Replies

"You've got it backwards. The resource business provides the cash flow for support businesses infrastructure."

Not completely. I'm from the San Joaquin Valley, Tulare County originally, and in my youth, agriculture was the key to success in the area. But, that has changed. Ranching is much more co-op now and the small rancher is a thing of the past. Large business is that guy in the straw hat since about 20 years ago, and their achievements have been based upon size and capital, not bartering corn for tomatoes. Ranching by its needs is a turnover business requiring operating on last year's money because, unless you are a dairy, there are no fast turnover products. This is why a large number of ranchers that once worked in one or two crops, now diversify their fields to try to include crops that can be sold alternatley to try to garnish capital on a more consistent plane. Example, one family has sons that grow, one, sugar beets and milo, and another, cattle. They also co-op with a third brother in citris to sell. The beets and milo are for the cattle, the citris for all three. But, I'm sure you undertand what they are, pretty much, forced to do in self defence.

Industry is replacing the ranchers. The investment of corporations in ranching is immence. And something as simple as a lot of companies creating their own transpotation lines, (or dealing with special deals to current lines), to cut costs, has further created industry. If these industries are pushed out of the state by healthcare requirements or other taxes aimed at business, then the cash cow goes east also. Remember what happened to the insurance industry when Nadar lied to the public and they left. This is just a grander scale. And this one is huge as it affects every business in the state. The disagreement we have at the top of this entry I think is this: You think the businesses come here because of the great growing environment, and I think they are here because of what they can get out of the environment. If they can't get anything because the state is taking it away from them, then they won't come in or stay. And all the environment money being taken just goes away with the rest of the money. If you have nothing to spend, then reading the bills is worthless.

Your observations of trends in the resource marketplace are correct, but your understanding of why it is has assumed its current direction as a simple result of economics is not entirely true. What you are witnessing is an economy deliberately distorted by political and legal forces intended to profit the investor class at the expense of smaller landowners. The reson the bigger corporations are destroying the small landowner isn't as much economies of scale in ranching as it is grain price supports, negotiating power against (IMO) an oligopoly of meatpackers that needs breaking up, and economies of scale in regulatory compliance, some of which has been politically AIMED at destroying small ranchers as part of a combined real estate and meat supply chain scam. You would need to read the book to understand more about how and for whom it works and why.

If these industries are pushed out of the state by healthcare requirements or other taxes aimed at business, then the cash cow goes east also.

I think it goes south, that is, South America. Soros is the largest ranching landowner in Argentina and the Rockefeller brothers are making similar investments in Brazil.

You think the businesses come here because of the great growing environment, and I think they are here because of what they can get out of the environment.

Well, you mischaracterize my stance which is a combination of many factors, some motivational, some political, and some historic.

And all the environment money being taken just goes away with the rest of the money. If you have nothing to spend, then reading the bills is worthless.

I think you misunderstand my thesis entirely. Please re-read what I said, and try the website.