Is it possible for an econ professor to commit malpractice?

[Hauldren Collider]

Of course American workers are more productive, but if you're trying to eat foods that have a smaller impact on the environment maximizing productivity isn't exactly the goal.

What do you suppose impacts the environment more? The gobs of fertilizer you have to dump on tomatoes to get them to grow in New Jersey or the cost of putting them on a truck/train and driving them across the country? (Hint: The former.)

[Jaguar]

Of course American workers are more productive, but if you're trying to eat foods that have a smaller impact on the environment maximizing productivity isn't exactly the goal.

Yes, it is. Unproductive farming needlessly overuses the most environmentally-damaging input of all: American workers.

[giblets]

What do you suppose impacts the environment more? The gobs of fertilizer you have to dump on tomatoes to get them to grow in New Jersey or the cost of putting them on a truck/train and driving them across the country? (Hint: The former.)

I'm sure farmers are smart enough to find something suitable for the local climate and grow it. Of course, this is all insane and we should just have the government enforce stricter environmental regulations and higher pigovian taxes.

[Jaguar]

In the actual example, we are trading efficiency in basically every other area for wages. We use more fertilizers, more fuel, more labor (as much as you want to paint non-US citizens as useless, their time and welfare is still valuable to anyone with a soul), and more land for the same product we ship in. You want to continue to always do this so you can continue to jerk off about how efficient it is to have absurd immigration restrictions that cage people for you to extract value from at your leisure.

Name one time I have favored immigration restrictions. Name one.

It's needlessly cruel to arbitrarily limit people's ability to be productive based on the circumstances of their birth. It's even more needlessly cruel to deny them the opportunity to sell food to Americans, which is what you want to do.

People outside the United States aren't unproductive because of inherent faults. They're unproductive because they live in bad places, and are maliciously kept from trading with better ones by people like you.

[Aeson]

So... show.

I've already addressed the inefficiencies. Lower yields. Increased agricultural inputs. Increased transporation costs. Increased environmental damage. All covered up by labor costs for those who can only judge efficiency by pricetag.

Eh? We move things from inefficient to efficient locations? Nope. We're not talking televisions or cars here, Aeson. Food is generally moved from a more efficient location to a less efficient (or less capable); that's why we eat grapes from Chile, or most of our produce from California and Mexico. It's less efficient to grow non-grain produce in the north and central portions of the US.

There are some things which are less efficient to grow as you move north. California doesn't fit (as well) what I'm talking about as they have similar agricultural practices to the rest of the country. So there it's just the fuel costs for transport, which is minimal.

It's imports from developing economies where the inefficiencies in production really show up.

Again, I don't know anything about this, so I defer to you here. But what I have read is that what's currently grown, such as hothouse tomatoes, are less efficient than farm-grown tomatoes in areas that make sense (ie, Spain).

Tomatoes are great in greenhouses. They are very similar plants to peppers. Even as early as the 60's and 70's tomatoes were being grown in greenhouses in the US. One of my Dad's first jobs (outside his 'job' on the family farm) was growing tomatoes in greenhouses.

Trying to grow them year round in a cloudy cold place probably isn't very efficient of course.

Erm, you really don't understand economics, do you? Sure, if demand for food (separating the word 'local' for the moment) caused it to be more efficient to produce food locally (wherever), then it would be economically efficient to produce food locally. But the argument is that it is always better to produce food locally (or, eat food produced locally), which is what is patently false. What I'm referring to here is that there are more valuable - ie, higher return on investment - uses for the land than farming.

I understand economics just fine. I also understand the arguments you've made in this thread, which you seem to be trying to forget. You claimed that there was no sense in local food movements whatsoever, regardless of the degree it is taken to. This is simply not true. There are many potential benefits to local food movements gaining traction and influencing demand.

As for there being higher return on investment, you aren't following your hypothetical out far enough. The only way a local farm builds on that land is if they can pay more for it than the [other business]. They can only do this if their product is high value enough to make that investment sound. Yes, you need a lot of demand for local food to get to that point ... but because this is your measuring stick for how valuable the use of the land is ... your hypothetical is refuting your claims about it because you are sticking to pricing in the real world, not using pricing that would be necessary in for your hypothetical to ever be possible.

(I don't agree that price=value, but when arguing with those who do believe it and use it consistently in their arguments, I expect them to stick to it even when it goes against their position.)

Very little of this has to do with the tradeoff of building a local greenhouse versus a local (anything). Rooftop gardens aren't going to feed the city, and have other costs you're not including. Even just the labor to maintain them would be prohibitive given how many small gardens you'd have.

You were the one with the example there is a choice between building a building an a unit of land, or building a farm on that same unit of land, there is just as much (sometiems more) productive capacity on top of the building as there would be on the ground. I stated there were extra costs, so please do not lie about my argument just because we disagree about whether they would be paid back or not.

As for the efficiency, certainly moving up and down a building reduces it somewhat. You don't seem to realize that in real world farming out in the fields there are often tremendous inefficiencies of movement as well. Anyone who's spent a day trying to dig a tractor out of thigh deep mud (I have participated in such fun) can attest to that. At least in greenhouse/urban environments you could be more sure of consistently being able to move freely.

A greenhouse worker for every 500sq m to 1000sq m is probably about right for most crops. (It will of course not be consistent, most of the labor is necessary at specific times.) There wouldn't be much in the way of inefficiency as even relatively small commercial buildings would provide enough work to spend full days without moving between them. Careful planning and exact timing (which is one of the reasons why greenhouses are so awesome ... you don't have to wait out mother nature in most cases) would help further improve efficiency of movement.

Most office buildings could probably And not having markets would be even dumber... not only is your insistence on farmers selling their own product mindbogglingly inefficient (hint: we don't have supermarkets because people like paying more for food, we have them because it's more efficient for them to sell food than the individual farmer), but you'd lose a ton of economic benefits, like a ton less/more difficult to obtain information about available food, competition, efficiency of shopping (going to one area to fill all of your needs).

Almost all farmers will sell at least some of their crop on the side, and it is very efficient to do so. Farming is a profession with times of extreme workloads, and times of relatively low workloads. Right after harvest (for monoculture) is generally one of the down times where a farmer can use some of his free time to make some money selling produce to consumers. Many of them will have their own markets, and sometimes even brands of derived products.

The reason they are usually limited in this manner is because they lack the central location to make high volumes possible. But your hypothetical gives them the central location, and dedicated consumers. So instead of it being a small market out of the way, it's a much more useful central market that probably will expand to offer their consumer base more products (thus increasing the value of their facility). They would probably be very well served to make it their own supermarket. (With a greenhouse on the roof )

This is just competition and the free market at work. It's not a bad thing. It can drive a farmer to exploit a business opportunity every bit as much as anyone else.

But the point is they are not more efficient. People think they are more efficient, but the only ACTUAL evidence there is, points to them not being more efficient. Labor costs are relevant, but not nearly as much as you think - and even so, as Jaguar has pointed out, you can't just ignore the REASON for the lower labor costs. Most of that is not governmental intervention - it's market economics.

Labor costs are very relevant. Far more-so than you are giving them credit for.

Production of food in most of the places we import food from is less efficient in regards to all inputs other than labor and land prices. They cover up all the inefficiencies we heap upon our economy just to exploit people who aren't allowed to go where they want.

[Aeson]

So... show.

I've already addressed the inefficiencies. Lower yields. Increased agricultural inputs. Increased transporation costs. Increased environmental damage. All covered up by labor costs for those who can only judge efficiency by pricetag.

Eh? We move things from inefficient to efficient locations? Nope. We're not talking televisions or cars here, Aeson. Food is generally moved from a more efficient location to a less efficient (or less capable); that's why we eat grapes from Chile, or most of our produce from California and Mexico. It's less efficient to grow non-grain produce in the north and central portions of the US.

There are some things which are less efficient to grow as you move north. California doesn't fit (as well) what I'm talking about as they have similar agricultural practices to the rest of the country. So there it's just the fuel costs for transport, which is minimal.

It's imports from developing economies where the inefficiencies in production really show up.

Again, I don't know anything about this, so I defer to you here. But what I have read is that what's currently grown, such as hothouse tomatoes, are less efficient than farm-grown tomatoes in areas that make sense (ie, Spain).

Tomatoes are great in greenhouses. They are very similar plants to peppers. Even as early as the 60's and 70's tomatoes were being grown in greenhouses in the US. One of my Dad's first jobs (outside his 'job' on the family farm) was growing tomatoes in greenhouses.

Trying to grow them year round in a cloudy cold place probably isn't very efficient of course.

Erm, you really don't understand economics, do you? Sure, if demand for food (separating the word 'local' for the moment) caused it to be more efficient to produce food locally (wherever), then it would be economically efficient to produce food locally. But the argument is that it is always better to produce food locally (or, eat food produced locally), which is what is patently false. What I'm referring to here is that there are more valuable - ie, higher return on investment - uses for the land than farming.

I understand economics just fine. I also understand the arguments you've made in this thread, which you seem to be trying to forget. You claimed that there was no sense in local food movements whatsoever, regardless of the degree it is taken to. This is simply not true. There are many potential benefits to local food movements gaining traction and influencing demand.

As for there being higher return on investment, you aren't following your hypothetical out far enough. The only way a local farm builds on that land is if they can pay more for it than the [other business]. They can only do this if their product is high value enough to make that investment sound. Yes, you need a lot of demand for local food to get to that point ... but because this is your measuring stick for how valuable the use of the land is ... your hypothetical is refuting your claims about it because you are sticking to pricing in the real world, not using pricing that would be necessary in for your hypothetical to ever be possible.

(I don't agree that price=value, but when arguing with those who do believe it and use it consistently in their arguments, I expect them to stick to it even when it goes against their position.)

Very little of this has to do with the tradeoff of building a local greenhouse versus a local (anything). Rooftop gardens aren't going to feed the city, and have other costs you're not including. Even just the labor to maintain them would be prohibitive given how many small gardens you'd have.

You were the one with the example there is a choice between building a building an a unit of land, or building a farm on that same unit of land, there is just as much (sometiems more) productive capacity on top of the building as there would be on the ground. I stated there were extra costs, so please do not lie about my argument just because we disagree about whether they would be paid back or not.

As for the efficiency, certainly moving up and down a building reduces it somewhat. You don't seem to realize that in real world farming out in the fields there are often tremendous inefficiencies of movement as well. Anyone who's spent a day trying to dig a tractor out of thigh deep mud (I have participated in such fun) can attest to that. At least in greenhouse/urban environments you could be more sure of consistently being able to move freely.

A greenhouse worker for every 500sq m to 1000sq m is probably about right for most crops. (It will of course not be consistent, most of the labor is necessary at specific times.) There wouldn't be much in the way of inefficiency as even relatively small commercial buildings would provide enough work to spend full days without moving between them. Careful planning and exact timing (which is one of the reasons why greenhouses are so awesome ... you don't have to wait out mother nature in most cases) would help further improve efficiency of movement.

Most office buildings could probably And not having markets would be even dumber... not only is your insistence on farmers selling their own product mindbogglingly inefficient (hint: we don't have supermarkets because people like paying more for food, we have them because it's more efficient for them to sell food than the individual farmer), but you'd lose a ton of economic benefits, like a ton less/more difficult to obtain information about available food, competition, efficiency of shopping (going to one area to fill all of your needs).

Almost all farmers will sell at least some of their crop on the side, and it is very efficient to do so. Farming is a profession with times of extreme workloads, and times of relatively low workloads. Right after harvest (for monoculture) is generally one of the down times where a farmer can use some of his free time to make some money selling produce to consumers. Many of them will have their own markets, and sometimes even brands of derived products.

The reason they are usually limited in this manner is because they lack the central location to make high volumes possible. But your hypothetical gives them the central location, and dedicated consumers. So instead of it being a small market out of the way, it's a much more useful central market that probably will expand to offer their consumer base more products (thus increasing the value of their facility). They would probably be very well served to make it their own supermarket. (With a greenhouse on the roof )

This is just competition and the free market at work. It's not a bad thing. It can drive a farmer to exploit a business opportunity every bit as much as anyone else.

But the point is they are not more efficient. People think they are more efficient, but the only ACTUAL evidence there is, points to them not being more efficient. Labor costs are relevant, but not nearly as much as you think - and even so, as Jaguar has pointed out, you can't just ignore the REASON for the lower labor costs. Most of that is not governmental intervention - it's market economics.

Labor costs are very relevant. Far more-so than you are giving them credit for.

Production of food in most of the places we import food from is less efficient in regards to all inputs other than labor and land prices. They cover up all the inefficiencies we heap upon our economy just to exploit people who aren't allowed to go where they want.

[Aeson]

Name one time I have favored immigration restrictions. Name one.

The fact that you call it efficient. You certainly aren't arguing in this thread for them to fill agricultural jobs in the US instead of in their homeland. This would be "inefficient" in your estimation because we'd pay more for food. You put a price-tag on their suffering, and it's a few dollars on a grocery bill.

People outside the United States aren't unproductive because of inherent faults. They're unproductive because they live in bad places, and are maliciously kept from trading with better ones by people like you.

I don't stop them from trading, they are free to trade all they want.

I promote the concept of creation of jobs inside the US that they can fill, because obviously we don't have the workforce (especially not the willing workforce) to fill so many more agricultural jobs. Already a large share of our agricultural jobs are filled by migrant workers who earn far more in the US than they could back home. You call the creation of such jobs "inefficient", "harmful", and "idiocy".

You clearly want them to stay in their cages and work for peanuts so you can pat yourself on the back about how great and efficient it all is to unnecessarily ship things across vast distances.

[The Mad Monk]

There is one form of obtaining locally-sourced organic food that makes undeniable sense. Foraging.

I am currently making some lovely blackberry preserves and crumble. I might go catch some crayfish later. And then it's mushroom hunting time.

I was very happy to discover mulberry trees and black raspberry canes growing wild on my property.

[Jaguar]

The fact that you call it efficient.

You certainly aren't arguing in this thread for them to fill agricultural jobs in the US instead of in their homeland. This would be "inefficient" in your estimation because we'd pay more for food. You put a price-tag on their suffering, and it's a few dollars on a grocery bill.



I don't stop them from trading, they are free to trade all they want.

I promote the concept of creation of jobs inside the US that they can fill, because obviously we don't have the workforce (especially not the willing workforce) to fill so many more agricultural jobs. Already a large share of our agricultural jobs are filled by migrant workers who earn far more in the US than they could back home. You call the creation of such jobs "inefficient", "harmful", and "idiocy".

You clearly want them to stay in their cages and work for peanuts so you can pat yourself on the back about how great and efficient it all is to unnecessarily ship things across vast distances.

You "quoted" me four times, with four separate words that I never used once. I said that US workers are productive because of privileges they have (like getting to live in the United States), and you've concocted a series of lies about what I believe.

And, by the way, I would love for some immigrants to come over here to help us with our agriculture.

[Jaguar]

Like, seriously, you're arguing that I'm cruel for believing the exact opposite of what I actually believe.

[notyoueither]

What do you suppose impacts the environment more? The gobs of fertilizer you have to dump on tomatoes to get them to grow in New Jersey or the cost of putting them on a truck/train and driving them across the country? (Hint: The former.)

Tomatoes don't require a lot, or any, fertilizer to grow well in gardens in Edmonton. I can't imagine them requiring a lot in New Jersey.

[Aeson]

What do you suppose impacts the environment more? The gobs of fertilizer you have to dump on tomatoes to get them to grow in New Jersey or the cost of putting them on a truck/train and driving them across the country? (Hint: The former.)

Um... generally speaking you put into the soil what you take out.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What do you suppose impacts the environment more? The gobs of fertilizer you have to dump on tomatoes to get them to grow in New Jersey or the cost of putting them on a truck/train and driving them across the country? (Hint: The former.)

Considering my folks in NJ had no trouble growing tomatoes in their garden, likely the later on this count .

[The Mad Monk]

Tomatoes don't require a lot, or any, fertilizer to grow well in gardens in Edmonton. I can't imagine them requiring a lot in New Jersey.

You are correct, they don't.

As an aside? New Jersey tomotoes are legendary.

[Aeson]

And, by the way, I would love for some immigrants to come over here to help us with our agriculture.

You ignored it as a possibility to make your arguments about how much more efficient American workers are, and thus how bad it would be to have Americans working in farms. Now of course you want to pretend you've wanted immigrants to come here to work in higher value agricultural jobs all along. Even though when they immigrate here they become the Americans you say shouldn't be picking fruit. Perhaps though you were just confused as to how many people want to come to the US to pick fruit (or anythign else) and so didn't see it as the obvious solution to the 'problem'.

Also I'll note that you've dropped your absurd arguments about the potential for agricultural output per unit of area that you were using to try to pretend local production isn't possible (and thus deny those hard working immigrants their potential jobs). So it seems we're mostly in agreement.

Welcome aboard, finally