As always Stan has my permission to use any of my stuff that he finds has merit any way and any where he wishes.

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaayo i’poyi

1) Technical Efficiency: maximum output/input or minimum input/output;
2) Economic Efficiency: production of given $ value of outpu8t at lowest possible total cost;
3) 1 + 2 = 3 or Productive Efficiency: Cannot increase output of one trade-off commodity without necessarily decreasing output of another and vice versa;
4) Exchange Efficiency: P = MSC = MSB or pay TRUE costs of beneefits received and receive true benefits of costs paid; because of greed and imperatives for technical and economic efficiency, there is an imperative to socialize, underestimate, and under-assess costs so Price = marginal private cost without covering for costs of assessing and cleaning up negative externalities; plus people want benefits without costs so Price covers marginal private benefits without benefits of positive externalities assessed and covered. When Price = marginal private cost (MPC) plus the marginal cost of negative externalities (MCE) and when it covers marginal private benefit (MPB) plus marginal benefit of the positive externalities (MBE) then you have exchange efficiency; but efficiency forms 1-3 more often than not cause loss of exchange efficiency;
5) Consumer Efficiency: MUx/Px = MUy/Py = MUz/Pz or consumer cannot reallocate income (e.g. if MUx/Px > MuY/Py then decrease Y and lose marginal utility/price but increase X and gain more MU/P than lost and net increase total utility) in attempting to maximize MU/P and increase total utility;
6) Allocative Efficiency: Cannot make any person better off without making someone else worse off.

In reality, capitalism grossly understates, covers-up, socializes and externalizes, or defers, costs, while returns of accumulation are increasingly privatized, concentrated and centralized. In reality, in a fair fight, socialism outperforms capitalism even in capitalist constructs and definitions and metrics of “efficiency”.

http://wwwthesixthestate.blogspot.com/2007/11/revolutionnary-consciousness-as.html

Basic context acquired in 30 days. It was an amazing program.

Micheal, good observation that rural Oregon is pretty deep red. Eastern WA, many parts of northern & central CA all the way down to Bakersfield, not to mention Orange Co. & northern/eastern San Diego Co., get out of Reno/Tahoe & Vegas and you meet many Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot types. Get out of Denver, Boulder, Aspen, Vail, Albuquerque, Santa Fe….

Oh, and here is the link for the corn growers’ spin. Shamelss, shameless stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

This was done in July—-I wonder when he’ll lose his job at UCSF?

Certianly in soviet times,after the georgian hill bandit(stalin),the mafia controled the meat supply primarly via transport-thus moscow and other city rats were well feed by the whole sides of pork and beef,slid into the sewers too keep the price up.
So its ironic that the best current model for city folk becoming wise,before they starve is-CUBA!

The warnings that the collective we ignore over and over on food matters has never failed to astound me,not that I haven’t helped poison myself I assure.I recall listening to Issac Asimov,on cbc radio in the 70′s,go into great detail about how gov tests of irradiated food being perfectly safe and should be a manditory food safety measure.Asimov explained very well and clearly that this was not the case,proven by both his own work in the 1950′s and by numerous other tests.
Today we still hear the same fatous assurences from the same people who told you glyphosate was inert and broke down,Bt mods are safe despite being insectisidal and pollen from patented crops can’t travel hundreds of miles.
Goggle up-irradiated food and cats.

Here we go again again good work De Todd Millions Y= ranch .

http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_2_carbon.html

Like medieval priests, today’s carbon brokers will sell you an indulgence that forgives your carbon sins. It will run you about $500 for 5 tons of forgiveness—about how much the typical American needs every year. Or about $2,000 a year for a typical four-person household. Your broker will spend the money on such things as reducing methane emissions from hog farms in Brazil.

But if you really want to make a difference, you must send a check large enough to forgive the carbon emitted by four poor Brazilian households, too—because they’re not going to do it themselves. To cover all five households, then, send $4,000. And you probably forgot to send in a check last year, and you might forget again in the future, so you’d best make it an even $40,000, to take care of a decade right now. If you decline to write your own check while insisting that to save the world we must ditch the carbon, you are just burdening your already sooty soul with another ton of self-righteous hypocrisy. And you can’t possibly afford what it will cost to forgive that.

[... post cut for length, see link above for complete article arguing that carbon restrictions are futile and sequestration is the only hope...]

If we do need to do something serious about carbon, the sequestration of carbon after it’s burned is the one approach that accepts the growth of carbon emissions as an inescapable fact of the twenty-first century. And it’s the one approach that the rest of the world can embrace, too, here and now, because it begins with improving land use, which can lead directly and quickly to greater prosperity. If, on the other hand, we persist in building green bridges to nowhere, we will make things worse, not better. Good intentions aren’t enough. Turned into ineffectual action, they can cost the earth and accelerate its ruin at the same time.