posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Vekar
Actually it is not the fact of restaraunts unless you are refering to the major food chains... The problem comes from HOW we go about using what we
grow: cattle, pigs, chickens and other "feeds" used for animal consumption. I do believe it goes along the lines of 10 gallons of water, and 100lb.
of grain for 1lb. of beef. Insane no? Thus our lands are ravaged and fertilizers are in the extreme use, which is what the elites WANT to begin with.
If we simply change our habits we will solve the problem, do we honestly need to eat so much meat? No. In truth if you look at a food chart from Asia
or the rest of the world... Meat is one of the worst foods, it should be eaten in great moderation. So in effect let us get rid of these darn
corporate farms and slaughter houses, the sooner the better. We will not only get rid of major waste, pollution and slave labor but we will open up
smaller areas of agriculture: family farms. No more slave labor from Mexico thank you!
Well, if we get rid of corporate farms and slaughter houses the price of meat will rise considerably. That means that more people will be
malnourished because they can't get any. Its effects are actually to the contrary of what you want (which is, I'm assuming, causing less people to
If the availability of grain and meat are as intertwined as you say they are (which they may or may not be, I'll work on your assumption), then by
lowering the demand for meat, we would lower the price. By lowering the price, you discourage people from raising livestock for slaughter, so you
will have less meat raised and sold. Supply will fall and eventually find a place where it is somehow proportional to the demand (taking price into
account as well). What that will do, based on your assumption, is lower the demand for grains and other products used in animal feed. As demand
drops, so will price, causing supply to fall as well.
Now, I don't know enough about the market, but I could see demand rising from this point because more people buy more cheaper grain. In that case,
you've succeeded in lowering prices and having grains used for human consumption and not animal consumption. But there's no guarantee that it will
happen that way. That's all based on the assumption that the price will drop enough to find a point where more people buy grains at that price but
won't at a higher one.
The price of livestock may go down, and instead of just less people raising them, more people might buy livestock for other uses, such as milk (in the
case of beef). Though that doesn't apply to pigs, obviously, or some other animals.
I'm absolutely no economist, but I could see a greater availability of grains or grain products on the market for consumption by humans if the
consumption of meats goes down. But you have to convince people to eat less meat, you can't do it through things like selective taxation without
[edit on 19-6-2007 by Johnmike]