On 5/10/2010 1:51 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> "Fred C. Dobbs" > wrote
>> There is no requirement to grow fodder for livestock.
>>
>> However, the idea that it is "inefficient" to use land to produce feed
>> for livestock is completely wrong. Efficiency of resource use means
>> looking at costs, not physical output. It is *irrelevant* that you can
>> 20 kg of (say) potatoes from a given amount of land, vs. "only" 1 kg
>> of meat. What matters is the cost of the resource compared with the
>> price people are willing to pay for the good produced. If people value
>> the kilogram of beef more highly than they value the 20 kg of
>> potatoes, then the use of the land to produce feed for cattle is
>> economically rational.
>
> From a broad nutritional spectrum 1 kg of meat is nutritionally
> superior to 20 kg of potatoes.

Exactly: which is why consumers prefer it.


>
>> Physical outputs by themselves are meaningless. Costs and prices are
>> what determine efficiency.
>
> A bicycle is more fuel efficient than any car, must we stop producing
> cars, and buses?
>
> A pencil and paper uses less electric power than a computer, should be
> ban computers?

Both of those seem to be directly implied by those who think that
looking purely at physical inputs and outputs is the correct way to
think of efficiency.



--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs