CallaFirestormBW
Posts: 3651
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
You seem to have missed my point completely.
Used cars tires bicycles etc were all originally produced by corporate monopolies.
I do not disagree with your concept of saving money and reducing your carbon footprint...my point was and is that there is no competition because of corporate monopolies.
You may not be aware of what exactly commodities are. A little research will help you to see what these commodities are who controls these commodities.
You might also want to check and see what percentage of us food comes from corporate farms vs. private farms of less than 1000 acres.
I point out factual data and you characterize that as whining...
You do realize that, as long as there are multiple corporations producing the same item and selling it in the same markets, that does NOT constitute a "monopoly", right? Just because a company is large does not mean that it has no competition... and a monopoly is defined as having no competition... ie, "Monopolies are thus characterised by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide, and a lack of viable substitute goods."
Yes, factory farms currently produce about 90% of our nation's food. Another 6% by total value is imported from other countries (higher in some types of foods than others, with fish being one of the highest percentage imports at nearly 80% imported). However, the local food movement has increased its share of the market from a mere .03% five years ago to around 4% in just five short years. That sounds substantively more than "useless".
Commodities: iron ore, crude, coal, salt, sugar, corn, soybeans, cotton, coffee, aluminum, electricity...basically, base materials that are not differentiated between suppliers.... coal is coal is coal. These are traded on a common market and their value is determined NOT by the market but by the value of certificates (futures) which IMPLY ownership of percentages of all of the available (or producible) quantity of that item. Things with smaller available quantities tend to trade at higher values, simply because what exists is highly limited. OTOH, things like cotton, corn, and soybeans have a volatile market that depends on speculation about potential upcoming supply -- and if anything throws off the supply, whether by excess (surplus) or insufficiency (shortage), the anticipated value of any futures sold AND the market as a whole will be affected.
Now... that being said, I still hold that it is possible and beneficial for companies to choose how and where they purchase the actual RAW MATERIALS (since we are not speaking of commodity futures here, but of actual materials), and to do so as much as possible from local producers with whom they have established a healthy and mutually beneficial relationship that is NOT bound to the fluctuations of an artificially manipulated commodities market. People have been doing this for years, and somehow, it works out. As I mentioned in my earlier post, one big stickler is energy -- and even then, a larger and larger percentage of individuals is taking the issue of energy into their own hands and choosing to generate at least a portion of their own energy... so explain to me again how this is not realistic and I'm missing "the point".
Calla
_____________________________
***
Said to me recently: "Look, I know you're the "voice of reason"... but dammit, I LIKE being unreasonable!!!!"
"Your mind is more interested in the challenge of becoming than the challenge of doing." Jon Benson, Bodybuilder/Trainer
|
RE: State's that are still blue - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread