|
On August 30 2013 02:27 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 02:23 Olferen wrote:On August 30 2013 02:21 GreenGringo wrote:On August 30 2013 02:17 Olferen wrote:On August 30 2013 02:13 GreenGringo wrote:On August 30 2013 02:11 Olferen wrote:On August 28 2013 11:29 Verator wrote:
In regards to politicians, higher pay and renumeration wouldn't necessarily attract great leaders. It would attract leaders who create more money for themselves. Which is what is largely happening now, with politicians able to receive incredible benefits for being in office.
You'd have to tie politician reward in many categories to the country as a whole or the average citizen, their healthcare is that of the average citizen, their salary that of the average, etc.
Its the same problem with many CEOs trying to maximize short term gain, rather than long term stability. What evidence do you have for that? None? So you're implying that people are innately greedy? Where's your reputable paper on that? Nowhere? No evidence is needed to assert a well-known and common sense fact such as that lots of people are innately greedy. You'd actually need evidence to negate that claim. Common sense? Okay, enlighten me on how it's common sense that people are innately greedy. I'd like to know what evidence there is for this. A certain standard tends to be assumed on any forum on which nerds preponderate. If you're really so ignorant about the world you live in, it's time to stop posting on forums and read a book. Hahaha, you're asserting something without any evidence, YOU need to read a book, and YOU need to learn that assuming people are innately negative will get you nowhere. I could quite easily give evidence that lots of people are innately greedy. I'm just making a stand on a point of principle. In a thread in which something of substance is being discussed, you shouldn't countenance the morons.
Go for it, give me evidence.
Blanket statements have no place on this planet.
Also regarding human nature, the question of that is thousands of years old, you do not have the answers or knowledge to make statements regarding the whole of humanity.
|
On August 30 2013 02:09 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 01:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Well, the big difference between Russia and the Soviet's would be the more industrialized, densely populated western areas, yes? And why is Russia's current population falling if it has all that empty land and wonderful resources? There's just so many more important variables! This is like arguing with the Tea Party or something. The reason Siberia is so sparsely populated is because it's a frozen barren wasteland and its winters are deadly. In terms of arable land, the United States has more. It's not because people randomly decided not to make use of perfectly good land.
Who cares about arable land? Agriculture is, what, 2% of GDP?
Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 09:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Well Africa is one of the largest continents and very resource rich. Super long term, the potential there is huge. But for the past thousands of years that hasn't meant squat. Maybe because culturally and technologically they were hundreds if not thousands of years behind? Just a thought.
You think I disagree with that?
Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 09:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Sure, Singapore will likely never be a world superpower. But on a per capita basis it's future is looking much better than the future of the average Russian. So a major port is more affluent on a per capita basis than the whole of Russia. Impressive finding that you've made there.
Over the past 100 years Singapore and Russia have swapped places in terms of per capita income a number of times. Play around on gapminder.org to see for yourself.
Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 09:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
So why does anyone live in Manhattan if you can just get a nicer, bigger, cheaper place in Connecticut? There's just much more to the story than just population density and overcrowding... Following your logic: why doesn't everyone just move to Manhattan? Why doesn't everyone just live on top of one another if it's a magic formula for wealth creation? You see how easy it is to come up with such strawmen? You have to be really dyed in the wool to believe, as you seem to do, that massive arable land in the New World didn't really confer any advantages and maybe instead of settling it the same wealth would have been created purely by people piling up on top of one another in cities like Singapore.
Everyone doesn't move to Manhattan because the gains from moving there are limited. I'm not making an argument that clustering is a limitless benefit. I'm making an argument that it exists.
Do we live in the 1700's still? Agricultural land used to be really valuable. Not so much now.
|
On August 30 2013 02:32 Olferen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 02:27 GreenGringo wrote:On August 30 2013 02:23 Olferen wrote:On August 30 2013 02:21 GreenGringo wrote:On August 30 2013 02:17 Olferen wrote:On August 30 2013 02:13 GreenGringo wrote:On August 30 2013 02:11 Olferen wrote:On August 28 2013 11:29 Verator wrote:
In regards to politicians, higher pay and renumeration wouldn't necessarily attract great leaders. It would attract leaders who create more money for themselves. Which is what is largely happening now, with politicians able to receive incredible benefits for being in office.
You'd have to tie politician reward in many categories to the country as a whole or the average citizen, their healthcare is that of the average citizen, their salary that of the average, etc.
Its the same problem with many CEOs trying to maximize short term gain, rather than long term stability. What evidence do you have for that? None? So you're implying that people are innately greedy? Where's your reputable paper on that? Nowhere? No evidence is needed to assert a well-known and common sense fact such as that lots of people are innately greedy. You'd actually need evidence to negate that claim. Common sense? Okay, enlighten me on how it's common sense that people are innately greedy. I'd like to know what evidence there is for this. A certain standard tends to be assumed on any forum on which nerds preponderate. If you're really so ignorant about the world you live in, it's time to stop posting on forums and read a book. Hahaha, you're asserting something without any evidence, YOU need to read a book, and YOU need to learn that assuming people are innately negative will get you nowhere. I could quite easily give evidence that lots of people are innately greedy. I'm just making a stand on a point of principle. In a thread in which something of substance is being discussed, you shouldn't countenance the morons. Go for it, give me evidence. Blanket statements have no place on this planet. Also regarding human nature, the question of that is thousands of years old, you do not have the answers or knowledge to make statements regarding the whole of humanity. That last point is actually something not completely trivial, at least worth dignifying.
And the correct answer is that actually all the major religions have assumed that the natural state of mankind is one of "living in sin". That is why the various prohibitions were felt necessary. You would hardly have needed Jesus Christ if the Golden Rule were innate in human beings.
Assuming you're serious, you can check out Napoleon Chagnon's stories from living with the Yanomami (the last stone age people) if you want an idea of what it's like in a society that's as close to the state of nature as any that we know. People in one village thought they had a right to kidnap and rape women in a neighbouring village. The only way anthropologists could ensure their own personal safety was to bribe them with lots of gifts and promise more. They were altruistic toward close kin, but that's about it.
|
So in the first graph, I like how Siberia and Mongolia are considered "Eastern Europe" hahaha
+ Show Spoiler +Don't forget that Central Europe Russia and Ural Mtns either
Maybe I'm ignorant of some new map convention though
|
On August 30 2013 02:49 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 02:32 Olferen wrote:On August 30 2013 02:27 GreenGringo wrote:On August 30 2013 02:23 Olferen wrote:On August 30 2013 02:21 GreenGringo wrote:On August 30 2013 02:17 Olferen wrote:On August 30 2013 02:13 GreenGringo wrote:On August 30 2013 02:11 Olferen wrote:On August 28 2013 11:29 Verator wrote:
In regards to politicians, higher pay and renumeration wouldn't necessarily attract great leaders. It would attract leaders who create more money for themselves. Which is what is largely happening now, with politicians able to receive incredible benefits for being in office.
You'd have to tie politician reward in many categories to the country as a whole or the average citizen, their healthcare is that of the average citizen, their salary that of the average, etc.
Its the same problem with many CEOs trying to maximize short term gain, rather than long term stability. What evidence do you have for that? None? So you're implying that people are innately greedy? Where's your reputable paper on that? Nowhere? No evidence is needed to assert a well-known and common sense fact such as that lots of people are innately greedy. You'd actually need evidence to negate that claim. Common sense? Okay, enlighten me on how it's common sense that people are innately greedy. I'd like to know what evidence there is for this. A certain standard tends to be assumed on any forum on which nerds preponderate. If you're really so ignorant about the world you live in, it's time to stop posting on forums and read a book. Hahaha, you're asserting something without any evidence, YOU need to read a book, and YOU need to learn that assuming people are innately negative will get you nowhere. I could quite easily give evidence that lots of people are innately greedy. I'm just making a stand on a point of principle. In a thread in which something of substance is being discussed, you shouldn't countenance the morons. Go for it, give me evidence. Blanket statements have no place on this planet. Also regarding human nature, the question of that is thousands of years old, you do not have the answers or knowledge to make statements regarding the whole of humanity. That last point is actually something not completely trivial, at least worth dignifying. And the correct answer is that actually all the major religions have assumed that the natural state of mankind is one of "living in sin". That is why the various prohibitions were felt necessary. You would hardly have needed Jesus Christ if the Golden Rule were innate in human beings. Assuming you're serious, you can check out Napoleon Chagnon's stories from living with the Yanomami (the last stone age people) if you want an idea of what it's like in a society that's as close to the state of nature as any that we know. People in one village thought they had a right to kidnap and rape women in a neighbouring village. The only way anthropologists could ensure their own personal safety was to bribe them with lots of gifts and promise more. They were altruistic toward close kin, but that's about it.
You defeated yourself right there, if they were innately greedy then their regard for each other would not be there. Also, a single tribe of 20,000 people do not define the entirety of humanity, sort of like a company's leader does not define the entirety of the company. Plus the tribe's believing they had a right to rape women has nothing to do with greed.
Using religion's interpretation of anything is hardly valid, considering greco-roman gods were not there to enforce a "golden rule," same goes for the Confucius and Buddhist teachers, it wasn't prohibitions, rather is was encouragement to be good, which does not imply that people are innately hostile or good.
|
On August 30 2013 02:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote:So in the first graph, I like how Siberia and Mongolia are considered "Eastern Europe" hahaha + Show Spoiler +Don't forget that Central Europe Russia and Ural Mtns either Maybe I'm ignorant of some new map convention though
we already had this the last page.
my explanation was that they just counted russia to eastern europe since most of its population is there. together with the fact that some scaling might have shifted the markings. Is this some fundamental criticism?
|
On August 30 2013 03:14 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 02:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote:So in the first graph, I like how Siberia and Mongolia are considered "Eastern Europe" hahaha + Show Spoiler +Don't forget that Central Europe Russia and Ural Mtns either Maybe I'm ignorant of some new map convention though we already had this the last page. my explanation was that they just counted russia to eastern europe since most of its population is there. together with the fact that some scaling might have shifted the markings. Is this some fundamental criticism?
They didn't count Russia into Eastern Europe. They split the most populous half of Russia into Central Europe (everything west of the Ural Mtns).
Then they threw Siberia/Mongolia into "Eastern Europe", which is what you're talking about.
No, it's not a fundamental criticism, it's just a funny geographical error. Well, at least I found it funny.
|
Skipping to the main thrust and cutting all the irrelevant filler, we have:
On August 30 2013 02:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Do we live in the 1700's still? Agricultural land used to be really valuable. Not so much now. Agriculture contributes 12% of Australia's GDP and isn't to be scoffed at. However, you raise an important point. My response would be that, apart from agriculture, large land area confers the following advantages:
(1) Much easier planning and macromanagement. Nobody wants to constantly have to demolish buildings from the 18th century. Nobody -- with the exception of the owners -- wants expensive land where everywhere is built.
(2) Much cheaper cost of living in loosely regulated housing markets. Rent and mortgage is a hole in the consumer's pocket, and a black hole for the national economy.
(3) Mineral wealth and resources. (About 50% of Australia's exports are mineral and fuel.)
(4) Impetus. How do you pay for getting millions of people together in a city? It's not cheap and often happens on the back of a gold rush or a port or coal mining. Then when you have a city, the inhabitants can move to other occupations before the gold rush (or longshoreman industry or whatever) comes to an end, and you'll still retain the "bond energy" that was originally bought from land in an opportune spot.
(5) Living conditions and psychology. Very difficult to analyze quantitatively (though there is some empirical evidence), but people are happier if they're less cramped and they enjoy more space and liberty. A happy population is a successful population.
As for Russia, the answer there is that nobody wants to live in Siberia because it's mostly barren and the winters are deadly. But the land still is useful and that's why experts see Russia as a potential superpower.
|
Off course large land areas are only an advantage.How can this even be a point of discussion?
If all things are equall you can better have land then not have it, it only give your more options/resources.
It can never ever be a negative factor, not even if its favourable to clump up. Even when you have a large amount of land at your disposal, you can still clump up and decide to not use all of the land. Like the usa in the NY and LA areas for example.
The world global gdp (the Gwp) is 71.000 billion dollars, wich is 41.000 billion measured in dollars of 1990.
Apearantly the wgp rose with less then 10% from 2000-2012 (measured in 1990 dollars) it was 40 trillion in 2000 and now its at 44 trillion. This is a verry poor performance for the last decade when compared to the decades before. Not sure how this is possible with all emerging economys growing so much in recent years:s. Maybe the numbers are a bit off.
When christ was born the Wgp was 18 billion dollars, and it was 1 billion dollars in the time the pyramids where build.
Kudos to the person who made all these, no doubt verry reliable, estimates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product
|
On August 30 2013 04:14 Rassy wrote:
Off course large land areas are only an advantage.How can this even be a point of discussion? Libertarians don't like to admit it because then it follows that America's prosperity came from other things besides sound economic policy. And then they have to question their entire free market dogma.
|
On August 30 2013 03:04 Olferen wrote:
You defeated yourself right there, if they were innately greedy then their regard for each other would not be there. Also, a single tribe of 20,000 people do not define the entirety of humanity, sort of like a company's leader does not define the entirety of the company. Plus the tribe's believing they had a right to rape women has nothing to do with greed. Virtually every animal in the animal kingdom displays altruism toward close kin, so it's hardly impressive. All the other studies on stone age tribes, like those in New Guinea, are consistent with the Yanomami. They kidnapped and raped women in neighbouring villages. Archaeological evidence confirms that rates of violence were at their highest in pre-state tribes.
That's all I'm going to say to you, because you're clearly just some ignorant child, or you have the understanding of a child.
|
On August 30 2013 04:14 Rassy wrote:
Off course large land areas are only an advantage.How can this even be a point of discussion?
If all things are equall you can better have land then not have it, it only give your more options/resources.
It can never ever be a negative factor, not even if its favourable to clump up. Even when you have a large amount of land at your disposal, you can still clump up and decide to not use all of the land. Like the usa in the NY and LA areas for example.
It is easier to develop infrastructure in a smaller area. Businesses are much happier when there are more people in a smaller geographical area. Economies of scale come into play in all sorts of ways. People cannot be persuaded to clump up just because it would be convenient.
Having little available land can also be a stimulus for the competitiveness of a nation. The Netherlands has a very productive and competitive agricultural sector precisely because there is relatively little arable land, which forced the sector to innovate and find high-tech solutions, where other nations would just use more land.
It is not at all clear cut.
|
On August 30 2013 03:34 GreenGringo wrote:Skipping to the main thrust and cutting all the irrelevant filler, we have: Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 02:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Do we live in the 1700's still? Agricultural land used to be really valuable. Not so much now. Agriculture contributes 12% of Australia's GDP and isn't to be scoffed at. However, you raise an important point. My response would be that, apart from agriculture, large land area confers the following advantages: (1) Much easier planning and macromanagement. Nobody wants to constantly have to demolish buildings from the 18th century. Nobody -- with the exception of the owners -- wants expensive land where everywhere is built. (2) Much cheaper cost of living in loosely regulated housing markets. Rent and mortgage is a hole in the consumer's pocket, and a black hole for the national economy. (3) Mineral wealth and resources. (About 50% of Australia's exports are mineral and fuel.) (4) Impetus. How do you pay for getting millions of people together in a city? It's not cheap and often happens on the back of a gold rush or a port or coal mining. Then when you have a city, the inhabitants can move to other occupations before the gold rush (or longshoreman industry or whatever) comes to an end, and you'll still retain the "bond energy" that was originally bought from land in an opportune spot. (5) Living conditions and psychology. Very difficult to analyze quantitatively (though there is some empirical evidence), but people are happier if they're less cramped and they enjoy more space and liberty. A happy population is a successful population. As for Russia, the answer there is that nobody wants to live in Siberia because it's mostly barren and the winters are deadly. But the land still is useful and that's why experts see Russia as a potential superpower.
Wikipedia lists agriculture as ~4% of Australia's economy.
1) Density can be harder to manage, but you have to build fewer bits of infrastructure in a given area. There's a tradeoff there.
2) Density is a small factor in cost of living. Cities are expensive in terms of land, but cheap in terms of energy (ex. less distance to travel). The expense of land is more due to cities being more productive. If they weren't more productive, people would be less inclined to live there. Urbanization is, in general, a positive to economic growth.
3) Sure, but don't over state the value of that. Ex. Australia isn't the wealthiest place on Earth, and more of its wealth comes from outside the agriculture and mining sectors.
4) The impetus is that cities are more productive and so people move to them to increase their real incomes (see the excerpt from The Economist I posted earlier as to why cities are more productive).
5) People also like being near other people. People also like the amenities and work opportunities that cities provide.
|
On August 30 2013 04:14 Rassy wrote:Off course large land areas are only an advantage.How can this even be a point of discussion? If all things are equall you can better have land then not have it, it only give your more options/resources. It can never ever be a negative factor, not even if its favourable to clump up. Even when you have a large amount of land at your disposal, you can still clump up and decide to not use all of the land. Like the usa in the NY and LA areas for example. The world global gdp (the Gwp) is 71.000 billion dollars, wich is 41.000 billion measured in dollars of 1990. Apearantly the wgp rose with less then 10% from 2000-2012 (measured in 1990 dollars) it was 40 trillion in 2000 and now its at 44 trillion. This is a verry poor performance for the last decade when compared to the decades before. Not sure how this is possible with all emerging economys growing so much in recent years:s. Maybe the numbers are a bit off. When christ was born the Wgp was 18 billion dollars, and it was 1 billion dollars in the time the pyramids where build. Kudos to the person who made all these, no doubt verry reliable, estimates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product
No one is arguing that land has no value. The discussion is over how important volume of land is to economic success.
I'm not sure your global GDP numbers are right. I'm looking at a growth from $40T to $53T in real 2005 $ terms.
|
On August 30 2013 05:31 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 04:14 Rassy wrote:
Off course large land areas are only an advantage.How can this even be a point of discussion?
If all things are equall you can better have land then not have it, it only give your more options/resources.
It can never ever be a negative factor, not even if its favourable to clump up. Even when you have a large amount of land at your disposal, you can still clump up and decide to not use all of the land. Like the usa in the NY and LA areas for example.
It is easier to develop infrastructure in a smaller area. Businesses are much happier when there are more people in a smaller geographical area. Economies of scale come into play in all sorts of ways. People cannot be persuaded to clump up just because it would be convenient. Having little available land can also be a stimulus for the competitiveness of a nation. The Netherlands has a very productive and competitive agricultural sector precisely because there is relatively little arable land, which forced the sector to innovate and find high-tech solutions, where other nations would just use more land. It is not at all clear cut.
Hmm i get what you are saying and i think you are partially right,shortages can fuel inovation and you can not persuede everyone to clump up for the convenience of smaller infrastructure needed.It is indeed not so clear cut though i do still think then in general "more" of a usefull item is always better.
The longer i keep looking at the list of world gdp (wich was linked in my previous post) the less i understand about it.
From 1900 till 2000 the wgp rose with about 50% every 10 year (and even with nearly 100% in the years 1960-1970)
Yet in the final 12 years the wgp rose only with 10%. It realy sticks out and i do not understand why it rose only so little.
Sure we had the financial crisis but there have been severe crisis in nearly every decade and in the papers i read all this good news about former poor countrys who experience huge economic growth recently (like brazil and china)
How can the wgp only have risen with 10% in the past 12 years where it used to be an average of at least 50% per decade over the past centurys? Am i reading the numbers wrong?
Am starting to think i am because such a small growth realy makes little sense to me, but i can not see where i read the numbers wrong.
If the numbers apear to be right, then the conclusion should be that the process of globalisation is not good for the productivity of the world as a whole somehow?
well it clearly states:
Year
Nominal GWP (billions)
(figures are in 1990 international dollars, unless otherwise indicated
Then it says 71t for 2012 and (44t in 1990 dollars)
Am probably missing something obvious but i cant see what and its annoying me verry much.
I do think land has a huge value btw,
one can point at the netherlands and say how well we do with so little land, but we are only able to do so well because other countrys do have alot of land to produce things we can import.We still depend on farm land even though it is other peoples farmland in this case.
Farmland is verry undervalued atm and warren buffet agrees
|
On August 30 2013 05:49 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 05:31 Crushinator wrote:On August 30 2013 04:14 Rassy wrote:
Off course large land areas are only an advantage.How can this even be a point of discussion?
If all things are equall you can better have land then not have it, it only give your more options/resources.
It can never ever be a negative factor, not even if its favourable to clump up. Even when you have a large amount of land at your disposal, you can still clump up and decide to not use all of the land. Like the usa in the NY and LA areas for example.
It is easier to develop infrastructure in a smaller area. Businesses are much happier when there are more people in a smaller geographical area. Economies of scale come into play in all sorts of ways. People cannot be persuaded to clump up just because it would be convenient. Having little available land can also be a stimulus for the competitiveness of a nation. The Netherlands has a very productive and competitive agricultural sector precisely because there is relatively little arable land, which forced the sector to innovate and find high-tech solutions, where other nations would just use more land. It is not at all clear cut. Hmm i get what you are saying and i think you are partially right,shortages can fuel inovation and you can not persuede everyone to clump up for the convenience of smaller infrastructure needed.It is indeed not so clear cut though i do still think then in general "more" of a usefull item is always better. The longer i keep looking at the list of world gdp (wich was linked in my previous post) the less i understand about it. From 1900 till 2000 the wgp rose with about 50% every 10 year (and even with nearly 100% in the years 1960-1970) Yet in the final 12 years the wgp rose only with 10%. It realy sticks out and i do not understand why it rose only so little. Sure we had the financial crisis but there have been severe crisis in nearly every decade and in the papers i read all this good news about former poor countrys who experience huge economic growth recently (like brazil and china) How can the wgp only have risen with 10% in the past 12 years where it used to be an average of at least 50% per decade over the past centurys? Am i reading the numbers wrong? Am starting to think i am because such a small growth realy makes little sense to me, but i can not see where i read the numbers wrong. If the numbers apear to be right, then the conclusion should be that the process of globalisation is not good for the productivity of the world as a whole somehow? well it clearly states: Year Nominal GWP (billions) (figures are in 1990 international dollars, unless otherwise indicated Then it says 71t for 2012 and (44t in 1990 dollars)
The number for 2012 has a different source, this is most likely where the problem must be sought. 10% growth over 12 years is not in line with the yearly growth rates that are shown on the same page.
|
On August 30 2013 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wikipedia lists agriculture as ~4% of Australia's economy. No, it's 12% when you account for processing. Even Wikipedia says that.
I think all of my points were valid and I'm sorry that you're trying to hold on to your religion that having land is bad or neutral and vast quantities of new land wasn't a factor driving the New World's success, and the American Dream could be realized anywhere if only they cut taxes on the rich so the wealth can trickle down. Because you heard it on Glenn Beck, etc.
|
On August 30 2013 05:31 Crushinator wrote:
Having little available land can also be a stimulus for the competitiveness of a nation. The Netherlands has a very productive and competitive agricultural sector precisely because there is relatively little arable land, which forced the sector to innovate and find high-tech solutions, where other nations would just use more land.
It is not at all clear cut. Lol, nice try.
Maybe the Netherlands got lucky, but your general point is like saying chopping off your arm might be a good idea because having only one arm will force you to innovate and it's not at all "clear cut"...Oh, but wait, it was! Because now you've only got one arm! Ha-har!
(You'll grow a new one, don't worry. The market finds a way.)
|
|
|
On August 30 2013 05:55 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wikipedia lists agriculture as ~4% of Australia's economy. No, it's 12% when you account for processing. Even Wikipedia says that. I think all of my points were valid and I'm sorry that you're trying to hold on to your religion that having land is bad or neutral and vast quantities of new land wasn't a factor driving the New World's success, and the American Dream could be realized anywhere if only they cut taxes on the rich so the wealth can trickle down. Because you heard it on Glenn Beck, etc.
Processing isn't related to land. You can process food in a city. Same with distribution. Countries can grow zero food, yet reap all the economic activity related to processing and distributing food.
For clarification, my position is that land is good, but inconsequential compared to other factors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
