Recommended Posts

(edited)

On 7/7/2020 at 11:34 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

China also is coming up to modern standards.  True they do not have as good of AG land, but their production/acre is increasing as well.  So, 2/3 the worlds population not only IS vastly increasing food production, but they have the potential to effectively DOUBLE supply. 

Just having area doesn't mean they can double supply, this isn't a linear equation. China has been destroying Ag land along with fresh water supply, their food security situation is getting worse by the day not better. No other country can match the US Ag industry in cost and production, not just due to production methods but the Mississippi river/inland waterway system. The Mississippi river and it's tributaries are the cornerstone of US economic power and one of the main reasons the middle of the country isn't poor like the internal areas of most countries not near cheap water transport.

Theres a reason trading nations with usable coastlines tend to be rich and landlocked nations are poor, cost of transportation. All things being equal, there will always be a market for US Ag products due to natural geographic advantages. 

The Mighty Mississippi, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence river, all easily navigable waterways that form a single system, are like nothing else on Earth.

Edited by Strangelovesurfing
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

Just having area doesn't mean they can double supply, this isn't a linear equation. China has been destroying Ag land along with fresh water supply, their food security situation is getting worse by the day not better. No other country can match the US Ag industry in cost and production, not just due to production methods but the Mississippi river/inland waterway system. The Mississippi river and it's tributaries are the cornerstone of US economic power and one of the main reasons the middle of the country isn't poor like the internal areas of most countries not near cheap water transport.

Theres a reason trading nations with usable coastlines tend to be rich and landlocked nations are poor, cost of transportation. All things being equal, there will always be a market for US Ag products due to natural geographic advantages. 

The Mighty Mississippi, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence river, all easily navigable waterways that form a single system, are like nothing else on Earth.

You might want to open a map of India/China/SE Asia(Half the worlds population).  Or better yet, travel there yourself.  They all have navigable rivers and are used as such.  No, they are not as good as the Mississippi.  They are darned close.  Zeihans definition of navigable is WAY too deep to artificially push his narrative.  Europe for instance has gobs of canals/rivers which do not meet Zeihans definition, yet are used daily to transport immense amounts of cargo and he has them listed.  Mississippi was not navigable by Zeihans definition EITHER when the USA was being settled and farmed initially.  India is making leaps and bounds to improve their amazing river system. Then look at the rivers in SE Asia which he has as NON navigable... IT is a joke, its almost as if he has never been there... oh wait, he hasn't.  Those rivers are DEEPER  than the canals in Europe he has listed as navigable.  There is a reason HALF the worlds population lives in SE Asia.  And yes, they use their rivers for transportation of bulk goods.  Likewise the area is VERY flat, and if the nations of SE Asia got their act together they could build said canal system(SO could the USA), but railroads...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

5 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

You might want to open a map of India/China/SE Asia(Half the worlds population).  Or better yet, travel there yourself.  They all have navigable rivers and are used as such.  No, they are not as good as the Mississippi.  They are darned close.  Zeihans definition of navigable is WAY too deep to artificially push his narrative.  Europe for instance has gobs of canals/rivers which do not meet Zeihans definition, yet are used daily to transport immense amounts of cargo and he has them listed.  Mississippi was not navigable by Zeihans definition EITHER when the USA was being settled and farmed initially.  India is making leaps and bounds to improve their amazing river system. Then look at the rivers in SE Asia which he has as NON navigable... IT is a joke, its almost as if he has never been there... oh wait, he hasn't.  Those rivers are DEEPER  than the canals in Europe he has listed as navigable.  There is a reason HALF the worlds population lives in SE Asia.  And yes, they use their rivers for transportation of bulk goods.  Likewise the area is VERY flat, and if the nations of SE Asia got their act together they could build said canal system(SO could the USA), but railroads...

I look at maps quite often and have traveled through many countries in SE. Asia. Half the worlds population lives in east Asia due to rice cultivation which provides the highest caloric grain per acre of land compared to other cereal crops. Higher calories = larger populations. Other countries have navigable rivers, but no other river system comes close to what the Mississippi/Great Lakes/St Lawrence river complex provides. Navigable isn't just about water depth.

The Mississippi river and tributataries allows transport of products at low cost from the entirety of mid-America through the Great Lakes or down through New Orleans on to the Atlantic. It's a little/no cost commerce super-highway unmatched anywhere. Railroads allow commerce just not at the same low cost waterborne transport gives. It's the main reason the Belt and Road's central asian railway China is building has little to no traffic and never will.

 

Waterway map of US

Screen Shot 2020-07-10 at 3.34.42 PM.png

Population map of N. America, it's no coincidence water=people and people=industry.

Screen Shot 2020-07-10 at 3.34.21 PM.png

US Ag. production will always be a world beater as long as the river flows.

Edited by Strangelovesurfing
  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the river network in the USA you just showed iS NOT naturally available before people came along and opened them up with locks, dams, wiers, dredging, removal of 100mile long log jams...

Rest of the world is catching up: Namely India/China/SE Asia.  Right now: India density map

while they cannot do the 20,000ton barges like the USA,  they still run around with 1000ton barges and are actively increasing their river infrastructure.  India for instance is now transhipping cargo containers on its rivers like Europe does, but never caught on in the USA.  Namely because the population density of the USA is still FAR FAR lower than that of Europe let alone India/China/SE Asia

It is a LOT easier to catch up in basic infrastructure.  Why Farmers around the world are still MASSIVELY increasing their crop yields and profitability compared to the USA.  So, when people bitch about exporting crops to the world... I laugh.... Hey idiots!, look at the trends of the world.  NO ONE wants to import basic food staples. 

Mark my words, next major power to rise will be India and Turkey.  *** With one giant caveat for India*** Muslim vrs Hindu population wars. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

8 hours ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

Half the worlds population lives in east Asia due to rice cultivation which provides the highest caloric grain per acre of land compared to other cereal crops.

HELL NO.  KeyGraph.png?ssl=1Half the worlds population lives there because pretty much EVERYTHING is edible in SE Asia, and everything not directly edible was a spice which keeps food edible instead of SPOILING.  Food origin Baskets of the world are SE Asia, middle east, and Central America/northern Andes mountains.  Note they are all close to equator, or very warm for the most part with large elevation difference allowing a gigantic biodiversity. 

Now back to calories / acre.... Then factor in EASE of planting/care.  Corn/Potatoes win hands down.  Not even close compared to rice. 

PS: Every region of earth pretty much has several plant species such as lettuce/beans/rice(grain) not that we eat them all.  For instance most do not know that North America is home to rice in the Mississippi before Europeans arrived... Most around the world do not eat this rice, but it is still cultivated in N. America today in limited supply and makes EXCELLENT filler in soups with a much superior flavor to white/brown rice, not that you would want to eat it by itself like white rice. 

PPS: One reason North America was devoid of people?  Lack of food other than hunting big game.  Look at this pathetic food origin map: food origins  North America: Berries, seeds, nuts, and big Hairy ornery Bison and moose with a Grizzly bear or two thrown in...

Edited by footeab@yahoo.com
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that pre-Columbian America was not "devoid of people", today's estimates are 50 - 100 millions of total inhabitants (before the slaughters and epidemics started). 

  • Upvote 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

13 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

HELL NO.  KeyGraph.png?ssl=1

Your graph starts mid 1800’s. Historically Rice = East Asia/South Asia, Wheat = rest of Asia.

Corn, potatoes etc., came from the Western Hemisphere. They wen’t staple crops, or in many cases available at all, in most of the world historically speaking.
 

The population of South and East Asia was huge compared to the rest of the world long before potatoes, corn etc were available. 

Edited by Strangelovesurfing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

The population of South and East Asia was huge compared to the rest of the world long before potatoes, corn etc were available. 

FOOD/#people historically speaking are defined by ability to store it, or grow it year round  Grain... AKA RICE, was for rich people ONLY.  You have to build fields first before you can even plant the stuff and then worry about flooding destroying it.  Not true with other grains.  Rice specifically is horrifically labor intensive and could only be grown via slaves, lots and lots of slaves.  So, lets talk real food used throughout SE Asia historically and WHY SE Asia has most of humanity.  Vegetables, fruits, Spices grow everywhere.  Rain is consistent climate temperate and therefore storing of food is not difficult as food can grown 24/7/365.  Any storage of food requires SPICES or specialized mud brick houses with inverted foundation(rodent prevention and humidity).  Almost ALL the worlds spices come from SE Asia.  People, lots of people, go where there is consistent food.  Food requires consistent water.  SE Asia has it all.  Most other regions of the planet?  No. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2020 at 2:49 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Paging TDS doctor to the ER

Paging TDS doctor to the ER

Diagnosis: Insane.  Reason:  No Conservative would classify Trump as Conservative.  Rhino= DemocratLite?  Yes.  Conservative?  Certainly not. 


Romney called Donald corrupt for abusing his office to protect his criminal co-conspirator who colluded with a foreign enemy during a US election. He must have TDS. 

Annotation 2020-07-11 145700.png

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:


Romney called Donald corrupt for abusing his office to protect his criminal co-conspirator who colluded with a foreign enemy during a US election. He must have TDS. 

Annotation 2020-07-11 145700.png

Romney=RINO

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

Except that pre-Columbian America was not "devoid of people", today's estimates are 50 - 100 millions of total inhabitants (before the slaughters and epidemics started). 

That myth has been busted so many times it's tantamount to saying you believe in flat earth because Bigfoot told you so. 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:


Romney called Donald corrupt for abusing his office to protect his criminal co-conspirator who colluded with a foreign enemy during a US election. He must have TDS. 

Annotation 2020-07-11 145700.png

Well, yes, Romney would.  His SON, is implicated in a different corruption being unearthed by Trump so yea...  Hillary, BIden, Romney sitting in a Ukraine corruption tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G, first comes lack of morals, then comes "courage", then comes cash in a baby carriage...

Edited by footeab@yahoo.com
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2020 at 12:39 AM, Ward Smith said:

That myth has been busted so many times it's tantamount to saying you believe in flat earth because Bigfoot told you so. 

The population figure of indigenous peoples of the Americas before the 1492 Spanish voyage of Christopher Columbus has proven difficult to establish. Scholars rely on archaeological data and written records from European settlers. Most scholars writing at the end of the 19th century estimated that the pre-Columbian population was as low as 10 million; by the end of the 20th century most scholars gravitated to a middle estimate of around 50 million, with some historians arguing for an estimate of 100 million or more.[1]

Source:  Taylor, Alan (2002). American colonies; Volume 1 of The Penguin history of the United States, History of the United States Series

Your source? Donald Trump's twitter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2020 at 10:56 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

FOOD/#people historically speaking are defined by ability to store it, or grow it year round  Grain... AKA RICE, was for rich people ONLY.  You have to build fields first before you can even plant the stuff and then worry about flooding destroying it.  Not true with other grains.  Rice specifically is horrifically labor intensive and could only be grown via slaves, lots and lots of slaves.  So, lets talk real food used throughout SE Asia historically and WHY SE Asia has most of humanity.  Vegetables, fruits, Spices grow everywhere.  Rain is consistent climate temperate and therefore storing of food is not difficult as food can grown 24/7/365.  Any storage of food requires SPICES or specialized mud brick houses with inverted foundation(rodent prevention and humidity).  Almost ALL the worlds spices come from SE Asia.  People, lots of people, go where there is consistent food.  Food requires consistent water.  SE Asia has it all.  Most other regions of the planet?  No. 

I don't even know where get these "information" form. Yes, the ability to grow and store food a crucial requirement for early civilizations. No, SE Asia was not the region with the optimal conditions. The oldest areas with most plentiful harvests and best conditions were:

1) The Nile delta that gave rise to the Egyptian empire

2) The area between the rivers Eufrat and Tigris, home of ancient Mesopotamia

3) The plains between Indus and Gangha rivers

4) Northern China plains

5) Crete and surrounding islands - the Minoean civilization

6) Andean Coast and Mesoamerican Gulf Coast (pre-columbian civilizations)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Also beer and wine production was a greater driver of stationary agriculture than food - which you could just hunt or gather as you moved around. 

Fermentation was also used to as a form of water treatment; beer was safer to drink than water in many places (and still is).

Edited by Enthalpic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

The population figure of indigenous peoples of the Americas before the 1492 Spanish voyage of Christopher Columbus has proven difficult to establish. Scholars rely on archaeological data and written records from European settlers. Most scholars writing at the end of the 19th century estimated that the pre-Columbian population was as low as 10 million; by the end of the 20th century most scholars gravitated to a middle estimate of around 50 million, with some historians arguing for an estimate of 100 million or more.[1]

Source:  Taylor, Alan (2002). American colonies; Volume 1 of The Penguin history of the United States, History of the United States Series

Your source? Donald Trump's twitter?

North America was populated by hunter gatherers who could never achieve a population density greater than 1 person per km^2, usually a lot less (10-20 per 100km^2)

F4.large.jpg

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

row and store food a crucial requirement for early civilizations. No, SE Asia was not the region with the optimal conditions. The oldest areas with most plentiful harvests and best conditions were:

1) The Nile delta that gave rise to the Egyptian empire

2) The area between the rivers Eufrat and Tigris, home of ancient Mesopotamia

3) The plains between Indus and Gangha rivers

So, NO, you have zero clue where all the foods everyone eats comes from.  Brilliant response...  The topic genius, was not first small spots of civilization.  The topic genius, was WHY SE ASIA, has half of the worlds population. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

So, NO, you have zero clue where all the foods everyone eats comes from.  Brilliant response...  The topic genius, was not first small spots of civilization.  The topic genius, was WHY SE ASIA, has half of the worlds population. 

Please educate yourself. Do your homeworks. Don't be like Donald Trump. Thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

Please educate yourself. Do your homeworks. Don't be like Donald Trump. Thank you. 

One day, you will put forth an argument instead of cowardly slander. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

North America was populated by hunter gatherers who could never achieve a population density greater than 1 person per km^2, usually a lot less (10-20 per 100km^2)

F4.large.jpg

Just as I thought. A trumpetist fast to shout "debunked myth" very seldom has his facts straight. Your idea of pre-columbian civilizations are probably formed by Hollywood movies, seeing that you believe they were "hunter-gatherers". Although facing extreme challenges from sloped, unsuitable terrain, Aztec empire employed advanced terrace agriculture with irrigation systems that allowed population densities up to 500 people per square mile. (source - encyclopedia Britannica). That's vastly more than your obviously uninformed guess of max 10-20 people per square mile. Please update your world view. Thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

Just as I thought. A trumpetist fast to shout "debunked myth" very seldom has his facts straight. Your idea of pre-columbian civilizations are probably formed by Hollywood movies, seeing that you believe they were "hunter-gatherers". Although facing extreme challenges from sloped, unsuitable terrain, Aztec empire employed advanced terrace agriculture with irrigation systems that allowed population densities up to 500 people per square mile. (source - encyclopedia Britannica). That's vastly more than your obviously uninformed guess of max 10-20 people per square mile. Please update your world view. Thank you. 

Not my "guess" but a scholarly paper, link in the picture. Not square mile but 100 square kilometers. Even then, due to human sacrifice and other stupidity, the Aztec nation, while certainly more developed than anything north of the border, never achieved tens of millions of people. Bottom line, you lose. Again

9C613F9F-5CC5-4A21-87D7-BE7C3BFE1544.png

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2020 at 3:01 PM, BradleyPNW said:


Romney called Donald corrupt for abusing his office to protect his criminal co-conspirator who colluded with a foreign enemy during a US election. He must have TDS. 

Annotation 2020-07-11 145700.png

Ahh yes Pierre Delecto what a prince of a guy....made his fame and fortune cutting up companys and selling them off to corp's. Actually Pierre is a founding father of modern corporate culture..At least he is growing a appendage these days and speaking in first person...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

Just as I thought. A trumpetist fast to shout "debunked myth" very seldom has his facts straight. Your idea of pre-columbian civilizations are probably formed by Hollywood movies, seeing that you believe they were "hunter-gatherers". Although facing extreme challenges from sloped, unsuitable terrain, Aztec empire employed advanced terrace agriculture with irrigation systems that allowed population densities up to 500 people per square mile. (source - encyclopedia Britannica). That's vastly more than your obviously uninformed guess of max 10-20 people per square mile. Please update your world view. Thank you. 

Interesting viewpoint, i find it ironic one would criticize a country that has achieved world dominance both financially and militarily in just 200 yrs....One could easily say it is time for country's of world to get off the US coat tails....We need to stretch a smidge and reassess our generosity a smidge..

Now that was a mouthful yet i do see that event on the horizon...there is storm blowing in.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Ahh yes Pierre Delecto what a prince of a guy....made his fame and fortune cutting up companys and selling them off to corp's. Actually Pierre is a founding father of modern corporate culture..At least he is growing a appendage these days and speaking in first person...

His Pierre Delecto account was really dumb. However, he was the only Republican to vote to impeach which earns him a little credit. The GOP is so damaged now Romney should turn in his club card and declare himself Unaffiliated like the rest of the ex-Republicans. 

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.