Harmon Seaver wrote:
Sure [with regard to periodic starvation], but for the most part, they did alright, else we would not be here.
Tell that to the 7th kine. In reality, subsistence (this word means something) farmers were mostly chronically malnourished--even in the good times--and died in droves whenever the sun didn't shine or the rain didn't fall. I don't consider that doing "alright."
Only modern "factory farms" seem immune that this cycle.
Not so -- only because of corporate welfare.
Can you be more specific? "Corporate welfare" such as making the rain fall or what?
That's the point I was trying to make -- they aren't being "starved" out. And, as I pointed out previously with the Amish, it isn't that they are not mechanized enough, or not big enough. So why are they losing their land and moving to the city to become wageslaves for some megacorp?
You tell me. It would appear that either you are wrong about the economic viability of their farms or they are somehow acting against their own best interest. Subsistence farmers are going to the cities because they (correctly) understand that to do so increases their standard of living. Period.
In Latin America we see them primarily being kicked off their land by "paramilitarys" usually in the pay of big ranchers and/or megacorp argribiz, and sometimes by the army. Maybe kicked off is too strong -- frightened off by all the rapes and murders and beatings, or, with the army, "relocated" to make them "safe" from the guerillas (and to stop them from feeding the guerillas).
Even assuming, arguendo, that this is true (evidence, please), this is not a failure of the market or the fault of the "sweat shop" operators. In fact, the "sweat shop" operators are the only heroes in this scenario. They are at least providing something better than the dislocated farmers would have had otherwise. Good for them. S a n d y