| Pages:
1
2
3 |
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Perhaps they were factoring in the cost to taxpayers of having the slaughterhouse and fastfood workers in the country?
Remember- these are jobs Americans are "not willing" to do.
Quote: Originally posted by Polverone  |
Americans consume about 40 billion hamburgers and 3.9 billion pounds of beef steak per year. At $32 per hamburger and $80 per pound of steak in
subsidy that's 1.5 trillion dollars a year. By this reckoning beef subsidies must be the single largest expenditure in the US federal budget, more
than the Department of Defense and Social Security combined.
|
I agree with your analysis, but not your conclusion. Americans eat a LARGE quantity of beef! Is it really beyond possibility that the meat
industry could be this costly? Most of the agricultural land in the USA is, either directly or indirectly, used for meat production. 50% of
the land in the country is being used as pasture or cropland (mostly to feed the animals). Perhaps this is much more important issue than
many people realise.
[Edited on 13-3-2012 by AndersHoveland]
|
|
|
Polverone
Now celebrating 21 years of madness
Posts: 3186
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: Waiting for spring
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland |
Perhaps they were factoring in the cost to taxpayers of having the slaughterhouse and fastfood workers in the country?
Remember- these are jobs Americans are "not willing" to do.
| Quote: Originally posted by Polverone |
Americans consume about 40 billion hamburgers and 3.9 billion pounds of beef steak per year. At $32 per hamburger and $80 per pound of steak in
subsidy that's 1.5 trillion dollars a year. By this reckoning beef subsidies must be the single largest expenditure in the US federal budget, more
than the Department of Defense and Social Security combined.
|
I agree with your analysis, but not your conclusion. Americans eat a LARGE quantity of beef! Is it really beyond possibility that the meat
industry could be this costly? Most of the agricultural land in the USA is, either directly or indirectly, used for meat production. 50% of
the land in the country is being used as pasture or cropland (mostly to feed the animals). Perhaps this is much more important issue than
many people realise.
|
Yes, it is facially absurd. The authors think a hamburger consumes more than $30 in water subsidies alone. Ask these geniuses to
incorporate labor and land into their estimates and no doubt Americans spend 150% of GDP on hamburgers. Actually, "estimates" might be putting it too
strongly. I've found a few pages that mention the $35 hamburger but not a single one that provides a derivation.
PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The meat industry has a very large impact on the environment and economy of the USA, but most American citizens live in cities near the coasts and
never see the extent of this industry.
Perhaps those economists included a calculation of the cost of water pollution from the animal excrement.
An estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s
Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more
than transportation.
A study by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent
amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.
http://www.nrdp.net/uufsa/EE3high%20price%20cheap%20food.pdf
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&am...
I believe that the REAL workings of the economy are the less vissible activities, that people (and economists) generally do
not think about. The domestic activities of the wife, for example, contribute far more to the wider economy than all the computer companies. The meat
industry is just as problematic to the economy as America's social security problems.
Just realised that this thread topic got derailed, sorry, will not post anything else about meat industry.
But back to the topic, why do American schools not teach their students about the horrific origins of their meat? Indeed, the schools actually
serve their students this meat.
[Edited on 13-3-2012 by AndersHoveland]
|
|
|
497
National Hazard
Posts: 778
Registered: 6-10-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: HSbF6
|
|
Imagine how much land would be used if you just fed the damn things duckweed? Like a tenth of what it is now...
Edit
Hah, I was referring to the cattle... Disregard for animals? Mostly cattle annoy me because they're so stupid, inefficient, and in my opinion not the
best meat.. Don't worry about their feelings, I don't think many are reading the forum.
But feeding people duckweed would be even better in some ways. Not holding out too much hope for that though. Far too practical.
[Edited on 13-3-2012 by 497]
|
|
|
dann2
International Hazard
Posts: 1523
Registered: 31-1-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by 497 | | Imagine how much land would be used if you just fed the damn things duckweed? Like a tenth of what it is now... |
The children or the cattle?
|
|
|
neptunium
National Hazard
Posts: 986
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline
|
|
i was lucky enough to have parents who exposed me to all kinds of activity both in and outdoor, in an effort to widen my mind and open up .
So it came as a shock to me when my roomate asked me how hot dogs were grown on tree and if so what kind of tree..
We can laught all we want ,i think it underline a much more serious problem in society ,parenting and again TV programing.
I understand most people are not interested in the manufacture of processed food or growning corn in Kansas ,but curiosity should be (i asssume) in
all of us, and if not exposed to differente aspect of life ,at least go out and research and find your answer.
Today it is so easy to update ones status on facebook (and he does all the time) how didnt he take the time to look up "hot dogs/wiki " ? and save
himself the embarasement(spelling?)
he is just one example there is many of them like him and these people vote ! 
thats not funny thats scary to me
|
|
|
GreenD
National Hazard
Posts: 623
Registered: 30-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: Not really high anymore
|
|
I don't know if a 30$ hamburger is realistic, however I do know that the US subsidizes corn incredibly low - so the price Monsanto pays for it is a
fraction of the production cost. This does not, however, require monsanto to sell it at a fraction of the production cost (or any other agri-company).
In fact - it is a very fucked up system. Monsanto sells its seeds to farmers at their own price. Ther farmer grows the corn. Monsanto buys the corn
and receives a huge subsidy fromt he gov't. A bit f'ed up if you ask me.
So the feed for the cattle is majorly subsidized. I do not know, but I can assume that there are some subsidies with meat and cattle. Last year I
guess the subsidies were $200 million - not quite in the trillions, but not something to be ignored.
Knowing that corn that feeds the cattle is subsidized, and the cattle themselves are subsidized, the actual true labor and energy cost of your meat is
much, much greater than what you are actually paying for it. This unrealistically lowers the price of meat considerably and is why meat is less
expensive than organic produce. (Makes zero sense from a physics standpoint).
I looked up the actual water use of a pound of meat, it is close to 900 gallons of water per pound. That takes into account (I believe) the rain water
for the feed as well. Perhaps not. At any rate, it is a large amount, and often farms do not get to rely on simple rain water for irregation.
Yes this is now completely derailed into the agribusiness conspiracy but it is a huge part of our country. All of our food exports and why exactly we
can export depend on our gov't subsidies of food. The tax payer pays for all that food goin places, but in fact, it is supplied not by the government,
but private industry, specifically monsanto usually. Monsanto openly admitted to choosing who to send corn and other supplementary diets aide to -
they also said they would basically boycott european countries that did not support GMO's.
Monsanto has its hands in far more than the price of your hamburger.
Edit: this is so ironic
| Quote: | how didnt he take the time to look up "hot dogs/wiki " ? and save himself the embarasement(spelling?)
|
[Edited on 13-3-2012 by GreenD]
[Edited on 13-3-2012 by GreenD]
ʃ Ψ*Ψ
Keepin' it real.
Check out my new collaborated site: MNMLimpact.com
|
|
|
neptunium
National Hazard
Posts: 986
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline
|
|
how did we drift from education and dumb TV to 30$ burger? did i miss something?
sometimes i wonder if we are not all (on here) a bunch of reject who refuse to fit the average mold of society...
am I the only one without a facebook page? who thinks a phone should be for calls and maybe text only?
am i a weirdo because i spend my hard earned cash on vacuum pumps and zinc chloride?
science and skeptisiscm, curiosity and open mind are just not part of education and the average joe's life anymore.
it is regretable and i dont know how to turn things arround.
I`ll tell you this now. if an asteroid is heading for earth, everybody I know will find a sudden interest in astronomy !
[Edited on 13-3-2012 by neptunium]
[Edited on 13-3-2012 by neptunium]
|
|
|
Spart
Harmless
Posts: 8
Registered: 18-12-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
As said before, it certainly is true that shows that used to be centered around science are now bullshit reality shows about pawn shops and taxedermy
and what not. Most evidently are History and Discovery channels. Currently, History 2 Channel (H2) basically shows anything intellectual that History
(original) used to show, although there are a bunch of stupid shows sometimes shown on that channel. I find that Science channel, though, is still
pretty good and true to it's name.
As someone said earlier, Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman is a pretty good show. I don't watch TV a ton, but when I do, I notice that Science
Channel has not submitted to the trendy reality-like shows. However, for a majority of the day, How It's Made is playing, and while it is a good show
and is educational, I believe they could throw in some more The Universe re-runs and others in that giant blob of HIM, rather than just playing HIM
for nearly the entire day.
|
|
|
GreenD
National Hazard
Posts: 623
Registered: 30-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: Not really high anymore
|
|
Does anyone have "Curiosity" channel? It seems like it would be very nice to watch.
Even though some of the science channels DO TRY sometimes - the shit they show is so vague and uninteresting or its purely basic stuff, like mass *
energy = force. They just don't know HOW to appeal science. Although putting morgan freedman in anything is a good start.
ʃ Ψ*Ψ
Keepin' it real.
Check out my new collaborated site: MNMLimpact.com
|
|
|
Lambda-Eyde
National Hazard
Posts: 857
Registered: 20-11-2008
Location: Norway
Member Is Offline
Mood: Cleaved
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by GreenD |
Even though some of the science channels DO TRY sometimes - the shit they show is so vague and uninteresting or its purely basic stuff, like
mass * energy = force. They just don't know HOW to appeal science. |
This just in: 95,5 % of the world population lives outside the USA
You should really listen to ABBAPlease drop by our IRC channel: #sciencemadness @ irc.efnet.org
|
|
|
Morgan
International Hazard
Posts: 1663
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
On the topic of dumb television shows and incongruent reasoning ...
It's just quirky how even higher education/high IQ doesn't preclude unsuspected tastes. I'm not sure I see Charlie's Angels as romatic literature. ha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzGFytGBDN8#t=6m1s
[Edited on 18-3-2012 by Morgan]
|
|
|
Morgan
International Hazard
Posts: 1663
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Murray Gell-Mann talks about Richard Feynman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnMsgxIIQEE#t=1m25s
[Edited on 18-3-2012 by Morgan]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
