By R. Ricardo

1. In the Beginning

The U. S. Constitution was ratified before the Industrial Era came into existence. To all intents, the Republic’s overall political structure was implemented in the days of agricultural quasi-feudalism, which goes to show that the economy, though a powerful factor in a country’s makeup, does not have to dictate how we the people should live and be governed, at least not all the time.

Influenced by Karl Marx, historians found they had to classify Capitalism as an epoch unto itself, confusing, as is their ghastly habit, politics with reality, economy with history, and the joy of scientific honesty with the paycheck. Originating in the Age of Industry, Capitalism was merely an economic system requiring many hands to be productively employed by relatively few companies. Once hired, most employees were asked to perform simple, mindless, repetitive tasks. Under Capitalism, large firms rather than individual specialists took it upon themselves to produce and deliver to the so-called consumer anything and everything, from the basic staples to luxuries.

The end of that ponderous era came in sight once the first assembly line was set in motion by Henry Ford in the early years of the Twentieth Century.

Some analysts anticipated gleefully new possibilities and prospects. Others, less tediously optimistic, pointed out that automating production of goods might leave many folks without a job. To offset everyone’s fears, the optimists maintained that mechanized labor was going to create a lot of spare time for everyone which they could use to improve their spiritual standards, take long gratifying vacations in exotic regions, learn to appreciate art more, vote, and so on, and Santa Claus would eventually show up to pick up the tab.

In the end, neither view proved valid. Reality hardly ever lives up to people’s, much less economists’, expectations. Even though scientific fortunetelling differs from the traditional version in that more people pretend to take it seriously, the methods and the end result are similar. The lingo-ridden vagueness of prediction is resorted to in order to safeguard the fortuneteller against exposure as a fraud. Some forecasts come true periodically (albeit hardly ever two in a row from the same source) to prevent the layman’s complete dismissal of the entire field.

World War One created a great, if mostly artificial, demand for many more hands in the workplace. Military supplies had to be produced in large quantities. Even before it was over, though, drastic political changes occurred everywhere, most notably in the Russian Empire. The most radical group of people ever to convene on that country’s territory seized and maintained power against tremendous odds, making a wild, ill-informed, and monstrously misguided attempt to humanize the Age of Industry, already a thing of the past then, by introducing (supposedly) some basic Christian values to it. Greedy as radicals always tend to be, they had no desire to share their power with anyone, and I mean anyone, including God, whom they cheerfully decided to exclude God from the equation. Their mistake (indeed, everyone’s mistake today, almost a century later) was to expect Christian ethics to work without the Ultimate Judge of Such Matters, much as if one were to expect a high-speed train, finely designed and assiduously assembled, to work without electricity. Nevertheless, the Socialist Revolution in Russia forced certain folks elsewhere to examine their own conduct. Unless they wanted more revolutions, they had better mend their ways and start treating the workforce as if it were composed in some degree of sentient human beings. It was already too late. It was no use. Whether oppressed and exploited, or appeased and unionized, most of the workforce had to be laid off. Machines were faster, cheaper, more precise and, having no immortal souls, less cumbersome.

The downfall, known in the U.S. as the Great Depression, came on top of many panicky decisions and annoying results. Resurrected by World War One, the Age of Industry was still grotesquely alive but could not go on unless products were purchased, consumed, and purchased again: hard to accomplish with half the consumers out of work and half the newspapers suggesting, with irritating consistency, that Socialism might be a healthy alternative after all.

(The onslaught of ideological nuances so befuddled the period’s thinkers, it never occurred to any of them that Socialism, and even Communism, however Utopian, were Capitalism’s siblings rather than antipodes, since they, too, were thoroughly industrial, required employment of many, discouraged individual thinking, and were just as eager to sacrifice fuzzy numbers at the altar of the Gross National Product. It does not make much difference in the long run whether a few dozen corporations are running the show, or just one (i.e. the Federal Government), and how many of them are state-owned. As for the peculiar treatment by the Soviets of their own population, why, you wouldn’t expect folks who have openly renounced God to behave charitably. One can govern with promises, handouts, and some guns, or promises, no handouts, and a lot of guns. It is strictly a matter of preference and has little to do with the economy.

2. Once the Dust Had Settled

The period immediately following World War I was anything but rosy. The machines were taking over. France, in her own salacious way, alleviated some of her economic problems by bleeding Germany (World War One reparations, etc.), but Germany and England were hit very hard indeed. Unemployment rates skyrocketed everywhere. As oftentimes is the case, governments around the globe proposed tough measures and took none. The debates went on until the famous market crash put and end to them.

Some politicians and businessmen spent the following couple of years trying to pick up the pieces of an era long gone by, the one Henry Ford had sent packing, to no avail. There was no way for the average consumer to obtain an income other than by hiring himself out to someone who could use a pair of hands and, in some special cases, a brain. It was an impasse. Only a portion of the workforce could be employed, but the entire country had to have an income to be able to purchase the results of employment.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Teddy’s distant relative and, some years later, Stalin’s good friend and drinking buddy, was the one who decided the situation was, well, unacceptable. A man of wit and considerable political courage, he deviated from his immediate predecessors’ laissez-faire approach by actively seeking, and eventually finding, a sensible solution.

Redistribution of wealth was out of the question. It generally is. Folks will not part voluntarily with anything that might conceivablybenefit others.

Roosevelt looked at the tax revenue and decided to make good use of that. He could not simply give the money away: governments, if they wish to be taken seriously, must never indulge in direct charity. Instead, he explained that the country was in dire need of railroads, highways, bridges and such (which was true), and that his administration was quite eager to compensate those willing to construct same.

This new approach soon became an integral part of the economic picture. Those who produced the basic staples and so on were taxed; the resulting funds were transferred to those who produced the improvements. Simply put, it was a well-organized attempt to find a meaningful occupation for everyone. The New Deal (as the new approach was dubbed) was, in fact, a noble idea. Little by little, the outdated conventions of the Industrial Age would fall away, 20% or so of the workforce would easily provide the food, clothes, and shelter for everyone, whether employed or not, allowing the rest of the country to work on various improvements and innovations. Sooner or later, anyone would be able to take as much time as they wished to find and realize themselves in any of the numerous available fields. Those still uncertain about their true vocation would be given enough public assistance to be able to afford passable living conditions.

Thus the Republic was going to show the world a healthy alternative to humanity’s unrealized and seemingly unattainable dream (i.e. Communism, Star Trek style). A superior alternative, too, since there was seemingly no need for gory social experiments, radical leaders, or incongruous ideologies.

But there was Germany, and there was France, and there was Japan, and there was World War Two.

The capture of Czechoslovakia by German troops was pointedly ignored. The division of Eastern Europe between Hitler and Stalin, who reckoned they had their own economic experiments to conduct, was also ignored, although there was less flippancy this time around. German planes rained bombs on London. The English started paying attention. France was, of course, occupied, but since the cafés were active, the Metro still functional, and the Opera performed more regularly than it does today, everyone decided that it was okay. Then came Hitler’s invasion of Stalin’s territories. Some people looked up from their desserts. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was, in fact, covered by the press.

As it progressed, the new World War confused and frightened almost everyone. The Age of Industry had to be rescusitated once again. Millions of hands were once again needed at plants and factories everywhere. The New Deal was put on hold indefinitely.

3. Once the Dust Had Seettled Once More

When it was all over and the shock wore off and the tragedy of the 400,000 dead was somehow accepted, America found herself in a state of mindless euphoria. Some years later, the ephoric fog lifted, revealing a new challenge and a new and amazing field in which some folks could now make a living.

Computers looked very promising at first, the way Ford’s assembly line had looked promising earlier. Some economists objected, realizing that just as Ford’s innovation had done millions of laborers out of a job, so would the computer relieve (interesting word) multitudes of clerks (a lot of whom would have been factory workers in a different epoch: the rapid proliferation of so-called office jobs was the first postwar echo of Roosevelt’s New Deal, distorted and rendered meaningless; pencil pushing is easier, to be sure, than bridge and railroad construction). Then someone had the bright idea to let the democratic (or was it Communist?) principle take over: share and share alike. Instead of replacing a thousand workers with one mainframe machine and one operator, why not give each of them a terminal? Later on, the concept was further improved by introducing every clerk to his or her own Personal Computer. Now every dozen clerks required a technician to maintain their computers for them, and every five technicians a supervisor to oversee the maintenance and attend to the employees’ morale.

The difference between the New Deal and this was that computers, when all is said and done, offer just one type of activity to those who wish to be important outside of the production of basic staples. Called upon to solve the problems of many, the new industry quickly hit the limit of usefulness and continued to expand into the murky area where production is replaced by something called, in lawyers’ lingo, work creation, ceasing to be a genuine industry and attaining phantom qualities far quicker than the economists, who always

By Mark Jarvis

Farmall tractors was originally a model name that later on grew to become a tractor brand, that was produced by International Harvester (IH). Initially, Farmall had been really general purpose and had narrowly spaced wheels at the front end. This particular "tricycle" sort of design and style together with a large ground-clearance permitted the tractor to maneuver effectively inside the field during crop cultivation. Though at the same time, it was efficient at accomplishing any work which up until then had been accomplished using a team of horses.

It was certainly not long before different manufacturers launched comparable kinds of tractor, purely as a result of Farmall tractors popularity.

IH started building Farmall tractors in the early 1920's and the prototype was introduced in 1923. This was exclusively launched in Texas as a result of concern that there may not be enough sales. Nonetheless, by 1926 it was evident that the Farmall tractor was indeed destined to be successful and IH scaled upward creation by developing a new Farmall Works plant at Rock Island, Illinois.

Then in 1932 a more powerful engine was assigned to the Farmall with the designation of F-20, that was the replacement unit to the prototype. Additional fresh versions were manufactured and the series became known as the F-Series. That included amongst others:

F-30 (1931)

F-12 (1932)

F-14 (1938)

Before 1937, all Farmall tractors were painted in the color of battleship gray. Just after 1937 however, a different color ended up being chosen - "Farmall Red".

The Farmall Letter Series

In 1939, the Farmall letter series came into existence: A, B, BN, C, H, M, MD. The industrial developer Raymond Lowy was commissioned to provide the revolutionary Farmall a more sleek appearance. It had been devised for the smaller-sized to moderate American plantation and the new letter series offered a bigger engine, a variety of options for add-on apparatus thereby better abilities all-round. The more robust versions kept the "tricycle" narrowly-spaced front wheel as a result of its capability at quick steering as well as ability to move, that was a lot better than the rival at the time - Ford 9N.

The A, B and BN models were small in dimensions which provided the end user wonderful visibility as well as maneuvering. The C and M series were more robust thereby more substantial - better for intense plowing. The MD model provided a diesel engine. The complete Farmall range therefore offered American farming an iconic standing. The tractors were crafted from very heavy duty resources and were designed to last longer and deal well with serious use. Even these days, you can observe Farmall tractors in use on farms - especially and in particular, the two highest capacity units - the H and the M.

By Brenda Skidmore

The average modern day vegetable producer has done a wonderful job of feeding massive amounts of people on a large scale. The trade off, however, seems to be at the expense of optimal taste and nutrition. During tough economic times, it can be a rather daunting task to find the best nutritional value for your family's budget, when it comes to fresh vegetables, in super-sized grocery stores.

According to Donald R. Davis, a former research associate with the Biochemical Institute at the University of Texas, Austin claims, "there is definitely a correlation between the high and low yield varieties, and in the varying amount of nutrients they contain."

What is commonly known, today, as the 'genetic dilution effect', was first discovered and published in a 1981 study conducted by W.M. Jarrell and R.B. Beverly in the "Advances In Agronomy". What has been less studied, are the nutritional effects of selective genetic breeding of plant foods chosen specifically for higher yields.

In 1996 and '97', a study was performed in South Carolina using a variety of broccoli chosen for its high yields. It was shown that selective genetic breeding lead to a loss of protein, amino acids, and as many as six different minerals. Davis says, "jumbo sizing the end product is no assurance of increased nutrition and is, in effect, winding up with more dry matter that dilutes mineral concentrations, making for a nutritionally emptier food source."

Loss of important nutrients can also be attributed to the industrialization of agriculture that relies, heavily, on chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and rushed harvesting techniques. When plant foods are harvested earlier, the plant has had less time to take up minerals from the soil it needs to go through its natural synthesis process.

Farming practices such as those mentioned above, along with lack of crop rotations, has led to over using soils to the point of mineral depletion. Not only do plants need a wide variety of nutrients to grow healthy, we need them to be in the plant food source, in abundance, so they are naturally healthy for us to eat.

It is estimated that there is somewhere between 5 to 40 percent less protein and minerals in commercially grown vegetables, when compared to organic or locally grown produce. Fifty years ago, this was less of a problem than it has become today, and it is uncertain how much fruits are effected when compared to vegetables.

As intimidating as this information like this may sound to you, don't let it shake you up so much. This may be one reason why nutritional health experts have recently started recommending 7 to 9 servings a day (or more) of this important food group. The old recommended 5 a day guideline has suddenly become outdated.

Realistically, what can we do to increase our benefits of adding more fruit and vegetable nutrition to our daily diets? Well, you can try growing a small vegetable garden. If you don't have the green thumb know how, then the simplest alternative is to shop as organically and locally as you possibly can.

Focus on getting more whole foods that are grown and raised as nature intended with sustainable growing practices. Most people will agree food raised this way not only tastes better, it is often of better quality and is much fresher.

When it comes to buying organic, buyer beware of the shady business tactics of big agri that has tainted the organic food label. Just because the label says it is organic, does not mean it actually is. Many smaller, local farmers raise organic quality food, but are unable to afford the expensive certification process required to legally label them as such.

If you frequently shop local farmers markets, and organic is important to you, just talk with the people who raise the food you are buying. Striking up a conversation is the easiest way to find out what you are wanting to know. Organically grown produce definitely bumps up your nutritional intake of this food group, so much so, that eating 5 a day may be a sufficient amount to keep you relatively healthy.

Depending on your regional climate and soil conditions, a lack of locally grown fruits and vegetables may leave you very few options other than to eat commercially grown produce. If this is the case, don't worry so much about it. Certainly, it is far better to eat them, no matter how they are grown, than not at all.

It is possible to take advantage of what few nutrients may be available in them, making them work more effectively for you, by drinking more water. I am not kidding you on this, nothing more than pure water will do a better job of carrying nutrients to cell membranes, aids in nutrient absorption by keeping cells well hydrated, plus it washes away oxidative waste residues and toxins.

Water does not count as pure water if it is in the form of sodas, teas, and coffee, or juices. Water needs to be the dominate beverage that gets you through each and every day, saving those other drinks for occasional use, and in mindful moderation.

By Macon Gravlee

Raising cattle for the agricultural market is one of the largest industries found within the commodities market and one which comes with distinct rewards and challenges. Whether it be a small scale ranch run by several generations of family members or a huge commercial cattle enterprise there are several aspects of cattle ranching you will find necessary to understand prior to venturing into this field.

Breeds of Cattle

The type of cattle which you will raise will determine the type of ranch that you will operate. Some cattle such as Angus cattle are particularly prized for both their bloodlines as well as their end products. Breeding Angus cattle is one of the most rewarding types of farming that you can find in terms of monetary value. Raising other breeds of cattle particularly if you operate a commercial undertaking can also prove to be a great means of living.

Caring For Cattle

Many cattle ranches operate on the premise of providing these fine animals for both food and breeding purposes. Taking care of your cattle is the most important aspect of cattle ranching if you are in the business for breeding your cattle. You will require plenty of quality green pasture land which grows a diverse variety of grasses and grains as well as the necessary time to monitor your cattle on a regular basis.

You will need to be able to care for any sick cows and make sure that your herd has been properly vaccinated as determined by federally accepted standards. Your herd will require a degree of special care in the winter when you may find it necessary to move them to a warmer location or to provide them with shelter for the cooler months.

Long Hours

Cattle ranching will involve a lot of long, hard hours many of which many are often unplanned. You will need to be available or have someone else on hand seven days a week, around the clock. Animal emergencies can happen at any time of the day and raising cattle is no exception to this rule.

Your business will require extra ranch hands during the spring season when most of the animals give birth to their young. This is a special time of the year for most cattle raisers as they will be able to sell or to purchase additional cattle as soon as the calves are weaned. Most ranchers work on a set schedule in reguards to buying and selling their cattle. Usually the rancher will start doing a bit of research at this time of the year to track the price of cattle in their area prior to placing their stock up for sale. All cattle placed for auction or sale is required to be healthy and to be certified as such.

Cattle Auctions

Cattle auctions are often used when you merely have one or two cows that you desire to sell quickly. Many people take advantage of cattle auctions on a small scale basis while commercial ranches tend to sell herds of hundreds of cattle at a time. In addition to raising your animals for food if you happen to have a milk farm you will need to invest in some additional equipment before you can safely sell your milk on the commercial market.

By Lance Winslow

Is there a way to make it rain in the outback or near the coastline in Australia? The drought issues are so grave that agriculture is suffering and water restrictions have been placed in many regions at Level III. Can we develop giant desalination projects, which are self-powered from Ocean Wave Generation Plants? The Online Think Tank believes it is potentially possible with the right performance partners.

The Australian Government would jump at a chance to have some industrial entrepreneurial capitalist save them from their crisis and come to the rescue, but things are so bad is it even possible? With Regards to Australia and Out Back farming, sure sounds like a good idea. Of course lets not forget the Cyclones there that might destroy such an infrastructure project; remember the Cat 5 at Darwin.

Is there an Ocean Wave Generation infrastructure design, which could take that level of pounding, as they need the water badly? Well it appears there are but a couple of ocean wave making concepts, which could in fact do the job. And the water would need to be transported too, but pipelines are expensive, yet Australia is looking for solutions so a pipeline via a Bechtel or KBR or something plus a huge ocean wave energy-making infrastructure, plus desalination plant would make sense.

Actually they need 3 of them strategically placed each with their own power grid and an overlay of a separate grids, which gives them a net-centric base to protect the system thru redundancy. With reservoirs, pipelines, power and water resources you could have something capable of handling millions of people and watering abundant farmland.

Similar to when my ancestors; Smith Family, brought water into the central valley in CA for farming or when The Chandlers brought the water in from the desert to Los Angeles. It is all doable; just look at Dubai, and other places? Look what can be done? Think of Las Vegas; that is in the middle of nowhere for sure. Hoover dam, hydro power now there is water, power and lights! It just takes a team of folks and the right capital to make it all happen. I hope this article propels thought in 2007

By Howard Hehrer

In the original human society, people traveled together in groups of about 30 or 40 people, gathering food and supplies as they went, and rarely had any need to trade. Because of this, everyone had about the same amount of everything, and for the most part everyone was equal.

In the next stage of interaction, people discovered how to breed animals and grow plants. This created the first supply surplus, and thus inequality was born. People began to live in a single place; their groups grew larger, and for the first time were able to focus on tasks other than finding and consuming food. People began to splinter off to create new, useful supplies such as leather, weapons, and so on. Some began to accumulate more possessions than others, and the effects of this change remains with us today.

One of the major landmarks in human development of inequality came with the invention of the plow. This made land much more productive and much more easily cultivated. The results were agricultural societies. Even more people were freed from the need to produce food, and more division of power and labor shortly followed. Trade expanded, and trading centers turned into cities. Power shifted from the agricultural community to ruling elites. The result: great political, economic, and social inequality.

Another invention that furthered the effects of inequality was the birth of the steam engine in 1765. This land marked the arrival of the industrial society. Because of the usefulness and ease of machine operation, societies created a surplus like the world had never seen. This also encouraged trade, thus more inequality. Some people even opened up factories, exploiting their employees for minimal wage and long hours of work. As these elites gained wealth, they began to use it to gain influence in politics, as well - corrupting and buying up political positions to further their interest in industry.

As may be expected, as surpluses grew, the emphasis changed on the production of new goods to the consumption. In 1912, sociologist Thorstein Veblen coined the term "conspicuous consumption" to describe this shift in people's orientations. He noted that the Protestant ethnic identified by Weber - and emphasis on work and savings - was now turning to a desire to gain wealth for the sake of flaunting it to others.

In 1973, we saw a new type of society emerge. To refer to this new society, sociologist Daniel Bell used the term "postindustrial society". This included six distinct characteristics: a service sector so large that it employs mostly workers, an even greater surplus of goods, extensive trade among nations, a wider variety of goods, an "information explosion", and the globe is linked by faster communication (global village).

The global village can be better thought of as a globe divided into three large neighborhoods, which represent the three worlds of industrialization. Because of the arrangement of politics and economics, some nations are located in the poorest part of the village. Their citizens squeeze a meager living out of menial work, while fellow villagers who live in the rich sections feast on the best that the world has to offer.

By KJ Halliday

With all the talk of global warming and going green it is a pertinent subject to discuss within the context of trade and production. While most of our pollution comes from industry and farming followed by transport it is important to note the shift towards a carbon credit system. This seems to me to be a sly way of turning previously worthless commodities into a tradeable item. It also allows those companies that are polluting to continue to do so by merely changing some of their investment strategies towards buying carbon credits.

[How will we switch to a green world?]

If you think about this issue closely you will find that it would then be possible to convert all resources into carbon credits. National Parks for example would be invested in by the private sector to offset any pollution their company creates. It could also include unused land (sometimes fertile farming land) being used to grow permanent trees and therefore reducing the overall capacity of a nations farming output. Is this a wise strategy when we are experiencing a world shortage in food production? This comes at the same time as ethanol becomes mandatory in some fuel mixes. For those of you who do not know ethanol is mainly produced using either corn or sugar cane, reducing the percentage of these commodities available for consumption.

The green movement is misled if it thinks that global warming is its messiah in terms of changing the way the world works. It is only through ground roots change that true stabilization of our environment can be attained. This is still not taking into account the huge changes that occur naturally in the Earth's continuing cycles. What about ice ages? I am not denying the huge impact of humans on their environment though I am also not denying the huge impact the environment has on humans.

While we advance more in terms of technology and understanding we are still vulnerable to our environments. Harsh winters still occur. Heat waves. Tsunamis. Hurricanes. The list goes on. Human society also develops in relation to its environment. It affects language, food, clothing, housing, farming, everything. It is why in places like Australia we are still learning to use this unique environment correctly. Other places have had thousands of years to develop their agriculture, while Australia was settled by Europeans with specific ways of farming that they brought with them. A European farm in a completely unrelated environment.

While our environment has managed so far to keep producing, it is showing some signs of hitting a breaking point. Some indicators so far have included: increased salinity, mass erosion, empty rivers, blue-green algae and of course chemical and other pollutant levels in city river systems. The solution can not be to stop all agriculture and industrial practice as that would be equivalent to a national suicide. Rather it is to use these industries to monitor and rectify the problems facing them. It is in a farmer's interest to have a sustainable farm whether it is to produce crops or feed livestock, it must be "environmentally healthy" to sustain production. It is improving and repairing the environment that will increase production rather than hinder it.

Likewise with industrial production, as they will find the increased efficiency that comes with going green (rather than buying carbon credits) will save huge sums in production costs. I do not support industry as oppossed to the environment (quite the opposite actually) but I think there has to be a happy medium.

I would see the best solution as more localised production on a smaller scale to begin with in order to create a diverse production. This would also provide a buffer against market changes particularly in a diverse farm. This is because while some commodity prices might be down, another commodity produced by the farm may be higher in order to componsate for the loss. This localised production would see better prices for the community and also fresher produce being delivered. This also saves a massive amount on transport. These are all options for the modern era where it will probably come down to a "sink or swim" solution in places like Australia where our environment is already at breaking point.

If we continue with a carbon trading scheme it will become just like the stock market and subject to declines, losses and manipulation. This is using an old world solution in a modern era where the shape of the old markets are quickly blurring into something that could resemble more of what Adam Smith was talking about. Supply and demand. With local producers providing primarily for the local market.