Re: [Marxism] Not 'RoP' but '% of total profits' - duh. Re: USprofitscollapse in 4th qtr

["S. Artesian" <sartesian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Really?  Having 2/3 of the population in agriculture is not a bad thing? 
With an average farms size of about .5-1 acre?

If you think subsistence practices, requiring greater and greater labor 
inputs into increasing smaller land parcels is a good thing-- well you're 
going to have a problem, or problems, like big catastrophic problems over 
time as yields will decline-- not to mention the old natural disasters to 
which this type of agriculture is so vulnerable.

There's nothing "stageist" about agricultural productivity being the key 
factor in ensuring overall social development and welfare.

We could learn a lot from Cuba?  No doubt we could.  No doubt the Cubans 
would like to learn a lot also about increased technical inputs into 
agriculture if only the embargo were removed to make that exchange possible.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <sabocat59@xxxxxxx>
To: <sartesian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Not 'RoP' but '% of total profits' - duh. Re: 
USprofitscollapse in 4th qtr



>
> Isn't it high time to reconceptualize what it means to be an advanced 
> society?
>
> Given the ecological crisis, having two-thirds of the population of China 
> engaged in sustainable agriculture is not necessarily a bad thing, while 
> we here in the USA could use many more organic farms than exist currently. 
> Having so much of the population alienated from the land puts us at a 
> distinct disadvantage.
>
> We could learn much from the example of Cuba in that respect. So could 
> China.
>
> Greg McDonald


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu