’t pan out, but also that the government had some other alternative they could have pursued but didn’t in favor of the “loser”.
That’s the job of the private sector. Governments can create competitive regions that will want to attract business through innovation or business-friendly regulatory regimes (Singapore, Silicon Valley, Tel Aviv etc.) and the best workers, but providing subsidies for companies and industries to thrive? Hell no.[/quote]
As for your claim that investing in new technology to create a fledgling industry is the job of the private sector (and not the job of the government), who says so? Sure if you believe in total laissez-faire capitalism, OK, but then practically everything is off-limits to government support/subsidization. Very few people believe in that anymore Chewy, and certainly the US, nevermind most of Europe and especially China et al, are not required to be hands off. If your argument is that governments shouldn’t subsidize fledgling or failing industries, then what you are saying is you are leaving long-term macro-economic decisions entirely up to the private sector - a private sector that looks primarily at short-term profits to boost their share prices and RoI, and which encourages speculation and other financial games, like shorting, which doesn’t do a whole lot of good for regular employment in a country. Government’s gotta fill those shoes to some extent Chewy, even if you don’t agree with specific industries that the US government wants to support. Industries that require a huge infrastructure investment (e.g. the roads or electricity systems) with a long-term RoI (if any) are usually losers in private industry precisely because they are a long long term investment with no guarantees - excatly what the US government should be into.
Anyway, what do you suppose the military is??? The military is the biggest subsidizer of technology there is - are you saying we should leave military technology and infrastructure up to the private sector? That would put them practically in control of policy, since most policies couldn’t be executed without the infrastructure and technology in place to support them.
The way I see it, Chewy, you might have an argument on an industry-by-industry basis, but your claims are too general.
