Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (14463)	2/4/2002 11:26:44 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Raymond, my personal fishery was destroyed in the late 1960s [the Manukau Harbour by Mangere Bridge in Auckland] due to pollution from several sources. I'm well aware of the need for environmental protection and I'm pleased to see that my old company, BP, with John Browne as CEO, is catching up with a few ideas [at last]. But more wealth doesn't mean destroyed fisheries. More wealth means no harbour pollution because waste disposal is done properly. More wealth means oceanic fish-farming with top quality fish [not revolting grain-fed tasteless fish]. The oceans are huge. We've overcome many limits our grandfathers saw. We can overcome a lot more. More, more, more, Mq PS: First thing to do is boost atmospheric CO2 to get the carbon back to life in the ecosphere from it's eons-long subterranean grave. The SUVs are helping there.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (14463)	2/5/2002 12:53:44 AM
From: Snowshoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Let's destroy the last two healthy ocean fisheries. That's what your wealth would do. Create too many boats and too much demand for a high-quality unpolluted, un-farmed, seafood protein. Sure beats the gruel they get in Herat or Masar-i-Sharif. Just got back from a brisk run along the icy coast of one of those last two pristine healthy fisheries, and my endorphin neurotransmitter levels are really stoked. I too love natural seafood with its high omega-3 lipids, but what's wrong with the gruel in Afghanistan? The WFP is sending them whole wheat and lentils, which also happen to be two of my favorite foods. That combo is far better than most of the toxic over-processed crap in U.S. supermarkets and fast-food restaurants.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (14463)	2/5/2002 6:30:42 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

>>World Rice Glut Hits Home By GUY COATES Associated Press Writer February 4, 2002, 5:34 AM EST KAPLAN, La. -- On the other side of the world, the big players in the rice industry are turning out bumper crops, and the reverberations are being felt in the heart of Louisiana's rice belt. The world has a glut of rice because of good weather the past few years in Thailand, Vietnam and India. For this southern Louisiana town, the consequence is the closure of its nearly 70-year-old rice mill, upgraded just a few years ago to turn out 1.7 million barrels of table-ready rice annually. Ninety-nine percent was sold overseas. "It's the third mill we've taken over in four years, and only one is still in business," said Bill Boudreaux, a state agriculture department employee who supervised the closing of Liberty Rice Mill. Farmers and millers in all six rice-producing states are having problems but the pressure is felt more in Louisiana and Texas, where a large majority of the crop is for export. "The rice producers overseas don't have our labor costs and they can sell the product as much as $100 cheaper than we can per metric ton," said Richard Hardee, a farmer in Vermilion Parish. In Arkansas, the largest U.S. producer, most of the rice is for domestic use. Still, the glut brings down prices and farmers there are feeling the pinch. The ripple effect of low prices hits the mills even harder. Unlike farmers, the mills do not get subsidies from the government. A mill buys the rice straight from the field and puts out a finished product. The price can fluctuate so much that the mill can wind up taking a substantial loss. "We had 20 mills in 1980 and now we're down to five or six," said Boudreaux. "In four or five years, we may be down to two if we don't get more markets where we can compete and get a decent price." Sammy Noel, who farms near Kaplan, looks longingly toward Cuba, hoping the federal government will allow more sales of rice there. Noel said U.S. farmers can compete with Asian farmers in Cuba and South America because of transportation costs. With the Kaplan mill's closure, Noel must look for another buyer before he plants his new crop this spring. "With fewer mills, there is less competition and the prices aren't as good," he said. Noel also must worry about the new farm bill under consideration in the Senate. A large group of producers and millers from the six states will be in Washington this week, pressing for higher subsidies and to open new markets now off limits because of U.S. sanctions. The lobbying force also will ask the Bush administration to buy more surplus grain for needy nations. Mary Aldrich, a food aid specialist for the USA Rice Federation in Washington, said grain purchases by the government have slowed since a big wheat purchase in 1999. Kevin McGilton, government affairs specialist for the rice federation, said he hopes the final congressional product will include a safety net for farmers -- a subsidy plus, if prices fall in times of glut, additional payments. << newsday.com

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (14463)	2/5/2002 10:48:09 AM
From: AC Flyer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

Ray: It's not really possible to "destroy" an ocean fishery, as you put it. It certainly is possible to overfish it to the point where it is no longer commercially viable. This particular environmental problem is self-correcting in this way. Leave a fishery alone and in 5 to ten years you'll be tripping over the fish again. One of the great things about the "more" culture is that it allows those among us who choose happiness over more to achieve happiness more easily, if you see what I mean. A more prosaic statement of this idea is that you can not solve environmental problems without first achieving a certain (high) level of economic development. You gotta have a lot of dough as a society before you can make the choice to spend billions on clean air, clean water, subsidizing the incomes of commercial fisherman whose fisheries are temporarily closed, etc. Malthus has been proven wrong. The planet is capable of feeding a vast population of homo sapiens. The cumulative effect of a century of productivity has made all stuff incredibly cheap. Procuring a days supply of food reliably takes less than an hour of labor for the average American (I'm not talking about the trip to the supermarket, I'm talking about $10 of food for a $15 an hour worker). The population growth problems now are in those countries that are economically undeveloped. The first world has or will soon have - with the exception of the US - declining population.