locally grown

[Zingydex]

Of course there is an economy of scale, I am not disputing that. But you should make these calculationson a per product basis (and also consider other aspects).

A ship can use 1/50th of the carbon footprint a truck does, but if a truck needs to travel 200 miles and a ship 10.000 miles things start changing. And to be fair, the produce doesn't grow in the harbour, it grows inland, and depending on how far inland this can have a huge influence.

Futher there are many cases in which there is an easy visible difference. If you live in California, the C-footprint of a californian wine is smaller than that of an french wine. And even better is buying a plastic bottle of ethanol and using tapwater to make wodka.:D
The whole point of the case is that people should use there brain to try and figure out what is best and they need help from organizations that have the correct data.
Mind you, the biggest difference you can make is going to the shop by bike instead of by a 3 liter engine car.

The bolded part is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning. The average Joe Blow off the street is not quite bright enough to realize the Beverly Hillbillies are smarter than him. You can't use something that doesn't work.

This is why marketing companies earn a living by producing the trash I regularly mute on TV. People are dumb enough to believe whatever line is fed to them, no matter how outlandish.

[kandrathe]

The average Joe Blow off the street is not quite bright enough to realize the Beverly Hillbillies are smarter than him. You can't use something that doesn't work.

Oh, it works fine. It just doesn't get exercised. You don't get smart watching MTV, and hanging out at the mall. The US is chock full of immigrants, who go on to become naturalized citizens. We are a snap shot of the amalgam of the world. Some of us 3rd of 4th generation descendants have become too complacent with the lives our more industrious post WWII parents provided, but the capacity is there. I would also blame that money pit of an education system that we have which continues to beg for money for school supplies and books, yet always seems to be able to heat the indoor pool and keep the football players in fresh equipment.

What we have here is a multi-generational failure to get our priorities in order.

[eppie]

What we have here is a multi-generational failure to get our priorities in order.

Indeed; you know what I think that is the biggest problem?

Children know that to get rich you should try to become a professional athlete pop singer or an actor in a reality show or so. Then there is a small part that wants to go and study and are even pretty smart but most of them see that to become rich you need to go and work for an investment bank, leaving only a too small group of smart people doing the important work.

Important jobs pay too little and useless jobs pay too much. Keep this situation up for a few more generations and we will start evolving back again.

[Jester]

Children know that to get rich you should try to become a professional athlete pop singer or an actor in a reality show or so.

Children are wrong, then. The average returns on being any of those things are somewhere between awful and miserable. The rich ones are a trivial percentage of the whole.

Then there is a small part that wants to go and study and are even pretty smart but most of them see that to become rich you need to go and work for an investment bank, leaving only a too small group of smart people doing the important work.

That's certainly closer to the truth. The allure of doing a degree in management and going to work with your shiny new MBA at a big honkin' bank at six figures does draw a lot of the best and brightest.

Important jobs pay too little and useless jobs pay too much. Keep this situation up for a few more generations and we will start evolving back again.

How do you stop people from earning a wage that someone else is willing to pay them?

-Jester

[eppie]

Children are wrong, then. The average returns on being any of those things are somewhere between awful and miserable. The rich ones are a trivial percentage of the whole.

But this is also what is called the American dream. In many European countries people think we attract many immigrants because of our social welfare. However, the US is still more popular for many people. People see the few that succeed and not the many that failed. Children think the same.....and indeed are maybe wrong to do so. I just posted this as a (what I think is a ) fact, not as an opinion.

How do you stop people from earning a wage that someone else is willing to pay them?

-Jester

Again this is a fact, I have no direct solution.

[kandrathe]

But this is also what is called the American dream. In many European countries people think we attract many immigrants because of our social welfare. However, the US is still more popular for many people. People see the few that succeed and not the many that failed. Children think the same.....and indeed are maybe wrong to do so. I just posted this as a (what I think is a ) fact, not as an opinion.

My understanding of the "American Dream" is that you can make something of yourself from humble beginnings, if you have enough smarts, luck, sweat and perseverance. It has to do with a legal system that operates to preserve peoples rights, and a culture of "we can do it" or "we can fix it".

I'd use Obama as an example, but he took a different road than the general hard working dirt farmer. A better example is the gardener my MIL hired regularly (befriended) to build her yard in California. He was from Oaxaca, and had 8 children and a wife living in Oaxaca. He would work every day from sun up to sun down in the neighborhood making peoples yards more beautiful for $10 per hour (1990 $10 = ~130 pesos) or $80 to $160 per day, and send the money back home to send his children to the best schools in Mexico. Minimum wage (2008) in Oaxaca is about 50 pesos ($4 a day). When his eldest son was able to emigrate legally, his dad already had the money saved for the son to put a large down payment on a small fixer up house in Southern California dad had already scoped out. The father and son repaired the house, made the yard phenomenal, and sold it for a hefty profit. And, so on. This continued until all the children who wanted to come to America were set up with a good start, and a good education. Dad went back to Oaxaca at age 50, now retired but still futzing in his own garden.

[eppie]

My understanding of the "American Dream" is that you can make something of yourself from humble beginnings, if you have enough smarts, luck, sweat and perseverance. It has to do with a legal system that operates to preserve peoples rights, and a culture of "we can do it" or "we can fix it".

I'd use Obama as an example, but he took a different road than the general hard working dirt farmer. A better example is the gardener my MIL hired regularly (befriended) to build her yard in California. He was from Oaxaca, and had 8 children and a wife living in Oaxaca. He would work every day from sun up to sun down in the neighborhood making peoples yards more beautiful for $10 per hour (1990 $10 = ~130 pesos) or $80 to $160 per day, and send the money back home to send his children to the best schools in Mexico. Minimum wage (2008) in Oaxaca is about 50 pesos ($4 a day). When his eldest son was able to emigrate legally, his dad already had the money saved for the son to put a large down payment on a small fixer up house in Southern California dad had already scoped out. The father and son repaired the house, made the yard phenomenal, and sold it for a hefty profit. And, so on. This continued until all the children who wanted to come to America were set up with a good start, and a good education. Dad went back to Oaxaca at age 50, now retired but still futzing in his own garden.

I was not mentioning the American dream as something negative. However, also there there are many examples of good people that work their bottoms off and don't make it.
Somebody in south central who has a good brain will be better off trying to get into university and study instead of becoming a professional athlete. (mind you, the first will be difficult enough)

[kandrathe]

I was not mentioning the American dream as something negative. However, also there there are many examples of good people that work their bottoms off and don't make it.

I know. I was clarifying. But, what I was really commenting on was the whole idea of "making it" in the first place. When that person asks you in the eighth grade, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" I think now nearer to the end of my life we would be better off teaching our children such that their answer would be more on the order of adjectives like; content, fulfilled, wise, successful. I just asked my sons that question; the younger one said, "A jungle explorer looking for lost species", and my older one said, "A special forces soldier and hero to go to other countries and help people fight against terrorists". Rane also has a fascination with VTOL jets. So, at this age, their idea of a life mission is not to get a job which allows them to get rich, and contribute to the worlds wretched excess.

Somebody in south central who has a good brain will be better off trying to get into university and study instead of becoming a professional athlete. (mind you, the first will be difficult enough)

Right, but that is because the smart person paves their career, but has options if one particular path is blocked. Counting on becoming a rock star, or major league baseball player is pretty much the same as winning the mega lottery. Then, knowing how to navigate that career without ending up impoverished, and with a broken down body is quite another.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Counting on becoming a rock star, or major league baseball player is pretty much the same as winning the mega lottery.

I'm going to have to take exception to this. Winning a lottery is strictly a matter of luck. Becoming a big named athlete is a matter of talent, training, and a huge amount of effort. I can't speak to becoming a rock star -- it used to take talent, but now it seems publicity is sufficient.

The problem with a lot of kids (and college ball players (not much difference)) is that too many people tell them they're good, but not enough people tell them they're not good enough.

BTW, I've never met a kid who wanted to be a professional athlete, or rock or movie star. Used to be, lots of astronauts. Now, it's more likely to be something they've seen on TV. But even passed the kid stage, things are funny. In '64 when I started at GaTech, you had to pick a major department right off the bat. A huge number picked aerospace engineering, mostly because it was first on the alphabetic list. Then physics, chemistry, and math because people knew (or at least thought they knew) what these were. By the beginning of the junior year (when you finally started specializing in your field) the demographics were entirely different.

Kids can only want to be something they've heard of. If they come from a family that watches Cosmos they might want to be astrophysicists. If the come from a family that mostly watches WFF, they probably don't even know that astrophysics exists. And, yes, the USA is largely an anti-intellectual society. So that's what needs to be changed -- and good luck trying.

--Pete

[NuurAbSaal]

And, yes, the USA is largely an anti-intellectual society. So that's what needs to be changed -- and good luck trying.

I don't think that problem is exclusive to the US. I get the feeling that most of world is getting dumber by the year. Or maybe I'm just getting more arrogant and bitter.

We've been having kind of a serious debate about education and our educational system and its shortcomings here in Austria recently and it just showed how incredibly undervalued (not to mention underfunded) the teaching profession is (with the exclusion of a rather weird "elite university" project). After the parties milked the subject a bit for political change (meaningful phrase in English? "politisches Kleingeld") the topic sank back into obscurity, until the next PISA results get published.

Knowledge/Wisdom/Learning - call it what you will - just isn't sexy like a Michael Bay movie*. And yes, that was the bitter me talking.

Sorry for taking this further off-topic by the way.

take care
Tarabulus

*Sarcasm. Ha ha.

[kandrathe]

The problem with a lot of kids (and college ball players (not much difference)) is that too many people tell them they're good, but not enough people tell them they're not good enough.

I don't know enough about what happens in AAA and AA ball to know if they are taken advantage of there of not. I could see where some players might be strung along on wishful thinking.

Sort of like the Nashville game. You stay in the shadows and write hits for us, and when you've done your time, if you are still marketable we'll make you the flavor of the month.

[eppie]

I don't think that problem is exclusive to the US. I get the feeling that most of world is getting dumber by the year. Or maybe I'm just getting more arrogant and bitter.

We've been having kind of a serious debate about education and our educational system and its shortcomings here in Austria recently and it just showed how incredibly undervalued (not to mention underfunded) the teaching profession is (with the exclusion of a rather weird "elite university" project). After the parties milked the subject a bit for political change (meaningful phrase in English? "politisches Kleingeld") the topic sank back into obscurity, until the next PISA results get published.

Knowledge/Wisdom/Learning - call it what you will - just isn't sexy like a Michael Bay movie*. And yes, that was the bitter me talking.

Sorry for taking this further off-topic by the way.

take care
Tarabulus

*Sarcasm. Ha ha.

I always have mixed thoughts about the subject of education. First I fully agree that teachers should get bigger salaries, but the problems begin with the children and their parents. Even when you have don't have the best funded school with the best teachers, you should study and 'go for it'. And lets be clear, studying for an exam in high school is not in anybodies list of 100 most difficult things you have to do in your life.

[kandrathe]

I always have mixed thoughts about the subject of education. First I fully agree that teachers should get bigger salaries, but the problems begin with the children and their parents. Even when you have don't have the best funded school with the best teachers, you should study and 'go for it'. And lets be clear, studying for an exam in high school is not in anybodies list of 100 most difficult things you have to do in your life.

In the US, one good thing that has come out of "No Child Left Behind" is that it has forced the primary and secondary education systems to define in excruciating detail what learning objectives need to be mastered before ascending to the next level. This enables the sources for education whether they be the home, private, or public education to all compete on a level field with the same clear objectives. Then, parents can determine which path will bring the child to the best outcome. The only sticking point, as I see it now, is funding. If home based, or a private school fails to deliver to its education objectives the parents will move them to a school which will allow the student to progress. But, if a public school fails, until the latest accountability measures were put into place it would continue to be a conduit of uneducated youth.

So consider this model for building a car; 1) you can write to BMW, and for a nominal fee to cover costs, they send you all the parts and an extensive guide on how to do it yourself. 2) you can go to BMW deluxe, and highly skilled and competitively paid workers will build your car to your exact specification with a high level of customer service and individual care. or 3) you can have the government factory build the car for you inexpensively with variable quality, no guarantee and sometimes outright failure. Yet, everyone in the US clamors for option 3 when it comes to education, while it serves to make building them cheap, it also undermines the profitability and competitiveness of option 2. So, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that there is no role for government in insuring that education be of high quality and universal, however, it's just the world has experienced repeatedly the relationship between price, quality and competitiveness in the manufacturing arena. I believe that if education were to allow their workers to be competitive, then you would see wages increase, but that would also mean that parents should be responsible for paying the price for their children's education.

After secondary school, the colleges and universities have for years worked on creating equivalences which allow the credits for a Calculus course taught in one school to akin to the one taught half way across the world. Other than the accreditation of the college or university, the requirements for a degree in civil engineering from one school is pretty similar to any other.

I am an advocate though, for all people to get as much classical education as they possibly can, but this requires people to seek it, work hard, and prove the investment was worth it. I believe only by making that investment personal will we be able to insure that we are not wasting our effort and resources on those that will do little or nothing with what has been given to them. It was daunting to have such a mountain of student loans when I graduated, but it was worth it and I had them paid off in a mere 10 years and that was due to the salary my education was able to help me secure. Unfortunately, not all scholastic endeavors have lucrative vocations awaiting their graduates. Which then, each school puts limits on how many "unnecessary" people (and sometimes even the necessary) are funded and allowed through the university system.

[Swiss Mercenary]

I'm not advocating that there is no role for government in insuring that education be of high quality and universal, however, it's just the world has experienced repeatedly the relationship between price, quality and competitiveness in the manufacturing arena. I believe that if education were to allow their workers to be competitive, then you would see wages increase, but that would also mean that parents should be responsible for paying the price for their children's education.

Thing is, it's not quite as bleak as the car analogy would indicate. While I've yet to hear governments successfully putting BMWs or ferries together, my understanding is that back in the day when it was actually funded, high school education was actually pretty decent.

Of course, I could be completely wrong on that last point.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . my understanding is that back in the day when it was actually funded, high school education was actually pretty decent.

Don't buy into the 'underfunded' story. While it is true that there are places where funding is poor, there are other places where there is an excess of funding. As an example, the local school district floated a six million dollar levy for a performing arts center. And almost every suburban high school in the USA has a sports (mostly football) stadium -- a large expense to make and maintain for approximately seven games a year.

No, the problem is a lot more complex than that. For one thing, teachers are given a lot of responsibility without the necessary accompanying authority. Often the administrators are elected or appointed individuals who are more interested in backing the voters (i.e., parents) than supporting the teachers. Teachers are graded for how many kids they pass, not how many they fail. When I was at GaTech, one of my friends in the Vets Club was married to a high school teacher. This was around '70. She had a few students who deserved to fail, but the administration tried to pressure her into giving them a 'social' promotion. She refused, resigned, and quit teaching. And that is a big symptom of the problem.

There are many other problems with education in the USA. Too much emphasis on 'training' because of the influence of business. Too much emphasis on learning factoids and too little on learning thought processes. Too many standardized tests and too much teaching to those tests. Too much adherence to the antiquated schedule and school year. Too little recognition that some students should fail, either because they haven't reached a sufficient level of maturity or because they're just not smart enough.

Money is just one factor. Easy to understand, but often over emphasized.

--Pete

[eppie]

Hi,

Money is just one factor. Easy to understand, but often over emphasized.

--Pete

Money for education you mean right?

I agree with that. Even with a very good educational system the problem remains that people can make more money with useless work they they cn with useful work. In other words we are talking about two different things here.
First the education of a single person to become financially succesful (pay the bills for his family, do nice stuff with them like holidays etc.)
Second, health of a nation (or better the world) if we pay most to people for throwing a bal in a net or acting in some half funny sitcom or reality show instead of to people who build power plants, do cancer research, teach, work in the police force or fire brigade etc. at a certain point we will get the bill for that.
Or am I being too negative here?

[Swiss Mercenary]

Hi,
Don't buy into the 'underfunded' story. While it is true that there are places where funding is poor, there are other places where there is an excess of funding. As an example, the local school district floated a six million dollar levy for a performing arts center. And almost every suburban high school in the USA has a sports (mostly football) stadium -- a large expense to make and maintain for approximately seven games a year.

Amusing story... The nearby high school field would blast its lights, full power, until 1 am in the morning. Since the school was built.

They're finally considering a motion detector, or somesuch - I forget the details... And the motivation for doing so was not saving money - but "Going green."

In an area where our electricity comes from hydroelectric dams, mind you.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Or am I being too negative here?

Not so much negative as overly focused. While it is true that a small number of people get paid huge amounts for doing trivial (in the sense of useful, not of difficult) things, the overall effect on the nation is nearly nothing. There are, maybe, a few thousand actors and actresses, a few hundred big name rock stars, and maybe a hundred thousand professional athletes world wide. And those are generous estimates. In a world population of six billion, they are insignificant.

Yes, many more might aspire to those ranks. But they don't count -- they end up being the shoe salesmen and cab drivers, or some other useful profession. It's not as if banning sports, movies, and rock and roll would cause the people that would have tried for those fields to become scientists and engineers. There is the question of aptitude, of interest. The fields you demonize are not drawing the intelligent people away from more useful careers.

Again, the problem is much more complex. It has to do with familiarity -- people don't desire what they don't know. It has to do with respect -- kids don't want to become 'eggheads' (I had a male nurse tell me that part of the reason there are so few male nurses is that not many guys want to be in a profession whose name also means 'breast feeding'). It has to do with our scientists, most of whom have cut themselves off from the general population. It has to do with our teachers, most of whom have next to no background in math and science.

And, of course, it has to do with the fact that a brand new MBA can make a lot more than a PhD engineer with twenty years.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Not so much negative as overly focused.

This takes me to a topic I have thought about quite a bit, but haven't wrapped my brain around totally. That is, how many people are *really* necessary?

We need people to;

1. grow, and package our food<>
   
2. collect and process raw materials for homes, clothing, packaging<>
   
3. transport food, materials, products around<>
   
4. design, build and maintain our infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.)<>
   
5. leaders, administration, and other organizational specialists<>
   
6. educate people to perform the above<>
   
7. health care for people who need it<>
   
8. protect/defend peoples rights and liberties<>
   
9. and probably some others I didn't think of...<>
   [st]But, you see what I'm getting at here. Going to Maslow's Pyramid of Need again, there are certain requirements within society that meet everyones lowest needs to remain fed, clothed, sheltered and cared for as needed.
   
   My gut tells me that the percentage of the population that is *really* needed in our efficient society is probably quite small. Which means that probably a majority of us are engaged in additions to culture or sciences being either productive (inventor, applied science), or b) unproductive (clown, entertainer). Or, maybe there are also c) unproductive other *frivolous* occupations (e.g. insurance salesman, toy inspector ). I happen to be doing a big project for a property/casualtyfe insurance company who employs over 200,000 people. But, I'm asking that question, "Do people really need this insurance?" Maybe, when they are exposing themselves to risks they cannot afford.
   
   The movie Wall-E takes one view of what happens when everything becomes automated, but if you think of it another way... What if almost everyone were highly trained, "self actualized" and contributing to either culture or science? That is, peoples occupations only ever added to culture or pushed at the boundaries of knowledge.
   
   So, then, playing with the science fiction Utopian fantasy a little more... The ultimate socialist fantasy would be where population growth was zero, education and health care was free, food, clothing, and shelter and all other necessities were virtually free or free. Think of a life long all expenses paid vacation to the tropics.
   
   However, we capitalists know that what is missing is the cruel motivation of the wolf howling at the door, or the drive to lift oneself up from a tiny urban house on the busy road to a nicer one with a shady backyard, or the dream of retiring from the hula hoop factory with enough savings to live out our remaining days in medium comfort and little worry.
   
   Then also, from a societal point of view, the only jobs that the government should really care about keeping from "unemployment" are the really necessary ones. All the others have no impact on our well being at all, only on the amount of culture, science, or frivolous nonsense tossed about. However, since these majority of unnecessary people still need to "do their dance" to get paid to be able to afford the necessities we artificially over value what they do, at least in paying their unemployment and such.
   
   I think this is maybe the problem I'm wrestling with. What happens to our world when almost everyone realizes that it really doesn't matter if they are employed or not. When only a few jobs are necessary, then many, many jobs become optional where people engage in them to pay the bills. Then, back to the environment, it is an issue that all this optional unneeded effort is also used to consume resources to produce mega tons unneeded things.

[kandrathe]

And the motivation for doing so was not saving money - but "Going green."

Well, at least shame is a good motivator for some people.

I prefer common sense, and making a good cost/benefit case. At my last job, at a college, profitability depended mostly on how cold was the winter. The largest variable bill for the campus was paying for heat, everything else was pretty predictable and could be factored into the cost of tuition, etc. The CFO was an interesting guy, who was 50% mother Teresa, and 50% Scrooge. He always planned for the worst, and held back on the budget until spring, and then if we had a mild winter life was great and a bunch of needed infrastructure projects could get funded (and needed to be completed by FY end which was June 30th.)