|
Anidav posted:http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/fed...022-gs8hk5.html Australia: Total area - 769 Million Hectare Total Area under agriculture - 409 Million Hectare  "soars above 3 Million Hectare" To less than 1%Got any good chain emails lately?
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:03 |
|
|
We're a nation of fatties anyway, we should be exporting more food.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
The proportion of land area owned tells you very little about what's going on anyway. There are big differences in the productivity and value of different types of land.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Turnbull: "I think the Human Rights Commission has done a great deal of harm to its credibility." This is their new argument against 18c. That would be the HRC that Tim Wilson MP was pulling 300k a year down for doing zip. The loving cheek of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Legalise murder now
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Australian Press Council on the second cartoon referred to them: 'Bill Leak did nothing wrong'
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:Some loving perspective please: Well yeah, I still don't like Australia being a firesale country, it doesn't appear to have any long term benefits. With dumbasses like Barnaby Joyce in there's no real resistance to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Don't British investors own like 10% of our agricultural land?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
We trust the British though. Separately, there's an argument to be made that we shouldn't allow foreign ownership from countries that don't also allow foreign ownership. AFAIK Australians can't buy land in China. quote:http://en.people.cn/n3/2016/1104/c90000-9137428.html Be sure to read the comments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
I don't know if it's a good idea to potentially start a trade war with our largest trading partner. Especially with other diplomatic problems on the horizon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
I doubt it would start a trade war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
I don't trust the British either, agriculture should be nationalized and minimized to domestic demand and possibly capped to reduce methane emissions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
Has there ever been a successful example of nationalised agriculture?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
China and the soviet union.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Has there ever been a successful example of nationalised agriculture? The Soviets produced a fuckload of grain and non-consumer perishable goods.The problem is at the time, Private farming took roughly 40% of all agricultural labor to produce only 26% of all output by value. Due to the food taxes, the food from private farms was extremely expensive and caused famine. I don't think the Soviets tried it with meats and dairy. The famines were mostly private farms that refused to be integrated into collectivism and therefore the goods got taxed to high heaven.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
It seems like the best thing you can say about either of those countries attempts to collectivise agriculture is that at least not everyone died.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
It's not as if they were the first famines those countries ever faced, and they were the last.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Attributing that to collectivisation is a pretty long bow. It seems more likely that they were the last because of technological advancements in agriculture that made farming more efficient and more resilient to environmental vagaries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Attributing that to collectivisation is a pretty long bow. It seems more likely that they were the last because of technological advancements in agriculture that made farming more efficient and more resilient to environmental vagaries. Technologies they might not have had access to without an intense focus on industrialisation and centralisation by communist authorities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Most of the other non-communist countries seemed to get them? The focus on industrialisation would have helped, but that could have happened with or without collectivisation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Most of the other non-communist countries seemed to get them? The focus on industrialisation would have helped, but that could have happened with or without collectivisation. A lot of non-communist countries also faced famine in that time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
nobody is coming and taking the land away jfc
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
That's not really an argument for the success of collectivisation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
It's irrelevant to Australia's situation regardless. The main benefit of collectivisation was consolidating land into larger plots that were more efficient. e:And it is an argument to its success if you're saying that technology was the primary reason further famines didn't occur in communist countries, non-communists had access to the same or better technology, and yet famines occurred and continue to occur in non-communist countries. WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Nov 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:It's irrelevant to Australia's situation regardless. The main benefit of collectivisation was consolidating land into larger plots that were more efficient. Also the liquidation of the kulaks
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
"Pauline Hanson 'throws Rod Culleton under a bus'" lmao .
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:It's irrelevant to Australia's situation regardless. The main benefit of collectivisation was consolidating land into larger plots that were more efficient. Recent famines have either been the result of war or happened in developing countries that didn't have access to those technologies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
There is no justification for a government releasing land under freehold arrangements.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Recent famines have either been the result of war or happened in developing countries that didn't have access to those technologies. What were China and Russia if not war-torn developing countries?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Kafka Syrup posted:That Malcolm Roberts presser was a WILD RIDE. Myyyyy goodness. Yeah,, from what I picked up, that was an unstable performance. Flanked by two guys from Ideological Casting Central, Roberts went on a tirade against the forces of CSIRO evil for 20 minutes, chucked a hissy when the reporters wanted to ask questions on a less insane subject and did an Abbott stage He's going to be a lonely guy in Canberra.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
This is really getting off topic. China and the Soviet Union were developing countries, but the claim was that collectivisation was a success. Unless I'm misinterpreting the argument that would mean that fewer people died or went hungry under collectivisation than would have without it. Everything I've read on the topic seems to implicate collectivisation as one of the main reasons for the famines that occured in China and Russia, although if there's something out there that refutes that I'd be interested to to see it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:Yeah,, from what I picked up, that was an unstable performance. Flanked by two guys from Ideological Casting Central, Roberts went on a tirade against the forces of CSIRO evil for 20 minutes, chucked a hissy when the reporters wanted to ask questions on a less insane subject and did an Abbott stage Is he the guy with the insane stare?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
open24hours posted:This is really getting off topic. China and the Soviet Union were developing countries, but the claim was that collectivisation was a success. Unless I'm misinterpreting the argument that would mean that fewer people died or went hungry under collectivisation than would have without it. Everything I've read on the topic seems to implicate collectivisation as one of the main reasons for the famines that occured in China and Russia, although if there's something out there that refutes that I'd be interested to to see it. I'd lower that bar a bit, collectivisation was a success in that it led those countries who adopted it to develop a modern mechanised agricultural sector. The problems it faced with famine were either due to intentional genocides, or other economic mismanagement such as using Chinese peasants for iron and steel production.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
He's been out in the delta too long, man. He's seen some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Starshark posted:Is he the guy with the insane stare? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Fremen on the land.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
the process of collectivisation was an utter mess and exacerbated famine in russia in the 20s, not alleviated it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:I'd lower that bar a bit, collectivisation was a success in that it led those countries who adopted it to develop a modern mechanised agricultural sector. The problems it faced with famine were either due to intentional genocides, or other economic mismanagement such as using Chinese peasants for iron and steel production. It seems like those gains could have been achieved without collectivisation though, and were incidental to the process.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
open24hours posted:It seems like those gains could have been achieved without collectivisation though, and were incidental to the process. Maybe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:03 |
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:I'd lower that bar a bit, collectivisation was a success in that it led those countries who adopted it to develop a modern mechanised agricultural sector. The problems it faced with famine were either due to intentional genocides, or other economic mismanagement such as using Chinese peasants for iron and steel production.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 05:28
|
|
