26-07-2003 15:44									#31
	Support Apolyton

Not when you consider the number of homeowners likely to be willing to lie about it.

	26-07-2003 15:53									#32
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

And there are no ways of testing are there.

	26-07-2003 15:57									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Gee, testing every single households' grass won't cause the cost of said grass to increase exponentially. No way!

	26-07-2003 15:58									#34
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

why don't you put your idea to some farmers down here bods, i'm sure they'd be very interested...

	26-07-2003 16:00									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Will never catch on because of the political lobby bastards thinking a cow's luxury is more important than the poor being able to enjoy a good steak.

	26-07-2003 16:02									#36
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

lo sarcasm :/

	26-07-2003 16:03									#37
	Tired of ads?

It didn't go over everyone's heads.

	26-07-2003 16:17									#39
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Boddington's No - the value of the land to society is higher than its developed value, but the private market would likely not take this into account. That's why it's not built on. Don't think just in money terms.

Given that it was a response to your own point about the cost of land, you've just U-turned up your own arse.

quote: Again, I don't see how this is relevant. The large cow shed would be built wherever land was cheapest - not necessarily where farms exist now.

Lovely. So not on the flat, development-friendly areas used by arable farming, but on the hilly ground and flood plains used for pastoral farming? Think about it...

quote: It would most likely reduce the likelihood of booms and busts in the market as supply of houses would respond more effectively to the price level. So what?

It would create a massive expanse of land available for development at low cost. Result (Mr Economist) is a crash in property values. This leads us to.....

quote: Nice to see you admitting my plan has some merit by going off at a complete tangent.

...your inability to spot that in the present environment of lending at record levels of income multiples, the result is massive negative equity on an unprecedented scale.

This means bad news for all investing in property, bad news for anything needing mobility of labour, and a knock-on slump to the UK economy which has been buoyed up by rising property values.

quote: How many garderners just chuck out their grass? Create a market for it in the plan I have outlined previously, and efficiency will rise. The land that the cows were previously on would be freed up for something far more useful.

So all you have to arrange is collection of loads of grass cuttings from disparate locations before it dries out to hay (which has a lower nutritional value) or rots? That's going to cost a lot.

Good plan. Alternatively you could just put cows in a field.

	26-07-2003 16:33									#40
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Given that it was a response to your own point about the cost of land

I'm just wondering where the ramblings about greenbelt land came from and how it is relevant? Been reading something?

quote: Lovely. So not on the flat, development-friendly areas used by arable farming, but on the hilly ground and flood plains used for pastoral farming? Think about it...

Why have you got it in your mind that the cow hut needs to be built in an existing farming area? Just build it anywhere land is cheapest - not greenbelt land. Understand? Good.

quote: It would create a massive expanse of land available for development at low cost. Result (Mr Economist) is a crash in property values. This leads us to.....that in the present environment of lending at record levels of income multiples, the result is massive negative equity on an unprecedented scale. This means bad news for all investing in property, bad news for anything needing mobility of labour, and a knock-on slump to the UK economy which has been buoyed up by rising property values.

There are a number of things wrong with this.

a)

1) I don't remember bringing up greenbelt restrictions or the loosening of them. Why attribute this claim to me? Just to knock down and then appear like you have some kind of point scored over me? Daft sod.

2) The ratio of lending to mortgage income is one way of analysing the stability of house prices. However, due to lower interest rates the cost of servicing that debt is much lower, so the ratio isn't ideal as more debt can be taken on at the same level of income. How about looking at other measures - one example would be the ratio of house prices to accumulat-able discounted future rents.

b)

1) Massive increasing land available would not happen in a bang, it would happen slowly as a result of the possibility what you stated.

2) Agents aren't irrational. What you claimed ignores the fact that property developers are knowledgeable about time lags and have learnt not to base the next period's supply on this period's price.

3) Consider that mobility may actually be helped through lower house prices.

quote: So all you have to arrange is collection of loads of grass cuttings from disparate locations before it dries out to hay (which has a lower nutritional value) or rots? That's going to cost a lot.

Maybe it will. I haven't done the cost analyses yet. What did you find?

	26-07-2003 16:50									#41
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Boddington's I'm just wondering where the ramblings about greenbelt land came from and how it is relevant? Been reading something?

It's relevant because that's where the farms are.

quote: Why have you got it in your mind that the cow hut needs to be built in an existing farming area? Just build it anywhere land is cheapest - not greenbelt land. Understand? Good.

Because greenbelt land is the cheapest, with the exception of brownfield sites on polluted ground. It's the cheapest because it's greenbelt land, and will remain so unless greenbelt restictions are lifted.

quote: There are a number of things wrong with this. a) 1) I don't remember bringing up greenbelt restrictions or the loosening of them. Why attribute this claim to me? Just to knock down and then appear like you have some kind of point scored over me? Daft sod.

I don't know about your neck of the woods, but there aren't many urban farms around here. Hence the issue of greenbelt land.

quote: 2) The ratio of lending to mortgage income is one way of analysing the stability of house prices. However, due to lower interest rates the cost of servicing that debt is much lower, so the ratio isn't ideal as more debt can be taken on at the same level of income. How about looking at other measures - one example would be the ratio of house prices to accumulat-able discounted future rents.

How will that pevent negative equity?

quote: 1) Massive increasing land available would not happen in a bang, it would happen slowly as a result of the possibility what you stated. 2) Agents aren't irrational. What you claimed ignores the fact that property developers are knowledgeable about time lags and have learnt not to base the next period's supply on this period's price.

Why would it happen slowly?

quote: 3) Consider that mobility may actually be helped through lower house prices.

Is that true for the majority of homeowners who owe money on their property?

What about the fact that those with lowest levels of equity are the young?

quote: Maybe it will. I haven't done the cost analyses yet. What did you find?

Can't be arsed to check, because it's harebrained.

	26-07-2003 17:18									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

In any case, both pigs and cows are pretty darn inefficient land users, only producing a tenth of the munchies that growing crops would.

Perhaps cows are more active than pigs, making them even less efficient.

	26-07-2003 19:44									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

That's true- modern intensive arable farming is a more efficient industry in terms of calories/hectare. Then again, short of open-cast mining I can't think of anything more destructive to the environment than modern intensive arable farming.

Besides, meat is yummy. C'mere Buttercup- you'd look much nicer in a bap.

	26-07-2003 21:00									#44
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Cows need to be raised on the range, while pork can be raised in a pen its whole life. So you can cram tens of thousands of piggies into a much smaller area and use factory farming techniques to achieve efficiencies of scale. You get a unvariated bland, tasteless pork, but since Amerians have the most degraded palette in the world, we don't care.

There is a "movement" among the the yuppies (or rather there was before the recession) to bring back natural farming methods for pork and "heritage" pork lines. Supposedly the resulting meat is much stronger in flavor, but it is also rather more expensive.

The beef outside the midwest, though, really sux. It's so bland.

	26-07-2003 21:24									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Is that why pork is cheaper, Chegitz?

	26-07-2003 21:24									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

So wait... someone on this site is arguing that we should cut grass and ship it over to a 'cow factory' and have the cows walk on treadmills... and that would save money?



I love this site

	26-07-2003 22:01									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

stay away from pork

it is a crap meat.

the pigs eat crap anyway

my meat mostly consists of chicken and fish and then once a week beef

	26-07-2003 22:37									#48
	Increase Your PM Length

If crap is all they have to eat, crap is what the will eat.

	26-07-2003 23:13									#49
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Pork, being the other white meat, has its price intentionally kept low to undercut any other competition from other colored meats. It's just another case of the man keeping the meat industry down.

	26-07-2003 23:37									#51
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Yeah, but buying coffee from McDonald's is sorta like buying clothes at Walmart. Some people do it, but not me. Starbucks tastes better, and have many different flavors and varieties

starbucks coffee sucks

I wouldn't even call what McDonalds has coffee

Jon Miller

	26-07-2003 23:44									#52
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

very bourgeious of you, jon

	27-07-2003 00:22									#53
	Remove this text

The only real coffee is double expresso

	27-07-2003 00:25									#54
	Increase Your PM Length

If pork is so much chepaer, why do major users, like Fast Food concerns and pet food makers never really buy it? Can you think of any pork based producst in any of the major Fast Fod chains?

	27-07-2003 00:29									#55
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

GePap:

you're absolutely right! only breakfast menus at fast food chains got pork products...

this makes no sense... why is pork cheaper at the supermarket but no fast food places utilize it?

	27-07-2003 00:37									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

The only common pork prodcust in fast food chains I can think of are bacon and breakfast sausages: (or peperroni and sausage in Pizza Hut and Domonos) now bacon comes from pork bellies (we have tens of tons of pork bellies stored in warehouses accross the nation), and you don;t use prime cuts of pork for sausage.

I think it is old healh concerns which are not really valid anyome, plus that modern American pork is dry as the desert, since they have made it so damned lean. It might be a pain in the butt to use.

	27-07-2003 00:45									#57
	Tired of ads?

McDonalds around here has a pork tenderloin sandwich, or something related. I would never eat that, nor anything else they serve.

And the burgers have lots of soy in them, IIRC, which cuts down the costs. And chicken is cheaper than pork, probably. I don't know really, much of anything.

	27-07-2003 01:11									#58
	Support Apolyton

Briefly,

Pigs are more closely related in size than Cows. This makes processing at the slaughterhouse cheaper. Cows in slaughterhouses are mostly 'processed' by hand.

Pigs require less food + of lesser quality. Cows require grain or grass, debasing their food is becoming illegal.

Cows are also less efficent at processing material into muscle, making them more expensive to run.

quote: In the U.S. we don't feed our cows cow parts like some other countries I will not name

Er... actually the US stopped feeding cattle to cattle after the UK did. The US is still allowed to feed pork and poultry remains to Cattle. The US still hasn't banned turning ex-animal shelter animals into dog/cat food.

Nowhere in the EU is feeding cattle to cattle, or in fact any livestock material, legal.

	27-07-2003 01:12									#59
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

All Mcdonalds = crap

	27-07-2003 01:40									#60
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Less demand for pork because of sily archaic religious taboos.