quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

well, I see you are canuck and those indians out towards newfoundland and several areas used to just stampede them off a cliff, and there are still to this day great bison boneyards in some of those areas. They couldnt control the number that tipped over so there was a great deal of waste but they did all they could before they started rotting.

Just sayin'.

Scientific American (I think) .

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

quote:

ORIGINAL: countrychick

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

This is my vision as well.  I see no reason why we would not want to provide the basics.  Energy, food, medicine, access to doctors, clean water, waste removal.  The things humans need.  If we could just do that, then we would make the world a better place.

I don't at all disagree with the need to do things differently.  Just look around.  The cost of basic needs gets higher and higher.  The cost of luxury items gets cheaper and cheaper. 

Something is very, very wrong with our morals, in my opinion.  Look at the oil companies after Katrina.  The price of gasoline nearly tripled.  For gas already produced, delivered and ready at the pumps.  The oil company said it was because a refinery had some damage and it might interfere with future production.  Shameful! 

And don't tell me electronics get cheaper each year (or three months after the Christmas shopping season) because the parts are made overseas... they were made overseas when the prices were higher, so that argument does not compute.  Televisions and video games get cheaper when demand wanes.  In this, free enterprise works just fine.  But price raping on medicine and heating fuel?  Just shameful.

Other than oil, what is getting more expensive that is considered a basic need? I would argue that gasoline is not a basic need whatsoever, and if we looked beyond the borders of the US we would see that gasoline costs in Canada are much higher and higher in Europe still than they were in the US when Katrina hit. The reason the price increased even though the gasoline was already at the pumps is because there may be a future shortage thus encouraging people to buy less or only what they need until they get past the shortage. And I'll agree they shouldn't be jacking them that high or anytime there is a minor scare but there is solid reasoning behind increases.

I'll agree that food, access to doctors, clean water are all basic needs. Shelter would be the other one I would include in there. I think access to energy and waste removal are luxuries that we can now afford as things become cheaper and cheaper. Clearly access to energy (and by energy I am guessing you mean things like oil and electricity) has only really been something that the average people can afford in the last hundred years or so. Before that homes were heated with firewood and lit by candle light, things that people could make and harvest themselves.

Food for example has dramatically decreased as a percentage of a person's income, sure the prices go up at the supermarket but income has also risen over time. We are lucky in North America because we have some of the lowest percentages of our incomes going towards food which allows us luxuries like computers, cell phones and vehicles.

As for medical expenses.. I have never quite understood how the US is the only first world country without a universal healthcare system and yet they still live in the dark ages with allowing the death penalty.. Seems like the priorites are maybe a little mixed up. (runs off into the Canadian wilderness to avoid the firestorm I've probably just created)

Yes, as a percentage of income people do spend less on food than in years past.  Could it be that spending a higher percentage for shelter (housing) leaves less money for food?  I'm just discussing here, not creating argument.

Back when dinosaurs ruled the earth I was getting my first apartment.  The rule of thumb was my housing would cost 25% of my net income, food 25% of my net, utilities, insurance, and transportation roughly 25%.  So in essence, one week's wage paid the rent, one week for groceries, one week for miscellaneous bills and one week for saving and/or having fun. buying luxury items.  It worked that way for a very long time.  I could not tell you the exact date it all changed because it was gradual. 

I make more than minimum wage. But if I had to find a place to live for only 25% of my net income.... I'd have to find three or four roommates.  I can spend only 10% of my income in food if I wanted a vegan life and never see steak again.  But as it is, I do know how to buy real foods in bulk and freeze a lot.  Thank you Costco!

I'm not sure how waste removal is a luxury.  Without good sewer systems we all get sick.  I haven't checked but I'd be willing to bet the city of Tampa does not want me to poop in a hole I dug with a stick and throw some leaves over it.  So I'm gonna put waste removal in the "needs" department.

But the biggest increase in cost of what is necessary is health.  Most of that is probably our own fault.  No one wants to see a doctor when they are well, to get the screenings to alert themselves to a possible trend toward illness.  They want to wait until they are really sick before doing anything.  We have laws that make us wear seat-belts but it would be just horrible to get basic blood work done once a year.  I don't get it.

We have the know-how to produce and distribute clean energy.  While having lights, electric stoves, refrigerators could be considered luxury items, so could nearly everything in our lives except food, water and air.  I don't see us regressing to an agricultural society any time soon. 

What would be wrong with provding people with clear water, clean energy, waste management, food, and medicine equally and let free enterprise flourish for all the rest?

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

quote:

Wow a half-cocked know-it-all? It is interesting that you resort to name calling in a discussion. Especially when I am able to provide empirically based arguements to discount the theories presented through the video you suggested. Perhaps you should take the time to understand why the world works in the way that it does in order to provide constructive criticisms and viable solutions instead of romantic notions of fairness and equality.

Yes, a half-cocked know-it-all. You so seriously misrepresented positions of the presentation, that it's clear to me that your comprehesion level is severely impeded. In addition, you admitted yourself that you only watched 1/3 of the presentation, yet you argue vehemently against it. That's half-cocked.

Guess what? That presentation is only a condensation of their full orientation. Yet you, and others like you, want a fast synopsis so they can pass quick judgement upon it. It took centuries for man to arrive where he is today, yet people expect radical social and economic changes to be explained in soundbites. What's up with that?

I don't expect everyone to be interested in the topic. I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with the theories, but I do expect those who disagree to at least have a reasonable understanding of what they're actually disagreeing with before engaging me.

Perhaps you weren't paying attention to the presentation. Maybe you went in with a mind so closed, that you filtered out what they were really saying. Maybe you were so anxious to come back here and show us how smart you are, that you couldn't contain yourself long enough to watch the presentation. I don't know what your problem was. But you've demonstated that you're so far off the mark of comprehension, that I have no desire to invest any more of my time with you sparring over nonsense.

If you want to watch the video in its entirely with an open mind and have an intelligent chat with me, I'll gladly engage you. Aside from that, I have better things to do.

Have a nice day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

sorry, I dont know why I said newfoundland, I meant headsmash in manitoba you are correct (and I was thinking of the rocks and the attempt to intro buffalo there) Yes I know they are plains animals, I am from Minnesota (west side of the mississippi) about straight south of the MB/ON stateline.

sheepishly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: countrychick

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

What exactly is it that you think I've got wrong?

Perhaps you might, if you can, give us a thumbnail sketch of the relationship between the planes Indians and the Buffalo.

Is that what it is that you think I'm wrong at?

The Plains Indians used the buffalo for their hides and meat, they traded meat and robes (hides with the thick winter coats) to village based tribes of Native Americans. During this time an estimated 400,000 bison were taken every year from the plains but due to the large carrying capacity of the plains and the reproductive abilities of the bison this operated well because the bison who were taken for their meat and coats were replaced the next year with new calves. Trade in robes continued along when the Europeans came but many reasons exist for this not wiping out the buffalo in the same way the hide trade did. The robes could only be hunted for in the winter season. Clearly hunting is more difficult when the snow is on the ground. Secondly, in the winter seasons the great herds of buffalo disbanded into smaller herds that were much more difficult to find. During the robe trade, it continued to be Native Americans that hunted, and perhaps another 100,000 were taken from the plains. (Out of populations that were estimated to be upwards of 30million)

When the hide trade began, hides could be taken in the summer when the great herds assembled. It was then easier to pick off multiple buffalo at a time. As well with the advantage of guns buffalo often didn't spook as they didn't smell or see the person after them. And within the hide trade leather could be used for many more purposes than a robe and thus the demand for the good was higher.

The paper I have used as reference point "The extermination and concentration of the bison" is by Dean Lueck and appears in the Journal of Legal Studies, June 2002.

quote:

ORIGINAL: countrychick

I can't believe there was a time that only 25% of a person's income was required for living expenses, that a place to live cost as much as it cost someone to eat! I'll be getting an apartment (1bdrm) in May for $600, having $600 available to me for groceries.. I'd never have to shop at no frills again! I could eat steak every day.. Even if my rent was only $400.. $400 a month for groceries seems like a lot for one person even by todays inflated prices.. I dunno I guess cause I've only lived away from my parents for a relatively short period it doesn't seem that bad to me to have my relatively low income eaten up by rent and groceries, it only makes sense to me that I would be willing to pay for the things I need to survive and luxury items get put on hold..

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: countrychick

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

What exactly is it that you think I've got wrong?

Perhaps you might, if you can, give us a thumbnail sketch of the relationship between the planes Indians and the Buffalo.

Is that what it is that you think I'm wrong at?

The Plains Indians used the buffalo for their hides and meat, they traded meat and robes (hides with the thick winter coats) to village based tribes of Native Americans. During this time an estimated 400,000 bison were taken every year from the plains but due to the large carrying capacity of the plains and the reproductive abilities of the bison this operated well because the bison who were taken for their meat and coats were replaced the next year with new calves. Trade in robes continued along when the Europeans came but many reasons exist for this not wiping out the buffalo in the same way the hide trade did. The robes could only be hunted for in the winter season. Clearly hunting is more difficult when the snow is on the ground. Secondly, in the winter seasons the great herds of buffalo disbanded into smaller herds that were much more difficult to find. During the robe trade, it continued to be Native Americans that hunted, and perhaps another 100,000 were taken from the plains. (Out of populations that were estimated to be upwards of 30million)

When the hide trade began, hides could be taken in the summer when the great herds assembled. It was then easier to pick off multiple buffalo at a time. As well with the advantage of guns buffalo often didn't spook as they didn't smell or see the person after them. And within the hide trade leather could be used for many more purposes than a robe and thus the demand for the good was higher.

The paper I have used as reference point "The extermination and concentration of the bison" is by Dean Lueck and appears in the Journal of Legal Studies, June 2002.

Well it is nice that you cut and paste a high school definition up but you are suppose to be a masters candidate.
Were you unaware that the buffalo was food,clothing.shelter,fuel and religion to the Planes Indians?
Were you unaware that the U.S. Army was singularly unsuccessful in any military adventures against the Planes Indians?
Were you unaware that the policy of the U.S. government from about 1859 till about 1898 to exterminate the buffalo so as to deprive the Planes Indian of the source of his existance?
Why was meat never taken only hides.  The ability to dry meat has been around since before christ was a crossing guard.
This "paper" by an apologist for corporate rape is more than a little lacking when it comes to addressing all the factors in the demise of the buffalo.
For you not to be aware of this is indicative of your scholarship.  This is taught in the lower division as a survey course. 
I have not addressed the numerous other omission,half truths and outright falsehoods you have posted in an effort to focus on one thing at a time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

quote:

ORIGINAL: countrychick

I can't believe there was a time that only 25% of a person's income was required for living expenses, that a place to live cost as much as it cost someone to eat! I'll be getting an apartment (1bdrm) in May for $600, having $600 available to me for groceries.. I'd never have to shop at no frills again! I could eat steak every day.. Even if my rent was only $400.. $400 a month for groceries seems like a lot for one person even by todays inflated prices.. I dunno I guess cause I've only lived away from my parents for a relatively short period it doesn't seem that bad to me to have my relatively low income eaten up by rent and groceries, it only makes sense to me that I would be willing to pay for the things I need to survive and luxury items get put on hold..

You are a child.  I am an old woman.  However, when I was 18 I made $3.10/hr and worked a 40 hour week.  My one-bedroom apartment in a pretty nice suburb cost me $125 a month.  I could fill my gas tank for $3.00.  I'm not making this up.  I paid roughly $150 a month for my other bills that included car insurance (it wasn't a law then but it was a rule my dad had and since he co-signed for the car.... I followed his law), and utilities.  Of course we didn't have cable or internet so that wasn't an expense and since I was a girl I didn't have to pay for any party supplies.  Life was pretty good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

Because I don't know how many chickens doing a tax return is worth?

quote:

Please do not let my frankness be mistaken for rudness.

quote:

The diction and syntax do not match the rest of your posts

quote:

Those who cannot respond academically will always mention typing and spelling errors it goes so far in making their point that they do not know the answer to a particular question.

quote:

This open access was created by the federal government for this specific purpose.  I am sorry that seminal point escaped your notice.

quote:

What it really shows is that some people were given unlimited access to someone elses resource.
You want to ignore that fact and make it some sort of Horatio Alger story free enterprise story which it is not.

quote:

The real excrement was mine waste

quote:

The meat wasn't taken for the very reason I describe,
Just side stepped the point I made about drying the meat....you mentioned that the hunts were held in the summer...shoddy scholarship there.

quote:

Lower division are the first two years of university where one gets their basic education courses in what is called a survey class as opposed to a study of some particular aspect of history or English or anthropology or any other core subject.
Upper division is where one finds more specialized courses in ones major...I would have thought you would have known that being a masters candidate.

quote:

You will find that there are many people on this forum who have advanced degrees and some others who without benifit of an academic discipline are quite well read and have no trouble in keeping up their side of any intellectual discussion. 

quote:

I made my reasons for doing so abundantly clear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever
Would anyone care to hazard a guess as to why the money creators at the top of the food chain choose to maintain this system?

quote:

ORIGINAL: countrychick

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever
Would anyone care to hazard a guess as to why the money creators at the top of the food chain choose to maintain this system?

Because scarcity is a reality. If no value is attached to a scarce resource people will overutilize it. For example, the cost of electricity rises people are more conscious about turning off their lights, not leaving the tv on as long. If electricity is provided free or at a base rate without a per unit charge people can abuse it leaving tv and lights and computers and all the rest on all night.

quote:

ORIGINAL: countrychick

quote:

The diction and syntax do not match the rest of your posts

And by this you mean what?

I am sure you have access to a dictionary

quote:

Those who cannot respond academically will always mention typing and spelling errors it goes so far in making their point that they do not know the answer to a particular question.

quote:


I can only handle a spelling error like that for so long before I want to bring it up.

Like when you lack facts to back up your assertions

quote:

This open access was created by the federal government for this specific purpose.  I am sorry that seminal point escaped your notice.

Okay I can agree that the government may have allowed for the open access to occur, but thats often how open access works, the government doesn't step in until its too late, another example of this is the fisheries in Newfoundland.

It seems that you are intent on ignoring the fact that the government instituted this policy for the express purpose of exterminating the Plains Indians...exterminating the buffalo was only the means of doing this.  So your premis that the buffalo are gone because of overhunting is like saying that there are six million fewer human beings because of advances in oven technology.

quote:

What it really shows is that some people were given unlimited access to someone elses resource.
You want to ignore that fact and make it some sort of Horatio Alger story free enterprise story which it is not.

No anyone who wanted to hunt the buffalo could go out and do so, not some people, all people were given unlimited access to the resource.

Again you miss the point.  Some people (those who were not Native American) were given unlimited access to someone elses resource(a resource that had been successfully managed for more than five thousand years keeping a balance between needs and resources.  The land was not overgrazed and the ratio of prey to predator was stable.  While at the same time there was abundant food at all levels of consumption from single meal small mammals to tribal meals of hundreds from buffalo.)

quote:

The meat wasn't taken for the very reason I describe,
Just side stepped the point I made about drying the meat....you mentioned that the hunts were held in the summer...shoddy scholarship there.

I agree that meat was dryable sure. But the marginal return of drying meat (using basics that a buffalo hunter would have available to him) and shipping it back to the east was not nearly as high as the hides. You're missing a very important piece of the puzzle here and I apologize for not explaining it properly. Transaction costs are incredibly high for drying and shipping meat back to the east.

Really: then perhaps you might give us a quick rundown on the per pound/ton cost of a freightable product. 
If one considers the cost of the product is zero.
The cost of the energy needed to dry this product is zero.
Labor cost are limited to the actual task so it is all profit.
You being an econ/ag major should be pretty easy.




Remember the railways were only just developing at this time.

You need to stop thinking you are talking to third graders. 
The first refrigerated rail car made in the U.S. in 1851.
The Train went from St Louis to Maryland in 1857.
The time frame we are talking about for the serious taking of the buffalo is from after the civil war 1866 to the 1880's...so no shortage of refrigerated rail shipping at all.


Perhaps a packing company could have set up a factory in the middle of the plains but that cost would have been pretty darn high too.

You keep missing the point...the buffalo were killed to get rid of the Native Americans.  When you want to terrorize a people into submission you take everything they have and crush it and show them that you want them and all they stand for to stop being.
Hitler commented several times that the way the U.S. dealt with their "indiginous problem" was masterful.



You question my education and scholarship?

Well yeah you do seem to have that "enthusiam of youth" thing going on.  You know where you make flat statements and then back them up with a paper written by an industry pimp.


So you still don't tell me where you're at on that spectrum.

This would be germain for what reason?

You could instead say there are other things I take issue with but I'd prefer to focus on one thing at a time

I am probably not the most PC guy on this board...so if you were expecting me to change then you are going to get older (a lot fucking older) before that happens.


instead of trying to make me seem like a complete liar.

My father taught me that only you can make yourself look like a liar. 

(in reply to countrychick)

quote:

ORIGINAL: countrychick

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever
Would anyone care to hazard a guess as to why the money creators at the top of the food chain choose to maintain this system?

Because scarcity is a reality. If no value is attached to a scarce resource people will overutilize it. For example, the cost of electricity rises people are more conscious about turning off their lights, not leaving the tv on as long. If electricity is provided free or at a base rate without a per unit charge people can abuse it leaving tv and lights and computers and all the rest on all night.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Country Chick meet thompson. one of the premier trolls in these boards.