In BC More Than A Change In Government Is Needed

---

Daniel January 13, 2011 12:49 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin the mortality rate improved from 1900 largely because of great improvements in treating childhood illness and the decrease of family size . If you compare those who made it to 21 years old and compared them to todays 21 year old , their life expediency are about the same . It was not uncommon for large families to lose one or more children in 1900 . Improvements in hygiene and living conditions in large cities have decreased the child morality rate along with smaller families . With the current rate of obesity in north America children I am afraid what might be in store for the coming generations ! Cancer in the 1950s was about 1 in 16 today your lifetime average is about 1 in two !

---

Kevin January 11, 2011 12:48 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry I reviewed your below link and the article. I'm sure the writer means well, and no doubt feels they have insight, but this is the problem we in agriculture face almost daily from inexperienced political appointees and their staff. They may mean well, but this is not a business that lends itself to simplifications. Our business is in a constant state of flux, while also interacting with a dynamic environment. Anyway this has been enjoyable exchanging viewpoints with you; in the fullness ot time we shall see how it all works out. I would like to add that I'm very optimistic about the future, it appears we have a congress that will become more responsive to the needs of agriculture, especially considering the political mood of the country and the number of senators that will be up for re-election in 2012 may prompt them to become more [informed] and act more responsibly. One can always hope...

---

Jerry West January 10, 2011 4:50 pm (Pacific time)

For Kevin, something of interest:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-niman-food-20110109,0,3199726.story

---

Jerry West January 9, 2011 3:03 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin, I said that you facts were out of context, which is not the same as saying that they are incorrect. Do more research and you may find that out. You and I agree on some things, one of them being that the demise of small farms is a problem. Of course that is a feature of our economic system and is encouraged because it serves the interests of those who are successfully exploiting that system (and who control governments). If you want to make large land holdings and mega corporations illegal, I am with you. If you want to take away corporate personhood and make corporate charters undergo periodic public reviews for renewal, I am with you there, too. If want to put restrictive tariffs on any import that we can produce ourselves, I will go for that as well. Of course that still leaves us with a society consuming way beyond the sustainable limit. Read the WWF reports and tell us where they are wrong.

---

Kevin January 9, 2011 10:19 am (Pacific time)

Jerry actually my facts as per my earlier posts are entirely correct, please review and point out which ones are incorrect. Thank you. You provided a list of various negatives that are impacting us worldwide, but you have neglected to point out how many of these issues are being addressed and are actually turning around. Earlier I posted how the deer/elk population was quite low in the early 1900's, actually these herds were approaching extinction. Responsible people came together and developed a plan to turn their declining population around, they were indeed successful. This "can do" attitude is alive and well and is no doubt part of the collective human survival instinct in my opinion. Currently we are involved in some experimental agriculture that will, if successful, allow us to generate various crops at a higher and shorter harvest rates, and in a self-sustaining way. I expect success, and within two years a significant percentage of our food stuffs will [not] be at the mercy of weather conditions, e.g., heat,cold, drought, too much rainfall, insects, etc. . This advance is motivated by profit, which we need, as all businesses need, to survive. In terms of regulating the market system, well Jerry, that is always going to be a bone of contention. I could tell you some real horror stories of political appointees (some have significant power!) who have come to my place of business with their ideas, and so far, we have been able to avoid their misguided suggestions. Many farmers/ranchers have not been as fortunate and are no longer producing food for a hungry America. In the fullness of time, less than ten years I believe, we shall see that the "warmer's" are incorrect, and that "smart" agricultural activity/production will assure our food needs are met, regardless of any climate change, macro or micro. Biggest danger we have in agriculture, is the shrinking population of small and medium-sized farms/ranches (they collectively create competition, lowering prices in most cases), which is promulgated by some politicians and political appointees who are absolutely clueless about food production/distribution.

---

Jerry West January 8, 2011 3:45 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin, your facts are not in context of the bigger picture. Species are in decline world wide, grasslands are being lost as are wetlands, wilderness and so on. The numbers of fish are declining, and we haven't even gotten to the issue of biodiversity. Resources are finite, accumulation in one place is at the expense of another. And, as we destroy the sustainability of the current eco-system we transition into something else that will change how we live, or even if we can live. Greed certainly needs to be regulated with limits placed on how much any one person or society can have at any one time, and those limits should be such that everyone else has reasonable access to what they need to survive. When you speak of professional greed managers that must be the folks at Enron and Goldman Sachs and their ilk. I prefer electing people to make those decisions with everyone having a vote, rich or poor. By the way, what about salmon populations, or frogs or wild ducks and geese, even horned toads and all of those species on the endangered list?

---

Kevin January 8, 2011 11:33 am (Pacific time)

Jerry in 1900, the annual mortality rate was one in 42 Americans. In 1998, on an age-adjusted basis, the rate had dropped to one in 125 people. That's a cumulative decline of 67 percent. Mortality rates have declined at the relatively constant rate of approximately 1 to 2 percent per year since 1900. Why has this happened? Note: Deer/elk populations are also way up since 1900. Not a simple thing to answer, but one thing we know for sure, is that we have learned to make better use of our natural resources, which has, and continues, to improve the quality of life for most people on the planet. Do we need to continue to reach out and help those who have not been involved in this ongoing improved quality of life? Of course. As a producer of food, that is what I do in my very small part in helping others Jerry. I am part of a small profit-making corporation, and just because I do well (not all the time!), that does not mean somewhere else on the planet, others do poorly because of the corporation I belong to. In one part of our ranching process, for over 100 years now, we have used grasslands that have maintained 100% of their natural resources. Up to the present they have been in a constant renewable cycle, even though much has been demanded and taken from these grasslands. Jerry so how would " equitable distribution" be beneficial in this matter on a global level? Natural resources are a matter of geography, and ability to use those resources is a matter of skilled application in many cases. I disagree with you that we have a closed system in terms of resources, for casual empirical observations disprove that, though we may just be talking jargon and definition? Regarding 3rd world food production, they are always just one small natural event away from catastrophe, which most any newspaper reports on daily. Jerry since Huricane Katrina, every year the warmers have predicted another major hurricane to hit us unless we cap the carbon. In time, we will have another major hurricane and the media will back up these warmers as though they have always been 100% accurate. Why? As far as taking resources, be it food products or something else, from 3rd world countries, that's the way of the world, and if it causes harm, then it is up to that country's government, or the people that empower that government, to do something about that. Our market system does respond to boycotts, so that clearly acknowledge that the market system is about survival, and it has had an immeasurable positive impact on mankind, and nothing remotely close to being a cancer. Greed is responsible for the latter, but it also propels the market system. It's the greed that needs regulation, and that should be done by professionals, not political classroom deskbound hacks.

---

Jerry West January 7, 2011 6:53 pm (Pacific time)

Quoting Kevin: "Highly unlikely this would ever happen,"
Which is why future generations are headed for some very rough times.
"Are you suggesting confiscation and re-distribution? In what other manner could this be accomplished?"
I am suggesting in a world of limited resources there needs to be equitable distribution, kind of like gasoline, rubber and so on during WWII.
"We have not even come close to endangering ourselves regarding our use of natural resources, and likely never will for a very long time, if ever."
That is not what the evidence is showing. At this point the precautionary principle dictates that we act as if they are.
"The free market system is predicated on survival, as is the human race.
Kind of like cancer is predicated on survival. No system based on growth can survive in the long run. Ours went over the line decades ago. We have a closed system and when boats rise in one place they drop in another to correct a worn out phrase.
"As I wrote in an earlier post, getting food to the third-world poor is a major problem, "
Taking food from the third world poor is also a problem. Forcing them off of their subsistence farms to make way for cash crops is a crime. By the way, profit is also a form of taxation, not that it is wrong within limits.

---

Kevin January 7, 2011 2:09 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry you wrote " The real culprit is over consumption and a destructive, growth based economic system that drives increasing consumption. Nature may solve this eventually to the disadvantage of humans, but any workable human solution will require reversing growth and a system of controls to limit production and consumption and to ration limited resources in an equitable manner." Are you suggesting confiscation and re-distribution? In what other manner could this be accomplished? Highly unlikely this would ever happen, as history clearly documents that most wars have been fought over matters such as this. Have you noticed that Cuba is about to lay off 500,000 government workers? Seems that the folly of re-distribution has added another notch to this failed short-sighted perspective. The tax and fee system that many slackers want to use for their re-distribution fantasy has just hit the wall here in America. The mounting evidence of a world of equal shares some would like is simply not going to happen, and time will most certainly prove that any climate change going on is part of a natural cycling process. We have not even come close to endangering ourselves regarding our use of natural resources, and likely never will for a very long time, if ever. That includes oil-based energy reserves. The free market system is predicated on survival, as is the human race. I'm very optimistic about the future of the human race, we'll solve problems as they come along, even over-population is an issue that will be dealt with in a pragmatic manner, though nature may also play a significant role if as I suspect that a very cold climate is coming. Shorter growing seasons by just a week or so, will kill hundreds of millions in the 3rd world. Our hothouses and other accelerated growth technologies in the west will prevent large scale die-offs. As I wrote in an earlier post, getting food to the third-world poor is a major problem, and it is worsening.

---

Jerry West January 6, 2011 3:46 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin, here is a very short reading list that I compiled for another publication. These are not primary sources, but there are a lot of references in them which you can follow up, some of them no doubt peer reviewed.

http://www.island.net/~record/article/br101217.pdf

Historically we have had distribution problems with food, that is well known. The answer is not more production but more equitable distribution, at least until the last few decades. Now another problem is just too many resources given to production as the economic system devours the sustainable base of the ecosystem. The planet can not sustainably support seven billion people at any level higher than that found in countries like Uzebekistan or Jordan. The US alone, without imports, could only support about half of its current population sustainably at current levels of consumption. *** "Am hopeful the new congress will be more responsive to citizen input than the last one. " *** Don't get your hopes up too high, most of those new congress members either ran on lies or in ignorance. Once in place they will support the system and the big money that pays for it. They will, however, put on a good show to make people think that they are doing something, and find scapegoats to give people who are unhappy.

PS: This conversation is probably more appropriate attached to my last article rather than this one. :)

---

Kevin January 6, 2011 1:24 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry I have not come across peer-reviewed climate evidence you speak of, nor have I spoken to anyone who has seen what you assert. In regards to your various numbers in terms of cutting back on various types of production, now that is absolutely remarkable. I have also never come across numbers like that before, and I spend considerable time in the pursuit of forecasting our production, albeit, a small sized agricultural production/distribution farm/ranch operation. Our multiple generational success is based on experience, not classroom theory, so that may explain why I am unfamiliar with your numbers? Where did your projections come from? Note: Jerry we have the technology to dial up food production many times beyond current levels, and at a considerable lower cost, plus a significant reduction of resources would be involved. Maybe some research in "future" agricultural activity: production and distribution, would be beneficial for you? As far as cutting back on food production, only one way that will happen, other than some natural calamity. The biggest problem with feeding poor people in the world is getting it to them, and this is where intrusive government has become the biggest hinderence to the welfare of their citizens. With projected increases in fuel costs expected for the next several years, 3rd world countries will soon be in even more distress, and here in America there will be some temporary shortages, but our market economy will respond quite well in assuring a stable food supply far into the future, as long as we reduce the government's intrusion into the market; to what level is unknown, and that's the rub. Am hopeful the new congress will be more responsive to citizen input than the last one.

---

Jerry West January 5, 2011 4:05 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin, increasing production is also a problem, we produce way too much stuff, including food for humans, for the ecosystem to support sustainably. The only fix is reduction. The US itself is consuming twice what it can supply, and almost five times the allowable global average. Regional sustainability for the US means cutting its consumption in half. Global sustainability means cutting by about 80%. People who are expanding production are destroying society. *** "there is no evidence that supports a manmade macro climate influence." *** nor any direct evidence the refutes it. There is the fact that we can correlate the rise is temperatures and gas concentrations with the rise of population and agricultural and industrial activity. *** "In fact the macro evidence shows just the opposite Jerry." *** What the evidence seems to show is that in what should be a period of cooling we are having a period of warming. But, again, it is only a symptom of the main problem which is too much production and consumption.

---

Kevin January 5, 2011 11:43 am (Pacific time)

Jerry you are 100% correct when you state that "increasing consumption" is a major problem, though it appears several different worldwide economic systems also cause this type of behavior, not just the ones we see in the west. In fact it is in those parts of the world outside of the west that are creating a Malthusian scenario "much quicker" than the one we have developing in our own future in terms of population (and production) growth developing way beyond existing resources. Unless we act soon an avalanche of Biafra's may be developing that will outpace our ability to render assistance. We also risk being seen as an intrusive power that may alienate the third world we want to help if we start dictating corrective policies for them to follow. The United Nations has consistently proven that they are unable to solve their internal corruption in this regard, so we may be in for considerable heartache. Those of us actually involved in day to day food production have been witnessing this growing problem for quite some time now, and most of us understand where the real problem lies in regards to helping to ameliorate our current downward domestic trend. The problem Jerry is our quickly growing government that is being run by essentially political appointees who have no idea what's happening in the real world, and that is where power is now being concentrated, to our peril I might add. In terms of the 8-10,000 year record you mentioned about average temperatures and atmosphere greenhouse gas concentrations, there is no evidence that supports a manmade macro climate influence. In fact the macro evidence shows just the opposite Jerry. As you know that time period is barely a tick on the geological clock, for we have geological records of global warming and global cooling stretching back hundreds of millions of years. People, including scientists, see what they want to see, so it's always critically important to be able to replicate data and have objectively balanced peer reviews, along with "following the money," is also a good idea. Jerry last summer my wife and I took a short vacation down to the San Francisco Bay area and visited a well known university that her brother was attending. We were on the roof of a science building and saw two students who were measuring the height of what appeared to be a lightening rod. One student was climbing up the poll with a tape measure but kept slipping before he could get the tape in place to measure. I pointed out to them that there were two bolts at the bottom of the pole they could loosen to lower the rod horizontally to get a more accurate measurement. One of these budding scientists told me that "We are trying to get the height of the pole, not the length!" Maybe this is what's happening with the scientific processes of the global warmers and their followers?

---

Jerry West January 4, 2011 4:23 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin, wealth and power in this world is concentrated in the hands of those whose position is derived from their exploitation of fossil fuels and the system that those fuels support. They will do everything in their power to discredit the idea that global warming has anthropogenic causes. It is nice to be so rich that one can disseminate one's ideas regardless of science, and buy scientists to give whatever finding that they want. Obfuscating the issue is to their advantage. However, a large majority of scientists subscribe to the view that the climate is getting warmer. Many citizens may not, but then so did many citizens once believe that the world was flat. Of course it is a complicated issue. And, one really needs to take a long term view to understand it. The 8-10,000 year record shows and increase in both average temperature and various green house gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Here is a recent article that you might find interesting:

http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/letters/Folly-forget-facts-global-warming/article-3058811-detail/article.html

Of course global warming is not the problem, it is only one symptom of the problem. The real culprit is over consumption and a destructive, growth based economic system that drives increasing consumption. Nature may solve this eventually to the disadvantage of humans, but any workable human solution will require reversing growth and a system of controls to limit production and consumption and to ration limited resources in an equitable manner.

---

Kevin January 4, 2011 2:10 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry, in recent years anyone daring to question the imminent reality of catastrophic global warming has risked being labelled a denialist with implicit, and sometimes even explicit, reference to holocaust denial as well. Ironically, over the past year in the face of a cooling climate and collapsing scientific credibility, climate alarmists have themselves begun to increasingly express opinions that can only be seen as denialist. Climategate emails and other material from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit was unequivocally a major blow to the credibility of AGW science, warmists reacted by trying to downplay the significance as being only an academic spat with no relevance to the scientific validity of any of the research involved. However, it has become apparent that serious breaches of scientific standards and ethics were involved, basic honesty should have called for a clear condemnation. By opting to attempt to dismiss such serious matters as only trivia, damage to credibility with the public has been compounded. The result has been a large increase in mainstream media coverage for climate scepticism and a significant decrease in stories promoting climate alarmism. When confronted by reasonable doubts or conflicting evidence, the warmist response has been to refuse debate and to instead proclaim authority, expert consensus and moral virtue while attacking the knowledge, standing and motives of any who question the threat of catastrophic climate change. While this kind of denigration may be an accepted practice in academia, to the broader public it only looks like juvenile schoolyard bullying. Worse still from the alarmist perspective, has been the painfully obvious failure of climate itself to cooperate. For the past three years all over the world cold winter weather has repeatedly set new records for snow and low temperatures. Time after time global warming conferences have been greeted by record and near record cold weather. Trying to dismiss this as merely coincidence or just weather, not climate, has lost all credibility; especially after it has happened repeatedly amidst a background of extreme winter conditions over large areas. Continuing to offer this increasingly lame excuse has only made it look more like a lie or delusion than an explanation. Regardless of the ongoing hype and spin of the diehard proponents of AGW, the attitude of a large majority of the electorate has turned decisively against the idea of any imminent threat. This shift in sentiment is unlikely to reverse anytime soon. It developed over time and involves not just the Climategate emails but a much wider shift in the balance of public awareness as well as a sense of betrayal and dishonesty by researchers claiming certainty and righteousness. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Once a belief is abandoned, few people readily return to something they have decided was false.

---

Jerry West January 2, 2011 6:42 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin, Patrick Michaels, who admits that it is getting warmer, is not without controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels  

*** The majority of scientific opinion supports the idea that the climate is getting warmer. *** "Global warming scientists say it will be warmer, colder, snowier, and less snowy all at the same time, which is impossible...."

*** This statement is hyperbole, not science.  It is possible.  Warming climate in one area can affect weather patterns and cause cooling in another.  What counts is the global average, if the overall change is warmer, then we have warming.  

***Dr.Michaels also said many global warming proponents defer to "unfalsifiable science,"

*** Which is a charge that one makes when they don't have anything to really prove their point

*** "My biggest concern is that different regulatory agencies (state and federal) are by-passing Congress and making up their own rules as how to regulate something that should be addressed via a public deliberation process."

*** That is a valid concern.  My biggest concern is that they are manipulating a real environmental problem for political and financial gain rather than to fix the problem.  Fixing it, of course, would require some hard and very unpopular decisions, so instead they pretend to fix it and make money doing it.  Here is another UV professor whose has something to contribute to the issue, and who I think needs to be considered: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Ruddiman

---

Kevin January 2, 2011 12:25 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry, Is there any weather pattern that would cast down on global warming? Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, D.C., told TheDC that global warming proponents wrongly try to justify numerous weather patterns as being the result of global warming: “Global warming scientists say it will be warmer, colder, snowier, and less snowy all at the same time, which is impossible. Anyone who follows global warming knows the theory is rife with exaggeration,” Michaels said. “What’s disturbing is to see The New York Times put a really fringe idea on their editorial page. Obviously they’re panicking about people’s distrust of the political nature of global warming science. It struck me as desperation pass, knowing the people are abandoning global warming as a signature issue.” Jerry, Dr.Michaels also said many global warming proponents defer to “unfalsifiable science,” which is science that cannot be tested. “When it doesn’t snow, global warming proponents blame global warming, and when winters are cold, they blame global warming, etc. This is what you call unfalsifiable science,” Michaels said. “It’s not science because it can’t be falsified.” My father-in-law remembers an old lady back in the 50s that blamed rockets punching holes in the sky if it rained on her laundry day. (You must remember that is back when the laundry was hung on cloths lines in the back yard, not stuffed in a gas dryer.) My biggest concern is that different regulatory agencies (state and federal) are by-passing Congress and making up their own rules as how to regulate something that should be addressed via a public deliberation process. The upcoming lawsuits are going to be very hurtful for all Americans, unless we get some quick congressional action. President Obama would do the country a world of good if he starts exercising his executive power over these agencies which are run by those who have demonstrated their uninformed arrogance and abuse of power by ignoring the constitutional congressional process.

---

Jerry West December 31, 2010 12:00 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry the claim by the "warmers" is that warming and other climate changes can be human-controlled; *** The only real control that we can have over it is to reduce consumption which is the root cause of our environmental problems. Carbon trading schemes and the like are typical capitalist shell games designed to transfer wealth, not solve any problem. *** The scare tactics and their inventors ignore past Ice Ages on Earth and omit the periods of global warming between successive Ice Ages. That old-fashioned "scientific-method" has simply trumped the "warmers." *** Only if one cherry picks their facts. In the big picture the recent global warming episode has evidence pointing at anthropogenic factors over the past 10,000 years. PS: Which god might you be referring too, man has created many of them.

---

Kevin December 30, 2010 10:11 am (Pacific time)

Jerry the claim by the "warmers" is that warming and other climate changes can be human-controlled; that such control must be financed via taxes/fees; that such revenue then must be handed over to those whipping up the scare (AL Gore has made in excess of $100 million); and that the elite with tax money in hand can then influence climate as God can. With these taxes a beautiful, better world will be created, the oceans will recede, the planet will heal, and the universe will be at peace. But, first, just pay. The scare tactics and their inventors ignore past Ice Ages on Earth and omit the periods of global warming between successive Ice Ages. That old-fashioned "scientific-method" has simply trumped the "warmers."

---

Jerry West December 28, 2010 6:40 pm (Pacific time)

Are you familiar with the Dept. of Agriculture's providing literally $billions to people who actually have never farmed? *** Yes, and to farmers who do not farm, and to subsidize farmers who raise things we do not need. *** but one thing I am sure of is that climate is not impacted by "man" at this time. *** Don't be too sure, the evidence doesn't support that view. The best you can say credibly in denial is that it may not be affected by man. *** With government pushing most of our corn production into totally ineffective use as an 'oxygenator' for gasoline, *** Such use is a waste of resources, but so, too, is the use of corn for sweetener, way too much sweetener. And too much goes to livestock feed. *** denying water to California's San Joaquin Valley, long known as our 'nations breadbasket,' effectively killing tens of thousands of farms *** There are way to many farms in the San Joaquin Valley. I have no sympathy at all for all of those on the Westside farming a desert that should have been left to the jack rabbits. The salmon runs should never have been destroyed nor the Delta degraded. *** Our current government is moving very quickly to adversely impact our food production, *** Just like Monsanto and Cargill? Perhaps the big holdings should be broken up, free trade dumped, and small farms encouraged again? The future does not look bright, we are consuming far more than can be sustainably produced, no matter what we do other than radically reduce consumption.

---

Kevin December 28, 2010 1:44 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry I have very little contact with different political groups out there but am confused in your comment: "A growing population of hungry citizens is going to be a controlling mechanism that may soon be available for tyrants." *** Yes, they are called the Tea Party, we have seen them before in history." Actually I take just the opposite view of you in this matter. I have made most of my income, not from my primary work, farming and ranching, but from commodity investments. Understanding macro/micro economic forces is always a crapshoot, as is forcasting things such as climate, also in both a macro/mico fashion, but one thing I am sure of is that climate is not impacted by "man" at this time. Our biggest threat, in which we agree, is the type of government we have. With government pushing most of our corn production into totally ineffective use as an 'oxygenator' for gasoline, denying water to California's San Joaquin Valley, long known as our 'nations breadbasket,' effectively killing tens of thousands of farms - we already face threatened food shortages in this nation. Now government is obviously doing its best to kill the fishing industry. Our current government is moving very quickly to adversely impact our food production, and they are ignoring congressional oversight in favor of executive order. Expect much damage before they are stopped, things will get very intense, there may be considerable violence in the not too distant future. Are you familiar with the Dept. of Agriculture's providing literally $billions to people who actually have never farmed?

---

Jerry West December 26, 2010 5:49 pm (Pacific time)

"Jerry you are using the arguement that we live in a finite universe, " *** Yes, Kevin, we do, for all practical purposes. Any system based on on some other assumption is based on a fallacy. The only matter that comes into this system from outside is that which falls in from space. What evidence is there that matter is created on the planet. And if so, what is it created from? *** "Not long ago the prevailing, and "quasi-government-controlled" wisdom, was that the sun orbited the earth, the planet was flat,etc." *** And todays equivalent to that is that there is no anthropogenic affect on climate and the offical line that there can be sustainable growth and wealth creation. *** As for the government that both of us do not like, it is owned and operated by special interests for the purpose of protecting what they call the free enterprise system, and the interests of those with large amounts of accumulated wealth at the expense of the rest of us. Many natural resources are renewable, but only if they are not over exploited and their reproductive capacity diminished. We have been over exploiting and reducing this capacity for several decades now. Growth is killing us. The food problem that you outline I agree with, and have been remarking on it for 40 years. It is a result of our economic system that allowed conglomeration of agricultural enterprise in the name of efficiency, (know first hand) that introduced chemical farming that is both costly and disruptive, that separated farms from their local markets, and engaged in free trade agreements that allowed capital to move production over seas. All justified in the name of free enterprise. So, government involvement is meant to protect and expand the wealth of the top small percentage of the population. Without it, on the other hand, those at the top would use their power to drive the rest into serfdom, we see that in predatory pricing and other tools that they like to use. The problem isn't government, but what kind of government. The government that you do not like, the one that we have, is a plutocracy that controls media and education and allows just enough slack in the system to prevent a revolutionary uprising. *** "A growing population of hungry citizens is going to be a controlling mechanism that may soon be available for tyrants." *** Yes, they are called the Tea Party, we have seen them before in history.

---

Kevin December 26, 2010 9:58 am (Pacific time)

Jerry you are using the arguement that we live in a finite universe, thus there are only those resources available within that finite enviornment. That is taking a very broad stroke in asserting your position, but what evidence do you have that it is true? Not long ago the prevailing, and "quasi-government-controlled" wisdom, was that the sun orbited the earth, the planet was flat,etc., and currently, any type of climate-change is most likely "man-caused." Regarding the latter, we now have the EPA, an organization run by political appointees who are guided by agenda-driven ideologues, making laws that impact our business' community. They are about to attempt to create regulations similar to the failed ones in Spain, with some minor tweaking. So as I have stated earlier, we need to minimize government intrusion, but we have a mindset in DC which ignores anything that contradicts their belief system. Sound familiar? Sun orbit, flat earth, etc. I come not just from the school of thought, but also from a large body of experience, that many natural resources are renewable and/or replaceable. Market forces when allowed, will develop, produce, and provide at a fair price most of the time (markets like the human instinct, want to survive/continue), goods that people need. It is obvious we need to control our population size, but that's another matter. Jerry you wrote: "Kevin, you should have had my bill for computerizing a business in 1985." You should see my expenses over the years, then index for inflation, then it becomes quite clear how government intrusion has created costs several times beyond inflation. If the average citizen knew of the incredible danger that is fast approaching for their food supplies, they would demand a "cease and desist" moratorium on food producers so we can save those producers from fading away. Look what has happened to our manufacturing sector. Going going gone?! A growing population of hungry citizens is going to be a controlling mechanism that may soon be available for tyrants. Let's say for example the trucking industry goes on strike for 30 days, and ignores a government order to go back to work? Things can change quickly. It's hard enough producing foodstuffs just by dealing with things such as various costs of fertilizers, insects, weather related issues, etc., but when you add in an ongoing stream of federal, state and county regulations, it is causing many to just quit, sell their land and fade away. Even passing on the family farm/ranch to one's children is becoming impossible because of taxes, and the mind set behing those making tax laws just continue to worsen the situation. Imagine you're living in a city, you have plenty of money, but your cupboards are bare, and the nearby grocery store shelves are empty. Then you may [eventually] have government run stores who provide you ration cards, or whatever. You think that cannot happen in a very short time? Continue to allow an expanding government to develop, and that is our future. North Korean citizens, as well as those in many other countries understand what happens to market forces that become government-controlled, regardless of how one wants to interpret the "universe of finite resources."

---

Jerry West December 24, 2010 2:53 pm (Pacific time)

PS Kevin, you can increase value, but the amount of resources remain the same, even when changed in form. There is no limit to value, but there certainly is to what we value.

---

Jerry West December 24, 2010 2:47 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin, you should have had my bill for computerizing a business in 1985. :) ** Don't think that I am against markets or free enterprise, I think that they have their place in the mixture, but I do not believe that everything can be best provided by that model, unlike the rhetoric you hear from some TP types and such. Tell us, if we give in totally to the market, and do away with all taxes how would you run a government, provide defense and public security, etc. on a strictly voluntary, market basis?

---

Kevin December 24, 2010 10:22 am (Pacific time)

Jerry I also can trace back my roots in North America many centuries. Those of us who have access to farm fresh produce and home grown livestock certainly have, on average, considerable nutritional advantages over those in urban/suburban locations. The price of chicken back in the day was quite high, but my point Jerry was about "market response." to available resources. The same thing can be said about most any commodity, for example computers. Back in 1995 my family spent over $3,000.00 for a basic home/office computer set-up. I can now purchase something way more advanced in 2010 dollars at just a fraction of that cost. No doubt man responds to market demands, and when possible, economies of scale drives down prices. Building the better "mousetrap" at a lower price, increasing wealth for the producers and savings for the consumers. The market system functions well when government minimizes their intrusion. Note: Are you familiar with what the Russian home farmer, on tiny plots, were able to do when the government allowed them to market their products without their oversight? We are now learning to take advantage in some areas of renewing our resources. For example in the area of "grazing feed," we have diminishing expenses, except during inclement weather. Unfortunately there are many Washington DC "armchair quarterbacks" who have no concept of the "market," outside of the classroom, and those business/economic theories they wrote their research papers on. They also discuss the market system in a similar manner as you. I have found when I have them on site, and that when they have a real world empirical experience in my area of business, they understand what we business people actually do. It's very competetive out their Jerry, and for those in my business, it's always intense when we have to develop a business plan that literally changes daily. Anyway I am off to fire up the tractor and will be hauling hay and other feed to some snowbound livestock so those urban/suburban people can have their nutritional needs met. Merry Christmas to all those who celebrate this event.

---

Jerry West December 22, 2010 4:10 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin, the "wealth" created by the market is faith based and variable, the exact same thing can be worth more or less from day to day. Fair enough if we want to use the word wealth to mean an arbitrary value that we assign to something. If wealth means actual material, the stuff that life depends on, then it is a fixed amount, we do not create it, we transform it and transfer it. Of course if we could create material there would be little or no value in it. How business works is a man made structure imposed on nature. We do what we have to to survive within that structure, but that structure can be changed, and when its functions exceed the limits of nature to support it, like ours is doing, it will collapse, no matter how much value it places on things. PS: fifty and sixty years ago our family had chicken dinners most Sundays, not because chicken was expensive and therefore special, but because we liked chicken and Sunday was a day we set aside to grab a few chickens and butcher them for dinner and have them fried with potatoes and fresh vegetables from the garden. Occasionally we would make fresh egg noodles and have chicken noodle soup, or sometimes chicken and dumplings, but mostly fried. My family has been farming in North America since the mid 1600s.

---

Kevin December 22, 2010 1:25 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry you have some pretty interesting points of view. Coming from a family involved in the farming/ranching business for several generations, and now married to an American whose family is just like mine, I find your interpretations of wealth and value to be inconsistent with the majority of business people I deal with, as well as the academics I have studied under. I think that's great to have these different interpretations, but the bottom line is knowing how the real world works when it comes to creating wealth and assigning value to it. The latter is promulgated by market supply and demand, which of course is tempered in time by economy of scales. For example do you remember many many years ago when that Sunday Chicken Dinner was very special because chicken was so very expensive compared to other meats? Well the market responded by increasing the supply of chicken, and it's cost went down, as did it's market value. Of course it's intrinsic value is another matter. Possibly you are coming from an intrinsic level, and in that case, you are not interpreting accurately how market forces, wealth and value are applied. Having to make my living in a very competetive business market, dealing with so many different variables, I assure you understanding market forces, coupled with forcasting value of our products, means that if we do not create some wealth from the market, we will not continue in business. Maybe we're just involved in academic jargon v.s real world business endeavors?

---

Jerry West December 21, 2010 6:15 pm (Pacific time)

"Jerry have you considered resources that are renewable in respect to the creation of wealth?"  Kevin, do you really mean the creation of value?  Value is faith based as is "wealth" based on value.  And although electricity makes possible the kind of society we have in much of the world, being able to generate electricity beyond what is naturally required and generated, is not necessary for the maintenance of the ecosystem.  Matter, on the other hand, is necessary, and matter for all practical purposes is a fixed quantity.  Real wealth is matter.  All else is value which is based on faith.  Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, ergo wealth can neither be created nor destroyed.  Value of course is a crap shoot.  Pet Rocks are a good example.  And, as for electricity, its effects are not all good.  Generation of electricity imposes costs on the environment, some of which reduce the ability of the environment to sustainably produce renewable resources that historically we are dependent upon, and otherwise damage the ecosystem.  **** "Government, regardless of type, does not create wealth."  That really depends on what one's definition of wealth is.  Although I am not in favor of government run farms, would you say that produce coming from a government farm is not wealth, or that products coming from a government run factory are not wealth?  Are you arguing that private sector service industries are not creating wealth?  Nobody creates real material wealth.  Government, like private enterprise, transfers it from one place or state to another.  Wealth does not grow, but value can.  **** "Market forces will in time keep the abusive governments in check."  More threatening to democracy than government is private monopolies and cartels.  Unregulated market forces encourage these.  The ultimate result of free enterprise and markets unrestrained by government leads to the end of democracy and a neofeudalism.  **** "Have you seen that today by a 3 to 2 vote the FCC wants to regulate the 'internet.'"  Yes, neither side seems happy.  The Republican objection to the law seems to be that they oppose controls that keep the net free and obligate providers to provide equal access.  In other words, Republicans favor yet another strike at democracy and the power of the people.  The Democrats compromised by denying the FCC more power to regulate cell phones.  Of course, the Dems are no big fan of democracy, either.  Both are owned and operated by the same special interest groups.

---

Jerry West December 21, 2010 6:15 pm (Pacific time)

"Jerry have you considered resources that are renewable in respect to the creation of wealth?" Kevin, do you really meant the creation of value? Value is faith based as is "wealth" based on value. And although electricity makes possible the kind of society we have in much of the world, being able to generate electricity beyond what is naturally required and generated, is not necessary for the maintenance of the ecosystem. Matter, on the other hand, is necessary, and matter for all practical purposes is a fixed quantity. Real wealth is matter. All else is value which is based on faith. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, ergo wealth can neither be created nor destroyed. Value of course is a crap shoot. Pet Rocks are a good example. And, as for electricity, its effects are not all good. Generation of electricity imposes costs on the environment, some of which reduce the ability of the environment to sustainably produce renewable resources that historically we are dependent upon, and otherwise damage the ecosystem. **** "Government, regardless of type, does not create wealth." That really depends on what one's definition of wealth is. Although I am not in favor of government run farms, would you say that produce coming from a government farm is not wealth, or that products coming from a government run factory are not wealth? Are you arguing that private sector service industries are not creating wealth? Nobody creates real material wealth. Government, like private enterprise, transfers it from one place or state to another. Wealth does not grow, but value can. **** "Market forces will in time keep the abusive governments in check." More threatening to democracy than government is private monopolies and cartels. Unregulated market forces encourage these. The ultimate result of free enterprise and markets unrestrained by government leads to the end of democracy and a neofeudalism. **** "Have you seen that today by a 3 to 2 vote the FCC wants to regulate the 'internet.'" Yes, neither side seems happy. The Republican objection to the law seems to be that they oppose controls that keep the net free and obligate providers to provide equal access. In other words, Republicans favor yet another strike at democracy and the power of the people. The Democrats compromised by denying the FCC more power to regulate cell phones. Of course, the Dems are no big fan of democracy, either. Both are owned and operated by the same special interest groups.

---

Kevin December 21, 2010 11:18 am (Pacific time)

Jerry have you considered resources that are renewable in respect to the creation of wealth? I used Microsoft as an example, but most any wealth producing organization requires electricity to create wealth. Renewable electricity is wealth, and it likely will be here forever, at least as long as there is moving water and/or the sun. In fact without the manipulation of electricity by man, there would be little left recognizable in our current environment. We have what we have, because of man's inherent drive to create wealth which is a natural desire to improve one'e lifestyle. Government, regardless of type, does not create wealth, it often abuses wealth, especially as it grows. Market forces will in time keep the abusive governments in check. That is happening now. Have you seen that today by a 3 to 2 vote the FCC wants to regulate the "internet." The FCC is simply an extentsion of the current government that the people have made clear that they do not want their policies nor the direction thay are taking the country. This recent vote should accelerate some of the "fence-sitters" of their need to decide on what side they need to come down on in terms of supporting or not supporting the current political regime.

---

Jerry West December 20, 2010 5:09 pm (Pacific time)

"which you seem to base on available resources whereas I base it on changing those resources physically, and even mentally." Yes, I on real material, you on faith based value. And the other, I mean that monopolies are inimical to democracy when in private hands. If good government includes being democratic, then that kind of power concentration in private hands weakens good government. There is no free enterprise or competing markets in monopoly. Since some things are far more efficient as a monopoly those should be under public control. We have pretty much worn out this thread here. I will have a new article up soon, you can come back at me there if you like.

---

Kevin December 20, 2010 2:16 pm (Pacific time)

Regarding my comment using "empirical"---I was discussing our different interpretations of wealth formation, which you seem to base on available resources whereas I base it on changing those resources physically, and even mentally. Your statement: "If we want to fix government, first get rid of big business and put all natural monopolies under public control"... makes no sense Jerry. How do you mean that to fix government we give it control over essentially the private sector? Are you talking along the lines of an Orwellian type of governance, or something like what Cuba started out with? Neither of those two, or anything similar sounds very attractive, nor will that method of control be able to exist for very long as history clearly shows. Watch soon how China will start dealing with inflation and the mob scenario that will create. If Bill Gates (just an example) did not establish and grow his business, then are you saying it would not have made any difference in terms of wealth development?

---

Jerry West December 19, 2010 4:48 pm (Pacific time)

"My opinion is based on the empirical." Then you are either looking at the wrong data, or misinterpreting it.. Empirically, when a species over consumes it support base it suffers. Of course you point this out, which makes me wonder about your statement on empical observation. And, there is an alternative to reducing the population, we can reduce per capita consumption to the sustainable level, providing we have enough resources to support that level. At present that would mean a much reduced level of consumption for industrialized societies. And, big government is not the only destroyer of initiative and freedom, so is big business. When we are lucky we have a say in how we are governed, much more so than what big business does to us. Of course in our society big business owns the government so in reality there is little difference between the two and we are treated to a faux conflict between them to keep attention off of the core problem. If we want to fix government, first get rid of big business and put all natural monopolies under public control. Economy of scale above a certain size limit works against the public interest, as does any significant disparity in the allocation of resources.

---

Kevin December 19, 2010 1:00 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry we obviously define wealth and it's creation differently. My opinion is based on the empirical. When it comes to consumption, the only way we we are going to possibly get our global population into a "possible" situation where we live within the current available resources is when we reduce our population size and/or live off planet. What happens to the animal population when they over breed beyond their food supply? Is that our future? Or is it a war over resources? We have fought the latter kind many times, and we'll do that again unless we have a natural disaster, which would also include a population reducing disease. The future looks bleak Jerry, especially when big governments take away the initiative of many by making them dependent. Big government in my opinion has become the real challenge for us to overcome, and I believe we will win that challenge for the voters have recently shown their resolve to do something about it. Change will never be fast enough for some, but at lease we have a process that fosters that problem-solving dynamic.

---

Jerry West December 19, 2010 11:05 am (Pacific time)

"Actually Jerry the only way wealth can be created is by man," -- Not material wealth, the basic building blocks of our existence, man only creates faith based wealth which is only as valuable as what anyone wants to believe that it is. The stuff that really counts, minerals, air, water, etc. that support us, are for all practical purposes a fixed quantity, and how we allocate that stuff determines what kind of society we have, and even the degree to which renewable resources like food can be renewed. Energy consumption is only one part of measuring a society's impact. A more comprehensive measurement is how many global hectares are being used annually per capita to support a population. The planet has enough GHA to provide everyone with the out put of 1.8gha, approximately. Total global consumption per capita is around 2.2gha which is more than the planet can support sustainably, which means we are destroying our seed stock, so to speak. US consumption is over 9gha. You can argue with these figures all you want, but it won't change the fact that humans are over grazing the range, and economies based on growth are killing us. What the allowable consumption level of a sustainable society on this planet consists of is fixed resources divided by population. For every group that consumes more than that number there needs to be an equal number of people consuming less to average it out. Right now we are not doing that, instead we believe in the fallacy that we can keep expanding consumption and make everyone's life better. Fact is that increased consumption means either others now have theirs reduced, or the future has its reduced. To be sustainable a world of 7 billion needs to have an average consumption of less than about 20% of the current US rate, something equivalent to the rate in Uzebekistan. The idea that man creates material rather than transform and transfer it is a religious view point, not a scientific one. As for the transfer of power in the states, how much real difference will it make? There is hardly any difference between the two major parties which are really divisions of the ruling class. Expect things to fluctuate back and forth to keep everyone excited and arguing over minutia while very little really changes.

---

Kevin December 18, 2010 6:57 pm (Pacific time)

Actually Jerry the only way wealth can be created is by man, by the social frameworks and commerce we create and attach value to. In terms of average energy per capita consumption, I believe America is around number 6 or 7, and that does mean individual average. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita). Considering that my adopted country has the world's largest economy, we do naturally have the highest consumption. It is the average per capita consumption that shows how America is being misinformed about as being the largest per capita consumers of energy, which is incorrect. We do have a much broader technical advantage in regards to having lower consuming appliances and other energy requiring equipment coupled with our growing conservation efforts. This amply demonstrates how we as a nation enjoy a market system that allows us to build that better "mousetrap" as we develop more wealth and improved lifestyles for all our citizens compared to other countries, on average. Regardless of how dissatisfied some are with our economic system, it does allow for us to constantly engage a problem-solving process. My prayers are that government controls be used at the very minimum. The changes in the state legislatures included 22 states that flipped from one party to another. This means that when new congressional and state legislative districts are drawn next year considerable power will be used to assure maintaining a future hold on that power. While California has a huge number of electrol votes, when it comes to national elections it is not a game-changer anymore. Merry Christmas Jerry, and may the wealth of both Canada and America keep you warm and safe over these cold months coming up, and cool and safe during those warmer times.

---

Jerry West December 17, 2010 12:44 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin: material wealth can not be created, only transferred from one place or state to another. Any system predicated on "wealth creation" is founded on a fallacy. And the old saying that a rising tide lifts all boats is a lie. Whenever the tide is rising somewhere, it is falling somewhere else. It would not surprise me that Canadian per capita energy consumption might be more the the US, but in total consumption the Canadian average is slightly lower than the US. The various European countries are lower yet. No matter, all are way over consuming and need to cut back production and consumption considerably. I also noticed the big changes in local politics in California, what? :)

---

Kevin December 17, 2010 9:57 am (Pacific time)

Jerry I know many people, including those who make a living in the academic community, who have no idea how wealth is created. Sure they can provide some textbook definition they looked up, but still have no practical working knowledge/experience. These people are so easily manipulated by "bumper-sticker" slogans, and other disinformation sources by those who are heavily invested in creating/perpetuating an environment of class warfare. These agenda driven people, even with an abundant historical record that documents previously failed government policies [worldwide] for massive income redistribution, still proceed on their doomed course(s). You are spot on about our out of control consumption levels. Getting birth control policies implemented is of paramount importance. What a multitude of problems that creates. Regarding energy connsumption rates, did you know that on a per capita basis my fellow Canadians consume at a significantly higher rate than Americans? Jerry regarding your interpretation of the last election and the various reasons why people voted and not voted, I direct you to the change of power that has happened on the state levels. That's where the real power will flow from in the next several years. The voting results offer a clear picture of what the people want. Essentially the saying that "All politics are local" is not good news for the social experimenters.

---

Jerry West December 16, 2010 4:16 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin: though the examples are Canadian, they also apply to the US.

Here are reasons why people are upset -

 http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/905536   and

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/rich-get-richer-poor-get-poorer-111907779.html

 - Maybe they are looking for a government that will do something about it.

---

Jerry West December 16, 2010 4:07 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin: once you start regulating a free market it is no longer a free market, which is why in the US and most places there is not a free market system. We have different kinds of regulated markets. Government, like business, will take power where it can, but government power can be democratic, which is the best that we can hope for. And big government, like big business, can trample on rights. However, in a democracy where government rules, we get to participate in choosing which rights get trampled. True free markets are anti-democratic in that power is more directly derived from the accumulation of wealth, and wealth, not people, make the decisions to a much greater degree. Welcome to systems that humanity has spent centuries trying to get rid of. Of course the far right hates democracy, I have seen a number of arguments from the conservative, Tea Party side that claim that we have too much democracy. Now, what the last election made clear was that a lot of people are unhappy with their government. There are a number of reasons why they are unhappy, and the reasons that probably tell the most are the reasons that some had for not voting at all. That the poorest in the US have a lifestyle superior to a majority of the world's population may be a bit of a stretch. Most of the poor probably do, but it is also worth noting that two thirds of the world's population is consuming at a rate greater than the sustainable rate, and that the US on average is consuming at five times greater than the planet's sustainable rate. Growth and over consumption are the biggest problems that we face, and the western system is based on growth. It is like a boat sailing towards Niagra Falls.

---

Kevin December 16, 2010 9:46 am (Pacific time)

Jerry it appears to be a natural process for the market system to eventually evolve where just one individual/corporation owns everything. It also appears to be a natural process for government to continue to grow and eventually end up controlling all aspects of individual's lives. On the free market front we have developed a variety of goverment oversight laws, e.g., the Taft-Hartley Act and many many more. There success has only been as good as the people in government who implement these oversight policies. It is the voter who hopefully reins in government when they exercise unauthorized power. The last national election made it quite clear that the current power structure was no longer wanted. The "lame duck" session provides daily evidence why the voters wanted those in power out of office, for they continue to ignore the message sent last November 2nd. Regarding the former tax rates (90%), it is a myth that the wealthy actually paid that tax rate. There were so many loopholes and tax sheltering options available congress has always been in the process of changing the tax policies. As you may know America has had many powerful politicians who have gamed the state and federal taxing systems. One senator kept over 500 million in a Guam bank to evade taxes, and then when he had that policy changed he "grandfathered" his situation so as to continue his status quo. Recently we had another senator from the same state who has moored his 7 million dollar yacht in another state to avoid a huge tax liability. He told the media that when he got a tax bill he would pay the bill, but after a year no bill has been provided. Recently the House Chairman of the tax-writing committee was censured for many things which included not paying his taxes for several years. He may have a criminal sanction next year when the new congress is sworn in. Suffice it is those in power who have been the main problem in my opinion, and when the new congress is sworn in, maybe then we shall see a process that will correct past wrongs. Anyway, that is what America has always been about, which is a dynamic process of trying to improve the "process." Jerry as you must know, the poorest in America still have superior lifestyles than the majority of the world's population, and I expect that to even get better overtime. Currently as per the IRS 47% of working America do not pay federal income taxes. In 2009 that number was 42%. The U.S. Constitution still provides an excellent framework to deal with our problems, with the proviso that election fraud be addressed with vigor. Do you think that is happening at this time?

---

Jerry West December 15, 2010 6:24 pm (Pacific time)

"The natural demand for individual liberty will always trump those that want to take it away." Like the liberty to shoot everyone that one disagrees with? The "natural demand for individual liberty" if left unchecked leads to the lack of liberty for most but the strongest. Governments can be the guarantor of collective freedom by regulating individual freedom so that one person's liberty does not take away another's. Perhaps in the name of freedom we should end all taxes, and disband all government, including the military. Is that what we want? If not we get government and the taxes to support it. That of course is a form of socialism unless we are thinking of non-democratic forms of governance. What some American voters gave notice of was an unhappiness with what they imagined to be big government, others didn't vote because they lost faith that the democrats would make good on their promises of 2008. And, since the 60's the US has radically reduced its income tax rates down for over 90% on the top levels, this too has a lot to do with the current mess. What our real problem is is not so much big government but big business which owns the government and gets policies that push more wealth up the pyramid leaving those in the middle and bottom with an ever decreasing percentage of the whole.

---

Kevin December 15, 2010 3:55 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry, Adam Smith had some interesting theories about government intervention, but regardless of all those theories out there, pragmatism appears to be the philosophy that supercedes all others. The unrelenting march towards building "the better mousetrap", regardless of the tiny minority out there that want big government to control all. After thousands of years of recorded history, not one political state has been able to succeed in trumping man's free market system. The natural demand for individual liberty will always trump those that want to take it away. There will always be those people who are best described in today's jargon as "slackers" who expect governmant to take care of them cradle to grave. Since the 60's North America has created multi-generational welfare family units. At the same time the public educational system has been failing to prepare a significant percentage of students for working in a constantly growing competetive work environmant. Thus we have a growing population that is best characterized as Marxian "useful idiots." This balkanization will someday cause one big confrontation. The American voters gave official notice on what they think of big goverment and their growing control, it's about to change big time. This current lame duck congress is just going to speed up the process for change, and those who are getting temp. victories with current legislation will soon see that they have gone out on a limb that they have sawed off behind themselves.

---

Kevin December 14, 2010 12:42 pm (Pacific time)

Innovation works best when one is motivated, and greed is not the only form of motivation, in fact it is probably one of the worst. Of course if everyone were to be able to participate, as you suggest, that would require everyone having equal access to opportunity and resources, something that the so called free market system does not have. But, do not take this as an argument against free enterprise, it certainly has its place as one part of a social system. One could also point out that significant regulation might often be required to keep free enterprise really free enough that many can be able to participate participate.

---

Kevin December 14, 2010 9:51 am (Pacific time)

Jerry, innovation works best when everyone can participate. Those countries (an different political units like cities/counties that regulate business by over reaching taxes/fees) that have significant government control, adversely impact participation. As I said earlier, a reward system, which is what the free market system actually is, stimualtes individuals to "make a better mousetrap." I believe most people prefer to strive to attain their potential. Though I recognize there is that very tiny percentage who just cannot comprehend that motivation, and they become easy to manipulate by rather dark forces who seem to prefer tyranny over individual freedom.

---

Jerry West December 13, 2010 6:50 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin, a free market is not required for innovation, and one can argue that we really don't have free markets in a lot of areas anyway. And making things better is always good, although better might mean different things to different people.

---

Kevin December 13, 2010 10:35 am (Pacific time)

You are correct Jerry it is difficult and creates inaccurate conclusions to compare both America and Canada in regards to the available healthcare systems. So do you think that without the free market system, the ongoing introduction of lifesaving drugs and medical diagnostic equipment would continue? Pretty doubtful, and much evidence supports that doubt. In regards to mortality rates, that is another area that has many different statitistical databases. Broken down demographically coupled with the different measurements used by both countries in regards to incorporating infant deaths changes upper mortality rates considerably. I guess the bottom line is that both Canada and America are working towards improving our health systems, which is a good thing, right?

---

Jerry West December 11, 2010 8:25 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin, we can both agree that the current US health program commonly called Obamacare is a mess. No argument on that. It also is not useful in comparing US and Canadian systems since it is nothing like the Canadian one. As for statistics, it seems that Canadians live longer than Americans, what part healthcare plays in that is of course debatable. What kind of healthcare do Americans get that have no insurance or pay less than $1500 per year for insurance? Perhaps Americans should spend only as much as Canadians do on healthcare and see what they get? Free market, competitive healthcare makes as much sense as free market, competitive military or police or fire protection. The United States has a much higher healthcare cost than Canada and still has many people without coverage and at risk for all they own should they become ill. One country takes care of everybody, the other reserves its best care for the rich and provides public care for the poor and elderly.

---

Kevin December 11, 2010 6:50 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry I have also experienced both systems, and spent nearly 30 years in Canada before coming to America on a permanent living basis. The method used by the current congress to convince the US electorate that the healthcare bill would be financially self-sufficent was scoring the costs by the CBO, who used a number of methods, as per what info congress gave them for those scoring purposes. That info has been proven to be inaccurate, so costs have gone up, just like all government schemes. Major polls showed the majority of voters did not want the current healthbill, and those who wanted a single-payer system did not have a statistically significant impact on that majority. Currently even more voters do not want the current healthcare program, and so far over 100 waivers have been provided to different companies and unions not to have to use that plan. Which also includes all of congress and the thousands of staff members, including their families. So how's that for confidence? I have relatives and friends in Canada who have some long waits to see a primary care doctor, and also long waits in many cases for follow up treatments after diagnoses have been made. Does that play a factor in their quality of life, even their survival? Yes, and the stats provide irrefutable proof that is so. It appears where you live that you enjoy excellent and prompt medical attention, but this is not always the case in all parts of Canada, ditto for other national healthcare systems. Suffice, I am very happy with my coverage here and know many Canadians who come here for medical treatments. It's pretty likely that the majority of lifesaving medications and diagnostic medical equipment Canada uses was created here in America, and that is what the free market system provides when a reward stimulates "building a better mousetrap." It is my prayer that a combination of both private and public energies can come together to provide good medical care for all people, but if I had to choose between the two, I know which one works best.

---

Jerry West December 10, 2010 6:39 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin, regardless of how the organization is funded, its stated purpose to to find free market solutions. Of course those that fund it will be paying for those kinds of findings. You can expect its reports to spin that way as much as possible, not to be unbiased. Since this is common on all sides it is a good idea to look at more than one view. Who uses the findings really doesn't matter. Stats may present "real world" findings, but depending on how the stats are used can change the conclusion of what they mean. The importance of the fact that survival rates of X is Y is dependent on how that fact was obtained and how it might fit in a bigger picture. In the case of Canada and the US the differences in cancer survival do not seem that great when looking at a number of sources. Of course cancer survival is only one piece of measuring health care. If we use it as the determinate, then since Cuba seems to have the highest survival rate for breast cancer, then maybe the Cuban system is the one that we should be adopting? A better guide would be life expectancy, and even that of course will pose questions. One thing for sure Canada spends less on health care than the US, has good service, and almost everyone is insured whereas in the US many are not. You might want to look at the following for a bigger picture:
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/MedExpress/20080716/cancer_statistics_080716/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/cancer-rates-and-unjustified-conclusions/

My experience in both systems tells me the one in BC is better than the one in the US. I would be open to a private plan that provided everything the Canadian one does for a cost of $12-1400 per family per year. When those arguing health care in the US can come up with that they will have something to consider.

---

Kevin December 10, 2010 4:38 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry in response: Regardless of how any organization is funded, as in the case of the NCPA, which was used by the Congressional Budget Office, the same organization by the way that both houses of congress and the Whitehouse used for financial scoring purposes to legitimize their healthcare bill, then what other sources would you use? Since the stats they provided reflect actual "real world" measurements that have not been disputed, then no claim to question their reliability and validity has been put forth. It is pretty much a given that free market enterprise has made our national health system what it is, and government controls have made the other systems, which have been proven to be qualitatively and quanitatively subordinate. I expect there will be a give and take process to create a better balance between private and government inputs, which is what Canada and other national health systems are in the process of doing. Just the same, the survival rates are quite astonishing don't you think?

---

Jerry West December 10, 2010 1:29 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin: The NCPA is funded to prove that free market solutions are better, it can
hardly be relied on to provide impartial evaluations any more than a Nazi funded
organization can be relied on to provide reliable information on racial issues,
or a Jewish or Hamas funded one can be relied on to provide impartial
information on Israel. and In doing a brief skim of their website I find things
that we agree on, though not the solutions. and; One would have to have all of the
information behind their "facts" on healthcare to properly evaluate it.


Personally I have had no problem with the Canadian system, and would be
sympathetic to a private one in the US if it could deliver the same level of
service I get here for the same insurance premium that I pay, about $1200 per
year for a family of two. and; A family of 4 is slightly more. and Such a plan would
also have to cover those that could not afford the premium.
http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/infoben/premium.html ...


The healthcare issue is pretty complex, a good place to start would be this
Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States

---

Kevin December 8, 2010 2:32 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry I moved to the US seven years ago from BC, and am currenly applying for citizenship. My wife is American born as our my children. I am quite happy with my healthcare here for both me and my family. Let this first stat begin your journey of increasing your learning curve: "Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent). Here is some info for you comparing America and Canada's survival rates for cancer that begins in 2003 then is followed with even better rates for Americans in 2009: "Results for Canada. Canada's system of national health insurance is often cited as a model for the United States. But an analysis of 2001 to 2003 data by June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, and economist David O'Neill, found that overall cancer survival rates are higher in the United States than in Canada: For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada. For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada." http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596 //"Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.[2] Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States." "Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.[4] Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:" Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent). More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent). Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. . Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

---

Jerry West December 8, 2010 11:27 am (Pacific time)

SW or whatever pseudonym you are hiding behind at the moment, the election may prove that the public is upset with the current direction of the Democratic Party, but not necessarily why. Certainly some are upset as the TP would have us believe, but then there are Democrats not voting who are also upset because the administration drifted too far to the right. It would be a mistake to take the last election as simply message to move right. It could be taken as a message that these Democrats in particular, except in California, perhaps, are not wanted.

As far as out of control spending goes, they should have never gotten into it, and the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats. You want to end deficits, first priority is to pull back the military from overseas and cut the defense budget down to what is needed to maintain a strong posture in defense of the continent. I do not hear the TP supporting the anti-war movement and calling for an end to these criminal military adventures that are murdering thousands of young Americans.

Your national healthcare certainly needs some tweaking, major tweaking, and Obamacare isn't it. One reason many are upset is because Obama dropped the single payer option, the kind of tweaking that would actually make it better. But what do I know? I have only participated in both systems.

And as far as government services go, do you believe in privatized, market driven services or public, results driven services? Free market services would include a free market police and military, etc. which were not funded by those awful taxes, but allowed each individual to purchase how much of that service that they wanted. Public police, military and so forth are a form of socialism.

As for statistics, make your case by giving examples with numbers and citations to sources.

---

SW December 7, 2010 2:23 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry West I have been following your comments for a while now, and the post you made on 12/6 simply does not address anything of relevance or make any sense. The election on 11/2 was a clear statement by the majority of American voters that they do not want the democrats in charged of policy making any longer. Getting "out of control spending" in check is the first order of business with the new congress. President Obama may attempt to circumvent the will of the people some more, as he did in the last two years, but there will be some criminal investigations that will rock the nation in the immediate future. Our national healthcare needs some tweaking, but we do not need the current program that was put in against the majority will. In regards to government services and what you wrote, what are you talking about? Do you think those on the right are all rubes like those on the left? Stay tuned and you will see how the adults clean up, which will include voting out the "rino's" over the next couple of elections. In terms of life expectancy between our two countries, break it down demographically, and also use the same standards we do in regards to "infant deaths" as is incorporated here and in the rest of the world. Makes a significant difference in mortality averaging. Do you have a background in statistics, the kind taught in math departments, not the ones taught in the social science departments? Also in terms of major types of cancers that cause high mortality in both genders, for example breat cancer and prostate cancer, the American citizen has a much higher survival rate. In fact in all major diseases that kill we have higher survival rates. Facts are there Jerry.

Editor: Jerry, this character has posted under these names: Jason, Steve, Liam Labbe, RR, Mike, Melanie, 

---

Jerry West December 6, 2010 7:42 pm (Pacific time)

Actually Jay I am connected to both the United States and Canada (both in the Americas), and follow the politics and vote in both countries. My opinion happens to be just as relevant as yours. :)

Obviously what you think that you know about Canadian health care does not come from first hand experience. Don't believe all of right wing BS that is spun down there to protect the profits of the private insurance companies. I suppose that if you do not want government services you support disbanding the military in favor of each person providing their own defense, and getting rid of public police, and fire departments in favor of private services each person can hire or not, and public highways in favor of making all roads and bridges toll ones?? If the government funded zero services, including these, think of all of the tax money you could save. And be rid of big government. And, by the way, Canadians have a life expectancy of about 3 years longer than that of the US. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

---

Jay December 5, 2010 6:51 pm (Pacific time)

The Tea Party people are here in America, you are in Canada. Your opinion is radical and irrelevant as per the recent elections. The real suckers that are being played out there are those who expect a big government to take care of them. Canada's healthcare system is slowly eroding and that is why the government is allowing private insurers to come in. Your wait time is much longer than we have here. Maybe some are losing their homes here, but Canadians are losing their lives. That is why those of financial means come here for care. Also you are bleeding MD's who are also coming here. Your statement that the majority want a single payer system is unsupported. What are your sources? Some leftist rumor sites? Maybe Canada should do something about the kinds of people who migrate there and make sure we don't get them back here. Liars are not needed here. You on the left just do not get it...it's over, you are finished, move out, go to North Korea.

---

Jerry West December 3, 2010 6:34 pm (Pacific time)

Jay, the polls against Obamacare do not reflect the feelings towards a single payer health program. Many single payer advocates would turn up as against Obamacare. I can tell you that I have no trouble ever seeing a doctor in Canada, or getting a necessary operation when I need one, and for a family the insurance cost is around $12-1400 per year which covers almost everything. Public healthcare programs do not have to be bad. No one here is likely to lose their home or otherwise because of healthcare costs, and everyone is taken care of. Even though there are certainly problems and areas to fine tune, you can not get much better than that. I agree with you that many people want something different, neither Democrat not Republican which are two sides of the same party. No doubt the TP fueled a bit of that, but a lot more was at play. It may be that those who do not vote at all are making the biggest statement. If the TP really wanted to make a statement they would vote for a third party. They are being played a sucker by the Republicans.

---

Jay December 3, 2010 9:46 am (Pacific time)

Jerry West I certainly agree that "healthcare" for all of our citizens is a worthy goal, and it must be done "smart", otherwise we risk causing even more problems. As they say, "The Road to hell is paved with good intentions." I have also seen many polls about the country's mood on healthcare, but have never seen a reliable poll that suggests that the majority of Americans want a government run plan, regardless of it's configuration, in fact just the opposite. "A majority of voters have favored repeal in every Rasmussen Reports survey since Democrats in Congress passed the law in late March. Voter support for repeal has ranged from 50% to 63%." http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/november_2010/58_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law_37_oppose_repeal //I have found that another nationally respected pollster, Gallup, has similar results. Though the majority of Americans do like the ban on pre-existing conditions. It also appears that both Canada and England are revamping their national plans by allowing more private insurance outfits to enter their healthcare systems. Is Canada losing medical doctors on a per capita basis? It 's great to have full coverage, unless that coverage has a "timeliness" problem. As I always say, whatever works is okay with me, as long as it causes no harm. Regarding the elections last month, I have seen considerable spin on the historical results, but the bottom line is that the people said we want someone else running the show. No doubt the TP played a significant role as per the "get out the vote" process, thus making their different individual political priorities moot at this juncture. Jerry I am in full agreement with you about our needless foreign adventures. Not too long after I finished my undergraduate degree in the early 60's Uncle Sam got me into LBJ's war, and that became the biggest mistake our country ever made in that type of military action, in my opinion. The loss of life certainly provides ample proof of that opinion, which is way beyond our current casualties. All life is precious, but our enemies today have no respect for appeasers or those who show weakness. I'm afraid that we have gotten ourselves into a situation that will cause us to lose considerable individual freedoms as time goes by. I hope I'm wrong Jerry, but regardless of party affiliation, we are on a dark road.

---

Jay December 2, 2010 6:41 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry West where do you get your 60% figure regarding the number of Americans who want a government healthcare system over a private one? Most of the professional pollsters I've seen say that it's nearly the opposite of what you put forth. Would you like a link? Yes there are other polls that may say what you assert, but their reliability/validity is essentially worthless. Also as far as those who make up the Tea Party movement, it appears that they are all on the same page regarding "T"axed "E"nough "A"ll ready. Also I guess the bottom line is that they have become the most powerful political force in the states, with their endorsed candidates winning nearly 2/3's of their elections, and they're still growing. The term "Tea Baggers" Jerry is a homosexual reference, is that how you meant it? Seems that is a common term for those from the Bay area who frequented the bath houses from what I hear. They have those up there where you live or are you making reference to the bay area cultural process?

Jerry West: Jay. the 60% comes form articles I read some time ago when healthcare was a hot issue.  No doubt you might turn up polls that say differently, but most of what I have seen indicates most American prefer a single payer system (most that I know do), and some polls are as high as 78%. (You can start by checking Wikipedia) I do know that some of the opposition to Obama's half baked plan came from people who wanted single payer.

I can also tell you from first hand experience in both systems, the Canadian one on average is better, and that if it were put to a vote in Canada, we would keep it.  In fact protecting healthcare is always a good political position in Canada.

As for the make up of the Tea Party being all on one page, only some of many pages in truth.  Would they all support a pro-abortion or pro-same sex marriage candidate, conservative or other, who wanted to lower taxes?  And, I  noticed the TP's great success in California.  The fact that their endorsed candidates won 2/3 or whatever of their elections may or may not be due to the endorsement.  Not all people upset with government are conservative, and not all conservatives support the TP.  (Somewhere I read that TP support was around 26%, you are welcome to come up with a different figure). One could also argue that the democrats did as poor as they did because many of their voters stayed home because the party had moved too far to the right.

As for Tea Bagger, a sexual reference, yes, but not a homosexual one, it applies to both preferences and is used for humor's sake to poke at a group of people being led around by the nose by a certain segment of the Republican Party for their own purpose.  Probably it would be a more accurate description to use the term Tea Baggee. :)

If the TP were truly concerned with too many taxes and bad fiscal planning they would demanding and end to all of the needless foreign adventures that the government has taken on without raising the revenues to pay for it.  A giant scam that is killing American service men and women to the profit of the defense industry.

 

---

Jerry West December 2, 2010 3:34 pm (Pacific time)

It is questionable, Lyle (or whoever your are), which country lags behind which politically. Having participated in both systems and still being a participant in both, I find both good and bad points in each. As for BC, the current government is far right, and is in total disgrace, their leader falling to about 9% in the polls at one point. They will survive only if the opposition fails to put forward a leader in which the public can have confidence. Except for Alberta there isn't much of a conservative trend in Canda, just a see-saw between the right and the center in most provinces, and between the right and the left in a few others. Also, not matter right, center or left, most Canadians would not give up their public healthcare, the same kind that about 60% of Americans want but have been denied by the two right wing ruling parties there. Whether the Tea Party is conservative or not is debatable. Many of them are libertarians and favor abortion, same sex marriage, and freedom from religion. Of course all of those are really true conservative values if one considers limited government interference in people's lives as conservative. So, if Libertarians are conservative, what does that make Tea Baggers who oppose these libertarian values? :) Nice one, Luke ;)

---

Lyle Hemmings December 2, 2010 8:46 am (Pacific time)

I have noticed that Canada, who generally lags behind us politically, is strongly trending in a conservative direction, as are many countries in Europe. No doubt this is raising discontented howls from those on the left who opined for a different direction. Just as those who demeaned the American Tea Party movement, are now seeing that this conservative movement is massive and unstoppable. I expect that the turmoil felt by those in Canada, and elsewhere will make the adjustment, and in time see how their political ideology needs a re-working. Recall two years ago when many on the left said the Republican party was dead? Well the other day for the first time in history, the Republican party has passed the Democratic party in registered voters. So regardless of how one wants to assess current political dynamics, the empirical evidence is "irrefudible." Note this last highlighted word was recently recognized as an acceptable new word in all leading dictionaries.

Editor: So you aren't 'John Abrams' this week eh?  Stop using multiple names from a single IP, I usually toss these out.  Nobody is buying your goods Lyle/John/Susie or whatever your real name is.  Always hard right rhetoric you know?.

---

Luke Easter December 2, 2010 7:43 am (Pacific time)

Looks like Dominic Da Vinci, "Davivci's Inquest" should not have been cancelled. Canada is no different from the USA. How does the Skunk population continue to grow? Because Skunks don't stink to Skunks and nobody hangs around them except other Skunks. Same with corruption, how does it continue to grow? Skunks!

---

Amanda December 2, 2010 12:56 am (Pacific time)

Sadly, their government is not the only one coming unglued. There is always the friendly neighbor "United States of America", which is falling to peaces already a step ahead of coming unglued. For the same reasons, people have become uninterested dirty in politics, too busy to carve out a living in a defunct political structure.

[Return to Top]

---

©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.