Originally Posted by RobertR
There are two types of businesses: Those that succeed via the economic means (ie on their competitive merits in the marketplace), and those that base their success on the political means (ie focusing their energies on how much political "pull" they can muster). I favor the former instead of the latter. Do you disagree? What specific assertions in the articles I cited do you dispute (note: rolling eyes refutes nothing)?
Name me one business in the first category. Doesn't exist. Businesses naturally involve themselves in advocacy, and I won't argue that they shouldn't, but I certainly disagree with the conclusion reached by our supreme court recently that corporations have more rights than american citizens do.
Every organization, business or otherwise, is implicated in political issues. They don't suceed
just based on political means, they all suceed based on their business models. But you seem to have a truly bizarre conception that somehow there are business that are not involved in politics, and that here you accuse "organic farms" as having no market merits at all and are somehow only supported by "political means" (whatever that
You cited one halfway ridiculous article from AEI, and the other was a youtube video from penn/teller. Given that degree of intellectual rigor, I'm not going to do anything more than roll my eyes at the second one. Especially since you haven't seen this movie and don't know what you're talking about. It often isn't difficult to identify organic foods at the supermarket, usually they are visually inferior to non-organic foods at least when it comes to produce.
The AEI article is a disorganized straw-argument that really doesn't have any meat to it at all. The author turns his opponent (some schmoe who read one book on an airplane) into a representative for anyone critical of industrial farming, and characterizes that critique as one that advocates everyone return to 19th century farming practices. And that isn't a mainstream contention, people like Wendell Berry aside.
The heavy use and often overuse of nitrogen fertilizers is a serious problem(even as it is a significant benefit too), it has essentially wiped out sealife in large swaths of the gulf of mexico. It is not a critique-free solution. High-yield grains don't exist, they aren't "high-yield" relative to the crop itself, only to the land. They are really high-response varieties, and to get that greater response and greater land-yield requires much more intense fertilizer inputs a lot of which ends up running off into the gulf.
Animal production is fairly complex. And frankly, from an environmental and health perspective the easier answer is to eat less meat then to spend lots of time debating how it is produced. But the cost pressures of low-priced mass-produced meats leads to uniformly mediocre products. By the way, if you want to talk about a business that succeeds in this country via politics, you'd do well to look at the beef industry, which has amazingly succeeded in completely avoiding even confronting the mad-cow problem. Do you know why there has never been a case of mad-cow discovered in the food chain in this country? Because it is illegal
to test for mad cow on any beef that is destined for human consumption. Kind of convenient isn't it? I don't see you on a silly diatribe against the cattle industry. Of course not, that would require consistency.