What's a Trillion? and do we have an Echo Forum?

[Elysia]

I tend to use spaces: 1 500
No confusion there.
There are so many things that needs to be standardized!

[cpjust]

I tend to use spaces: 1 500
No confusion there.
There are so many things that needs to be standardized!

Yeah, that's what my elementary school teachers tried to get us to do, but that just looks like 2 numbers: 1 & 500.

[Elysia]

If it's two numbers, they must be separated by "and", "&" or a comma ",". Otherwise it's a single number.

[VirtualAce]

Why are there two discussions going on here? Am I off topic? If so I apologize for the hijack. Hard to tell looking back through posts just exactly what we are talking about in this thread.

[SlyMaelstrom]

Why are there two discussions going on here? Am I off topic? If so I apologize for the hijack. Hard to tell looking back through posts just exactly what we are talking about in this thread.

Well, if you look at the original post and the first few replies, the discussion regarding how we write numbers and how we define a trillion is significantly more pertinent than the political discussion. I don't see anyone whining about hijacking, though. I think you should feel free to continue whatever discussion you wish.

[whiteflags]

Why are there two discussions going on here? Am I off topic? If so I apologize for the hijack. Hard to tell looking back through posts just exactly what we are talking about in this thread.

The US public debt is an example of very important trillions; I think it answers the original question

[novacain]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/d...ancial-pyramid


I still do not understand why governments are giving so much money to the people who lost it in the first place.

Especially after it gave them US$120 billion and they gave themselves US$20 billion in bonuses.

We basically can only do something about slave labor if the sweatshops come here or try to leave our borders because that's our jurisdiction.

People moved from the farms to the city because factory work was better paid.

The reason is produce prices are very low.

Produce prices are low because the US and Europe subsidize their farmers.

But reducing/removing farm subsidies would transfer the economic pain to the US and Europe (and so will not happen).

[abachler]

I still do not understand why governments are giving so much money to the people who lost it in the first place.

Because teh ........storm that is coming will end the careers of many politicians, and noone wants to be seen as the guy that did nothing...

Especially after it gave them US$120 billion and they gave themselves US$20 billion in bonuses.

yeah, noone saw that one coming 1000 miles away ...

People moved from the farms to the city because factory work was better paid.

Its more complex than that, the industrial revolution freed up a lot of labor that traditionally was used to work the farm, so rather than do nothing, many 3rd and 4th sons worked in the factories rather than work the farm, since their labor was no longer necessary on the farm.

Produce prices are low because the US and Europe subsidize their farmers.

as does every other country. Food production is a strategic necessity and is therefor exempt from international free trade law. BTW, The U.S. is not bound by international law on trade, we only go along with it for political expediency. Our constitution in fact forbids any such agreement, as it woudl fall under '... no laws respecting any person or group of people ...". So we cannot legally enter into any agreement that would give a foreign power any legal power of enforcement. This is one of the reasons we required a veto in the U.N., as membership without a veto would be unconstitutional.

But reducing/removing farm subsidies would transfer the economic pain to the US and Europe (and so will not happen).

Actually you have it backwards. If we stopped subsidizing our agriculture, it would reduce exports, not increase imports. We subsidize farms so that they can afford to sell their crops overseas in markets that otherwise coudl not afford to buy American crops. But yeah, Im all for reducing farm subsidies adn lettign the 3rd world starve itself back to a sustainable population.

[novacain]

Its more complex than that, the industrial revolution freed up a lot of labor that traditionally was used to work the farm, so rather than do nothing, many 3rd and 4th sons worked in the factories rather than work the farm, since their labor was no longer necessary on the farm.

In China there is a law on how many children you can have, 3-4 children is not allowed.

as does every other country.

No, not all countries. Only Europe and the US.

Food production is a strategic necessity and is therefor exempt from international free trade law. BTW, The U.S. is not bound by international law on trade, we only go along with it for political expediency. Our constitution in fact forbids any such agreement, as it woudl fall under '... no laws respecting any person or group of people ...". So we cannot legally enter into any agreement that would give a foreign power any legal power of enforcement. This is one of the reasons we required a veto in the U.N., as membership without a veto would be unconstitutional.

How about the WTO? Which is allowing Antigua to ignore US$21 mill of US copyrights for violating the FTA (not that the US accepts the umpires descision...)

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071221/110211.shtml

Actually you have it backwards. If we stopped subsidizing our agriculture, it would reduce exports, not increase imports.

Without subsidies your farmers would go broke, move to more viable crops or have to charge a realistic price (ie greater than cost of production).

This would raise prices as supply drops, which would make prices viable for farmers in the third world.

US imports would increase, if not in volume but at least in $ value.

We subsidize farms so that they can afford to sell their crops overseas in markets that otherwise coudl not afford to buy American crops. But yeah, Im all for reducing farm subsidies adn lettign the 3rd world starve itself back to a sustainable population.

By 'afford to buy American crops' you mean 'can buy American crops at below cost of production'. Which means other countries can not charge reasonable prices.

The result being lower prices, less/no profit for third world farmers.

This makes farming unsustainable in the third world.

This supplies third world manufacturing with cheap labour (as traditional farm work is unavailable).

Which makes US manufacturing too expensive.

As manufacturing (not services) generates a multiplier to emplyment, the US is having unemployment issues.

Look at India, too many service based industries and not enough manufacturing (compared to China). Result is massive unemployment. This has divided the population into a third world rural and first world urban.

[whiteflags]

People moved from the farms to the city because factory work was better paid.

I was not aware that my argument had anything to do with that, but you are preaching to the choir on the subsidy issue. I think. Your position is unclear to me.

Without subsidies your farmers would go broke, move to more viable crops or have to charge a realistic price (ie greater than cost of production).

For all your edict, the story is actually massively different for US agriculture. Our farming is among the most efficient in the world, but it appears to be shrinking anyway regardless of the subsidies. People have gotten tired of supporting big time farmers that gross millions when cheap food can now be imported: Price controls squeezed profitability of domestic agriculture on a long term scale, hampering farmers in making their own investments (source). These, which have been in place since the recovery period of the Great Depression, distorted the market value of crops to the point that we cannot compete.

But I love how "move to more viable crops" is written with negative connotation. To me that means "crop rotation" which subsidies have never encouraged in the slightest. Under such scenario, you could make the same money planting the same things consistently. Eventually that practice makes arable land unsuitable for farming.

[VirtualAce]

Without subsidies your farmers would go broke, move to more viable crops or have to charge a realistic price (ie greater than cost of production).

I'm not sure what more viable crops means. I come from the Midwest and have worked at a large company that is essentially a corn giant that literally feeds the world. Having been associated with both the farm side of crops and the after-farm or market side of them I know our system is extremely efficient as it is. There isn't one crop that is more viable than corn since it is in pretty much everything you eat from day to day. It's also used in some other applications that you might not think of. During my stint in the research lab at the company I was privy to projects that used corn in some fashion that had nothing to do with food. The most viable crop for the USA to grow is corn. The world's entire food system relies on corn in some manner.

What more viable crops do you suggest? How would you make the system more efficient? What do you currently know about the farms and/or the marketing of US crops? Farms are shrinking in the US because laws combined with low buying prices make it extremely expensive and difficult to make a profit. Average return on crops is around 3 to 4 percent with beans being a bit higher since bean prices are usually higher than corn. With ethanol becoming more popular it should drive corn price a bit higher. Nitrogen, herbicides, and pesticides are also extremely expensive. Equipment for farming is also not cheap. One combine is extremely expensive and can run as high as $250,000. Due to this many small farmers are stuck with their old equipment and cannot get money to buy newer more efficient equipment. Just go to a farm sometime and suggest they purchase 'new' equipment. You will get laughed off the property. Nothing's new on a midwest farm unless it is subsidized by a large company such as ADM or Tate and Lyle. Most elevators in Illinois are now run by either ADM or Tate and Lyle but were formerly run by smaller companies and/or families. Crops are big business and big business has taken them over. It's all about the numbers come harvest time. All it takes is one storm with high speed straight-line winds, an early frost, or not enough rain to ruin an entire crop and put the farm way over budget. Crops that are not insured against straight-line winds (blown over corn, etc) are simply chalked up as a complete loss.

People moved from the farms to the city because factory work was better paid.

I know several farmers who do both and. Many farmers have taken jobs but are also maintaining and operating the family farm. It's usually more about keeping the family tradition alive than it is about making cold hard cash anymore. You have to farm a lot of land to make good money and to make a living off of it. There is also share-farming where a family decides they do not want to farm their land but will allow another farmer to do it - at a price. There are also company run farms that farm gigantic pieces of land comprised of many many fields that are basically employing people to farm and take care of the crops. But as for the old country farmer, most work part-time and/or full time jobs to keep the farm alive.

I'm also puzzled by the crop rotation comment. Crops must be rotated to keep the land fertile and productive. Beans one year, corn next, etc., etc. Then some fields are left untouched for 1 year and the cycle starts over. Farming corn or beans continuously without rotation from year to year will ruin the ground and bankrupt the farm. Just trust me when I say that America and the Midwest have farming all figured out. We do it very well. Almost every university in the Midwest has a huge Agricultural department focused on ag science. High schools have Ag related clubs full of members. Farming is big business in the Midwest and no one in the world produces as much we do with the quality we have.

[novacain]

US and Eurpoean subsidies have lowered the price of crops in the 3rd world.

Because of farm subsidies 3rd world farmers have become factory workers.

Because of the unlimited labour supply and limited opportunities, wages are very low.

But I love how "move to more viable crops" is written with negative connotation. To me that means "crop rotation" which subsidies have never encouraged in the slightest. Under such scenario, you could make the same money planting the same things consistently. Eventually that practice makes arable land unsuitable for farming.

I meant move to high value, premium crops, usually seasonal.
Basically high price per weight crops (saffron, truffles or aqua-culture for abalone and freshwater crayfish are all being grown in my state in OZ).

or value add to the produce. (Turning your grapes into wine, milk into cheese, fruit into jam etc.)

Just go to a farm sometime and suggest they purchase 'new' equipment. You will get laughed off the property.

Visit a 3rd world farm and ask to see their machinery.....

You also forgot to mention the evil one, Monsanto.

I mean a patent on raising pigs, identified by a gene marker carried by over 80% of all pigs (not raised by this method) and covering all offspring...

[ulillillia]

I know almost all of the number names out to "novemnonagintanongentillion" (that's a 1 followed by 3000 zeros in the US system, a 1 followed by 5994 zeros in the British system). It would be a real shocker to see a mother giving birth to "novemnonagintanongentuplets" (999 babies)! Googol (not to be confused with Google, the search engine), is 1E100, or 10 duotrigintillion. From the millions, the number names are million, billion, trillion, quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion, septillion, octillion, nonillion, decillion, undecillion, duodecillion, and so on. For the "tens" you have decillion, vigintillion, trigintillion, quadragintillion, quinquagintillion, sexagintillion, septuagintillion, octuagintillion, and nonagintillion. For the "hundreds", of which I don't have memorized, it's centillion, ducentillion, trecentillion, quadringentillion, quinquagentillion (?), ?, septingentillion (?), octogentillion (?), and nongentillion. It's then just a matter of combining prefixes in the ones, tens, hundreds order (reverse on how the numbers are said). You rarely see anything beyond the quintillions being used as it is anyway.

[VirtualAce]

Closed. Please do not bump old threads.