On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:31:03 -0600, "johnny@." <johnny@.> wrote:

>Associated Press
>January 15, 2007, 7:59 PM EST
>
>SAN FRANCISCO -- Three nights of freezing temperatures have destroyed up
>to three-quarters of California's $1 billion citrus crop, according to
>an estimate issued Monday as forecasters warned the weather could continue.
>
>Other crops, including avocados and strawberries, also have suffered
>damage in the cold snap, agricultural officials said.
>
>"This is one of those freezes that, unfortunately, we'll all remember,"
>said A.G. Kawamura, secretary of the California Department of Food and
>Agriculture.
>
>Growers hastened to pick as much fruit as possible before the chilly
>weather hit Friday, but an industry labor shortage meant much of the
>$960 million crop went unharvested, LoBue said.
>
>http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...orld-headlines
>
>That should be good news for Mexican farmers.
>
>If those damn illegal aliens would just accept the salary paid by the
>cheap growers, and had not went into construction and service work, the
>fruit would have been picked before the freeze.

Too bad for corporate farmers! The deportation of 20 million illegal
aliens would bring about a social and economic renaissance.

Max

http://www.numbersusa.com/ Numbers USA

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:31:03 -0600, "johnny@." <johnny@.> wrote:
>
>>Associated Press
>>January 15, 2007, 7:59 PM EST
>>
>>SAN FRANCISCO -- Three nights of freezing temperatures have destroyed up
>>to three-quarters of California's $1 billion citrus crop, according to
>>an estimate issued Monday as forecasters warned the weather could
>>continue.
>>
>>Other crops, including avocados and strawberries, also have suffered
>>damage in the cold snap, agricultural officials said.
>>
>>"This is one of those freezes that, unfortunately, we'll all remember,"
>>said A.G. Kawamura, secretary of the California Department of Food and
>>Agriculture.
>>
>>Growers hastened to pick as much fruit as possible before the chilly
>>weather hit Friday, but an industry labor shortage meant much of the
>>$960 million crop went unharvested, LoBue said.
>>
>>http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...orld-headlines
>>
>>That should be good news for Mexican farmers.
>>
>>If those damn illegal aliens would just accept the salary paid by the
>>cheap growers, and had not went into construction and service work, the
>>fruit would have been picked before the freeze.
>
> Too bad for corporate farmers! The deportation of 20 million illegal
> aliens would bring about a social and economic renaissance.
>
> Max
>
> http://www.numbersusa.com/ Numbers USA

Not to mention the loss of $100 million in produce!!!

grinder wrote:
>
>
> Not to mention the loss of $100 million in produce!!!

This is a break for Florida though. It is an Ill Wind that does not blow
somebody some good somewhere.

Wait until next year. The California crop will be bigger and jucier than
ever and all this will be forgotten.

Bob Kolker

"Bob Kolker" > wrote in message
...
> grinder wrote:
>>
>>
>> Not to mention the loss of $100 million in produce!!!
>
> This is a break for Florida though. It is an Ill Wind that does not blow
> somebody some good somewhere.
>
> Wait until next year. The California crop will be bigger and jucier than
> ever and all this will be forgotten.
>
> Bob Kolker
>

The farmers that have to increase their debt or lose their farms will not
forget.

grinder wrote:
>
>
>
> The farmers that have to increase their debt or lose their farms will not
> forget.

Over time, it will work out. Farming is inherently a risky business. One
is at the mercy of the elements. The farmers knew this going in.

Somehow the citrus growers survived the medfly infestation of 1978. And
Florida survived the Citrus Cancker. I forget what year that was.

Bob Kolker

grinder wrote:
> "Bob Kolker" > wrote in message
> ...
>> grinder wrote:
>>>
>>> Not to mention the loss of $100 million in produce!!!
>> This is a break for Florida though. It is an Ill Wind that does not blow
>> somebody some good somewhere.
>>
>> Wait until next year. The California crop will be bigger and jucier than
>> ever and all this will be forgotten.
>>
>> Bob Kolker
>>
>
> The farmers that have to increase their debt or lose their farms will not
> forget.

And the dilettante gentleman farmers will remember for
a long time, too. I have a colleague who has a small
avocado farm (he calls it a ranch, for some reason),
and last year he sold his crop for a whopping $9,000.
This guy brags to whomever will listen that he doesn't
pay any taxes due to all the "business expense" tax
deductions he gets to take; I mean, he just cackles
over it. But he was considerably more somber the other
day when he was relating that it was going to cost him
something like $1800 PER NIGHT to light his smudge
pots. I have no doubt that he'll quickly snap up any
financial assistance offered by the county, state or
federal governments.

Bob Kolker wrote:
>
> This is a break for Florida though. It is an Ill Wind that does not blow
> somebody some good somewhere. [snip]

Not so much as you might think. The Florida orange crop is mostly for
juice and concentrate. California does not allow Florida oranges to be
brought in to the state because they have pests that California doesn't
want to have to try to control. Fresh grapefruit do come in but that's
a much smaller market. -aem

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
link.net...
> grinder wrote:
>> "Bob Kolker" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> grinder wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not to mention the loss of $100 million in produce!!!
>>> This is a break for Florida though. It is an Ill Wind that does not blow
>>> somebody some good somewhere.
>>>
>>> Wait until next year. The California crop will be bigger and jucier than
>>> ever and all this will be forgotten.
>>>
>>> Bob Kolker
>>>
>>
>> The farmers that have to increase their debt or lose their farms will not
>> forget.
>
> And the dilettante gentleman farmers will remember for a long time, too.
> I have a colleague who has a small avocado farm (he calls it a ranch, for
> some reason), and last year he sold his crop for a whopping $9,000. This
> guy brags to whomever will listen that he doesn't pay any taxes due to all
> the "business expense" tax deductions he gets to take; I mean, he just
> cackles over it. But he was considerably more somber the other day when
> he was relating that it was going to cost him something like $1800 PER
> NIGHT to light his smudge pots. I have no doubt that he'll quickly snap
> up any financial assistance offered by the county, state or federal
> governments.

Low interest loans are still loans.

grinder wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > grinder wrote:
> >> "Bob Kolker" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> grinder wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Not to mention the loss of $100 million in produce!!!
> >>> This is a break for Florida though. It is an Ill Wind that does not blow
> >>> somebody some good somewhere.
> >>>
> >>> Wait until next year. The California crop will be bigger and jucier than
> >>> ever and all this will be forgotten.
> >>>
> >>> Bob Kolker
> >>>
> >>
> >> The farmers that have to increase their debt or lose their farms will not
> >> forget.
> >
> > And the dilettante gentleman farmers will remember for a long time, too.
> > I have a colleague who has a small avocado farm (he calls it a ranch, for
> > some reason), and last year he sold his crop for a whopping $9,000. This
> > guy brags to whomever will listen that he doesn't pay any taxes due to all
> > the "business expense" tax deductions he gets to take; I mean, he just
> > cackles over it. But he was considerably more somber the other day when
> > he was relating that it was going to cost him something like $1800 PER
> > NIGHT to light his smudge pots. I have no doubt that he'll quickly snap
> > up any financial assistance offered by the county, state or federal
> > governments.
>
> Low interest loans are still loans.

True, but not all the contents of the goodies-for-farmers trough are
loans, and subsidized interest rates are not generally available to
most other businesses. There is no valid reason whatever for the
coddling of farmers.

In article om>, Rudy
Canoza at says...

> There is no valid reason whatever for the
> coddling of farmers.

Unless you like to eat.

In article >,
Desmond and Molly Jones > wrote:

> In article om>, Rudy
> Canoza at says...
>
> > There is no valid reason whatever for the
> > coddling of farmers.
>
> Unless you like to eat.

Yah.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Desmond and Molly Jones wrote:
> In article om>, Rudy
> Canoza at says...
>
> > There is no valid reason whatever for the
> > coddling of farmers.
>
> Unless you like to eat.

Nope. No valid reason at all. Farming is a business. Farmers should
be treated as, and behave as, other business people.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> Nope. No valid reason at all. Farming is a business. Farmers should
> be treated as, and behave as, other business people.

The auto industry can go under but we will manage to survive. But if all
the farmers croak, then what. Do we live in wild berries and roots?

At the root of every civilization in the last 10,000 years, there was
the farmer.

Bob Kolker

>

Bob Kolker wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> > Nope. No valid reason at all. Farming is a business. Farmers should
> > be treated as, and behave as, other business people.
>
> The auto industry can go under but we will manage to survive. But if all
> the farmers croak, then what. Do we live in wild berries and roots?

Farmers aren't all going to croak.


>
> At the root of every civilization in the last 10,000 years, there was
> the farmer.

There is nothing magical or mystical about farming. It's a business.

>Nope. No valid reason at all. Farming is a business. Farmers should
>be treated as, and behave as, other business people.

farming is a low-profit business. if you open it up to unfettered
free markets, most sensible people will end up doing something else,
and all our food production will be outsourced to other countries.
Which is fine, until the countries selling you the food get annoyed
with you for some reason....

Goedjn wrote:
> >Nope. No valid reason at all. Farming is a business. Farmers should
> >be treated as, and behave as, other business people.
>
> farming is a low-profit business.

So what?


> if you open it up to unfettered free markets,

The markets for the goods *are* free. It's at the producer end that
all the economic foolishness and mischief is done.

> most sensible people will end up doing something else,

People have been abandoning the farms for over a century.


> and all our food production will be outsourced to other countries.

Probably not. The US seems to have at the very least a comparative
advantage, and quite probably an absolute advantage, in agriculture.

> Which is fine, until the countries selling you the food get annoyed
> with you for some reason....

There are lots of countries that are net food importers, many on a huge
scale.

Bob Kolker wrote:
> grinder wrote:
> >
> >
> > Not to mention the loss of $100 million in produce!!!
>
> This is a break for Florida though.

Not really. I heard a Californian agricultural official say on public
radio today that Florida fresh citrus isn't allowed into California
because they have a lot of diseases down there that are not present in
California. And I don't think they were talking about the STDs that
are epidemic among the hick crackers in the citrus growing regions of
Florida.


> It is an Ill Wind that does not blow
> somebody some good somewhere.
>
> Wait until next year. The California crop will be bigger and jucier than
> ever and all this will be forgotten.
>
> Bob Kolker

Rudy Canoza wrote:

>
> There is nothing magical or mystical about farming. It's a business.

It differs from cosmetic manufactureing. We absolutely NEED FOOD. We
don't need a lot of other stuff that is being made. To be sure, farming
is a business, but it is a business without which our civillization
would collapse. Can you see 300 million people thrown to their own
devices to find food if there were no farmers. If the alien space bats
kidnapped all the farmers then we would have to produce a new generation
of farmers pretty damned quick. There is only so much food stored up.
Soon we weould have to grow more or die.

Bob Kolker

Goedjn wrote:

>
> farming is a low-profit business. if you open it up to unfettered
> free markets, most sensible people will end up doing something else,
> and all our food production will be outsourced to other countries.
> Which is fine, until the countries selling you the food get annoyed
> with you for some reason....

ADM corporation isn't low profit.

Corporate farming is quite profitable.

Bob Kolker

Rudy Canoza wrote:>
>
> There are lots of countries that are net food importers, many on a huge
> scale.
>

Japan for instance.

Bob Kolker

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> Bob Kolker wrote:
>
>>grinder wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Not to mention the loss of $100 million in produce!!!
>>
>>This is a break for Florida though.
>
>
> Not really. I heard a Californian agricultural official say on public
> radio today that Florida fresh citrus isn't allowed into California
> because they have a lot of diseases down there that are not present in
> California. And I don't think they were talking about the STDs that
> are epidemic among the hick crackers in the citrus growing regions of
> Florida.

But the rest of us can buy Florida orange juice at our supermarkets.

Bob Kolker

Bob Kolker wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> >
> > There is nothing magical or mystical about farming. It's a business.
>
> It differs from cosmetic manufactureing. We absolutely NEED FOOD.

No. There is no such things as "needs" vs "wants"; no analytically
meaningful distinction at all.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Bob Kolker wrote:
>> grinder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Not to mention the loss of $100 million in produce!!!
>>
>> This is a break for Florida though.
>
> Not really. I heard a Californian agricultural official say on public
> radio today that Florida fresh citrus isn't allowed into California
> because they have a lot of diseases down there that are not present in
> California. And I don't think they were talking about the STDs that
> are epidemic among the hick crackers in the citrus growing regions of
> Florida.

Um, I might be wrong here but I think he was referring to a supply and
demand thing. IOW the amount that the Florida crop is worth is going to
skyrocket because the California loss will short the nationwide supply.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>
> No. There is no such things as "needs" vs "wants"; no analytically
> meaningful distinction at all.

Without food we die. Without cosmetics we are just ugly. Food is
necesssary for life. Most other stuff we buy or sell is not. What do you
need to stay alive? Food, water, clothes and shelter (assuming a cold
climate). Occassionaly medical help is required. Beyond these everything
else is bupkus.

Bob Kolker

Dave Bugg wrote:

>
> Um, I might be wrong here but I think he was referring to a supply and
> demand thing. IOW the amount that the Florida crop is worth is going to
> skyrocket because the California loss will short the nationwide supply.

Orange juice lovers will pay.

Bob Kolker

grinder wrote:
> "Bob Kolker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > grinder wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Not to mention the loss of $100 million in produce!!!
> >
> > This is a break for Florida though. It is an Ill Wind that does not blow
> > somebody some good somewhere.
> >
> > Wait until next year. The California crop will be bigger and jucier than
> > ever and all this will be forgotten.
> >
> > Bob Kolker
> >
>
> The farmers that have to increase their debt or lose their farms will not
> forget.

But the farmers(ie read as Monsanto, et al, rather than farmers)
throughout the US, could have invested in
bio-regenerators 100 years ago, to mitigate
crop losses. But instead they decided
GM morons is the way to go.

Bob Kolker wrote:
>
> It differs from cosmetic manufactureing. We absolutely NEED FOOD. We
> don't need a lot of other stuff that is being made. To be sure, farming
> is a business, but it is a business without which our civillization
> would collapse. Can you see 300 million people thrown to their own
> devices to find food if there were no farmers. If the alien space bats
> kidnapped all the farmers then we would have to produce a new generation
> of farmers pretty damned quick. There is only so much food stored up.
> Soon we weould have to grow more or die.

How do government supports for farming protect us
against those darn alien space bats?

Without government supports, prices would go up,
more people would become farmers, problem solved.

Bob Kolker wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> >
> > No. There is no such things as "needs" vs "wants"; no analytically
> > meaningful distinction at all.
>
> Without food we die. Without cosmetics we are just ugly. Food is
> necesssary for life. Most other stuff we buy or sell is not. What do you
> need to stay alive? Food, water, clothes and shelter (assuming a cold
> climate). Occassionaly medical help is required. Beyond these everything
> else is bupkus.

Nonetheless, there is no test you could show that would indicate a
meaningful difference in people's behavior that would indicate a valid
distinction between so-called "needs" and "mere wants". It's a moral
distinction you're making, not a valid objective distinction.

People want things. They don't need things. Some wants are felt more
intensely than others, but they remain wants.

Bob Kolker wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:>
> >
> > There are lots of countries that are net food importers, many on a huge
> > scale.
> >
>
> Japan for instance.

So there ya go! They don't seem to be too worried that anyone is going
to hold them up; why should we?

Dave Bugg wrote:
>
> Um, I might be wrong here but I think he was referring to a supply and
> demand thing. IOW the amount that the Florida crop is worth is going to
> skyrocket because the California loss will short the nationwide supply.

Except that Florida mostly produces juice oranges.
California mostly produces table oranges.
A lot of the damaged California crop may be
salvaged by being turned into juice, so juice
prices might actually go down.

I'm more worried about other crops, like Brussels
sprouts. I haven't heard a word about them,
and I eat Brussels sprouts almost every day.
(And I eat broccoli on the sprout-less days.)

Bob Kolker wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> > Bob Kolker wrote:
> >
> >>grinder wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Not to mention the loss of $100 million in produce!!!
> >>
> >>This is a break for Florida though.
> >
> >
> > Not really. I heard a Californian agricultural official say on public
> > radio today that Florida fresh citrus isn't allowed into California
> > because they have a lot of diseases down there that are not present in
> > California. And I don't think they were talking about the STDs that
> > are epidemic among the hick crackers in the citrus growing regions of
> > Florida.
>
> But the rest of us can buy Florida orange juice at our supermarkets.

I'm sure we all can, even in California. But you can't buy fresh whole
Florida oranges or grapefruit. I think I have seen Texan grapefruit
before, though.

On 16 Jan 2007 14:19:01 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >
wrote:

>Desmond and Molly Jones wrote:
>> In article om>, Rudy
>> Canoza at says...
>>
>> > There is no valid reason whatever for the
>> > coddling of farmers.
>>
>> Unless you like to eat.
>
>Nope. No valid reason at all. Farming is a business. Farmers should
>be treated as, and behave as, other business people.

So what do YOU plan to eat when you've driven them all into
bankruptcy?

On 16 Jan 2007 14:35:40 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >
wrote:

>Bob Kolker wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> >
>> > Nope. No valid reason at all. Farming is a business. Farmers should
>> > be treated as, and behave as, other business people.
>>
>> The auto industry can go under but we will manage to survive. But if all
>> the farmers croak, then what. Do we live in wild berries and roots?
>
>Farmers aren't all going to croak.
>
>

They will grow enough for their families, sure - but what will YOU
eat?


>>
>> At the root of every civilization in the last 10,000 years, there was
>> the farmer.
>
>There is nothing magical or mystical about farming. It's a business.

On 16 Jan 2007 16:35:04 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >
wrote:

>Bob Kolker wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > There is nothing magical or mystical about farming. It's a business.
>>
>> It differs from cosmetic manufactureing. We absolutely NEED FOOD.
>
>No. There is no such things as "needs" vs "wants"; no analytically
>meaningful distinction at all.


There's no distinction between your opinions and total bullshit,
either - but you persist in posting anyway.

On 16 Jan 2007 17:03:38 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >
wrote:

>Bob Kolker wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > No. There is no such things as "needs" vs "wants"; no analytically
>> > meaningful distinction at all.
>>
>> Without food we die. Without cosmetics we are just ugly. Food is
>> necesssary for life. Most other stuff we buy or sell is not. What do you
>> need to stay alive? Food, water, clothes and shelter (assuming a cold
>> climate). Occassionaly medical help is required. Beyond these everything
>> else is bupkus.
>
>Nonetheless, there is no test you could show that would indicate a
>meaningful difference in people's behavior that would indicate a valid
>distinction between so-called "needs" and "mere wants". It's a moral
>distinction you're making, not a valid objective distinction.
>
>People want things. They don't need things. Some wants are felt more
>intensely than others, but they remain wants.


We want you to eat shit and die.

Bob Ward wrote:
> On 16 Jan 2007 17:03:38 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >
> wrote:
>
> >Bob Kolker wrote:
> >> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > No. There is no such things as "needs" vs "wants"; no analytically
> >> > meaningful distinction at all.
> >>
> >> Without food we die. Without cosmetics we are just ugly. Food is
> >> necesssary for life. Most other stuff we buy or sell is not. What do you
> >> need to stay alive? Food, water, clothes and shelter (assuming a cold
> >> climate). Occassionaly medical help is required. Beyond these everything
> >> else is bupkus.
> >
> >Nonetheless, there is no test you could show that would indicate a
> >meaningful difference in people's behavior that would indicate a valid
> >distinction between so-called "needs" and "mere wants". It's a moral
> >distinction you're making, not a valid objective distinction.
> >
> >People want things. They don't need things. Some wants are felt more
> >intensely than others, but they remain wants.
>
>
> We want you to eat shit and die.

You don't want that very much, though. And I won't.

Rudy Canoza wrote:

>
> People want things. They don't need things. Some wants are felt more
> intensely than others, but they remain wants.

We need food. Without it we die. That is a simple fact of human
physiology. Obviously we want food because we need it.

Bob Kolker

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> So there ya go! They don't seem to be too worried that anyone is going
> to hold them up; why should we?

We are 'murkins and everybody hates us.

Bob Kolker

Bob Kolker wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> > So there ya go! They don't seem to be too worried that anyone is going
> > to hold them up; why should we?
>
> We are 'murkins and everybody hates us.

They'll still sell us food...and oil and cars and consumer electronics.

Bob Kolker wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> >
> > People want things. They don't need things. Some wants are felt more
> > intensely than others, but they remain wants.
>
> We need food. Without it we die. That is a simple fact of human
> physiology. Obviously we want food because we need it.

No, you want the food. You want to continue to live - you don't "need"
to live - and food is *instrumentally* necessary to continue living,
just as golf clubs are necessary to play golf. I don't "need" golf
clubs; I *want* to play golf, and golf clubs are necessary if my want
is to be satisfied.