I'm a huge fan of Kempf's work. I've learned a great deal listening to his wonderful, far-reaching interviews. I was interested to hear more about his take on structural reform, especially in regard to how his perspective might differ from the author's. He briefly presents his deregulatory position. I understand that he is advocating for---with Jeffersonian-Yeoman vision---increased market access for small and mid-size producers, but I have to wonder: How would Kempf approach playing on the same field as some of the characters outlined in The Slaughter Barons chapter of Frerick's book? It strikes me that elements of the laissez-faire, deregulatory approach he suggests (coupled with the capture of what regulation remains) are indeed what enabled the non-competitive behavior and aggressive consolidation that Frerick has so thoroughly documented.
The corporate coup de'tat happened years ago. Everyone is running to catch up. They have already created a new playbook, which will block all the things that we did in the past. I have a solution, though I have never talked to anyone about it.
Good interview as always. Thank you both. Agree on breaking up monopolies and rolling back regulations that limit small farmer competitiveness in the marketplace. That said, Im 100% skeptical that our current and future politicians can muster the will to make it happen. Until Jesus returns, the love of money will rule the day. After He returns, it wont matter.
What is really disgusting is that those predatory business tactics take advantage of people's good traits and make them vulnerabilities, which creates a state of fear. Education is key so that people can exercise their free choice, which might lead to free will on the collective level. Cargill is selling weapons to both sides. They're also into pharmaceuticals, right? To zoom out on this picture, consider that grass family products aren't fully digestible when a lot of it is eaten, and the residue affects various organs differently, while the actual "tasty" part (what is put on or in that tasteless muck, the oily salty sugary) is often harmful. Neurotransmitter affects are not like constipation, anaerobic bacteria where they shouldn't be might influence mood where a stuffed nose might affect cognition. The masking of understanding of very simple things like the feeling of hunger is not a need for nutrition, so when a person eats it's to stop that feeling, which I understand as the natural expression of a healing modality. The overwhelming emphasis on nutrition which ignores the engineering and materials science, so the placing of dietician proposer first and the mechanic in the middle fixing stuff, while the pathologist at the end who never quite aligns with the dietician who is mostly concerned with nutrition. This is everyone, it's not about obesity. Everybody's insides are coated with the muck and it's very hard to remove, which is the deal each person makes when they eat it. Like in a court of law, not knowing is not a defense. Incidentally, this realization could be women's finest hour since they are mostly in charge there. As always, keeping the culture and ridding of harmful elements will always have opponents, but there's precedent in tobacco and alcohol awareness. The guest is both brave and intelligent, thanks.
I'd probably answer your question with "what would it cost, where?". Not digging on you in any way, but I noticed an assumption of the big business system in your question: that it would be a commodity price stretched over an aggregator's big market. I reckon that if we broke up these huge abusive businesses and replaced them with more responsive, smaller, and more direct relationships between consumers and producers, the price and availability of a given product would also be more reflective of local supply and demand dynamics. Seasonality, geography, cultural dispositions, the quality of production years, etc. We'd have more sincerely functional markets. Overall, I'd guess that in most places, though, it would be lower without corporate middlemen, since the share they take is fundamentally geared to stress-test both producer and consumer. Put another way, as much as they possibly could.
I always was more. But the quality and nutritional value is there. My point was always about spending more on food, and less on healthcare. Over 23 yrs, we have become more stable and efficient, as well as more profitable. We went from being 2.5 times the prices at the grocery store, to about the same price.
I'm a huge fan of Kempf's work. I've learned a great deal listening to his wonderful, far-reaching interviews. I was interested to hear more about his take on structural reform, especially in regard to how his perspective might differ from the author's. He briefly presents his deregulatory position. I understand that he is advocating for---with Jeffersonian-Yeoman vision---increased market access for small and mid-size producers, but I have to wonder: How would Kempf approach playing on the same field as some of the characters outlined in The Slaughter Barons chapter of Frerick's book? It strikes me that elements of the laissez-faire, deregulatory approach he suggests (coupled with the capture of what regulation remains) are indeed what enabled the non-competitive behavior and aggressive consolidation that Frerick has so thoroughly documented.
Very few things we can agree on as people but I think food is the vessel for us to come together and I love these conversations!
The corporate coup de'tat happened years ago. Everyone is running to catch up. They have already created a new playbook, which will block all the things that we did in the past. I have a solution, though I have never talked to anyone about it.
Good interview as always. Thank you both. Agree on breaking up monopolies and rolling back regulations that limit small farmer competitiveness in the marketplace. That said, Im 100% skeptical that our current and future politicians can muster the will to make it happen. Until Jesus returns, the love of money will rule the day. After He returns, it wont matter.
What is really disgusting is that those predatory business tactics take advantage of people's good traits and make them vulnerabilities, which creates a state of fear. Education is key so that people can exercise their free choice, which might lead to free will on the collective level. Cargill is selling weapons to both sides. They're also into pharmaceuticals, right? To zoom out on this picture, consider that grass family products aren't fully digestible when a lot of it is eaten, and the residue affects various organs differently, while the actual "tasty" part (what is put on or in that tasteless muck, the oily salty sugary) is often harmful. Neurotransmitter affects are not like constipation, anaerobic bacteria where they shouldn't be might influence mood where a stuffed nose might affect cognition. The masking of understanding of very simple things like the feeling of hunger is not a need for nutrition, so when a person eats it's to stop that feeling, which I understand as the natural expression of a healing modality. The overwhelming emphasis on nutrition which ignores the engineering and materials science, so the placing of dietician proposer first and the mechanic in the middle fixing stuff, while the pathologist at the end who never quite aligns with the dietician who is mostly concerned with nutrition. This is everyone, it's not about obesity. Everybody's insides are coated with the muck and it's very hard to remove, which is the deal each person makes when they eat it. Like in a court of law, not knowing is not a defense. Incidentally, this realization could be women's finest hour since they are mostly in charge there. As always, keeping the culture and ridding of harmful elements will always have opponents, but there's precedent in tobacco and alcohol awareness. The guest is both brave and intelligent, thanks.
Fun thing trying to talk about monopolies and regulatory capture. Facebook removed this video from my timeline within minutes after sharing it
Facebook removed this video from my page within minutes of sharing it...
Das swine! The irony of the largest political donor in Iowa as a hog farmer was not lost on me 😂 What next? Snake farmers?
If you got rid of all the monopoly meat companies, and sold directly to the consumer, what would a pound of ground beef cost?
Most likely the same or less for better quality. The farmer and the local butcher will also make more.
@@caseymac2287
Are you in the business?
I'd probably answer your question with "what would it cost, where?". Not digging on you in any way, but I noticed an assumption of the big business system in your question: that it would be a commodity price stretched over an aggregator's big market.
I reckon that if we broke up these huge abusive businesses and replaced them with more responsive, smaller, and more direct relationships between consumers and producers, the price and availability of a given product would also be more reflective of local supply and demand dynamics. Seasonality, geography, cultural dispositions, the quality of production years, etc. We'd have more sincerely functional markets. Overall, I'd guess that in most places, though, it would be lower without corporate middlemen, since the share they take is fundamentally geared to stress-test both producer and consumer. Put another way, as much as they possibly could.
I always was more. But the quality and nutritional value is there. My point was always about spending more on food, and less on healthcare.
Over 23 yrs, we have become more stable and efficient, as well as more profitable. We went from being 2.5 times the prices at the grocery store, to about the same price.
Sorry wrong video.