ANS -- Inequality is a failure of capitalism; Poverty is a failure of capitalism

This is a fairly short essay on how capitalism is failing and  -- well, as they say, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable".  It is a warning that our economics has gone too far.

A quote that I often post is this: 

“Capitalism is like fire — it can produce great good or great harm, but to be good it must be carefully, scrupulously, and completely controlled.”  and also: "Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich."

--Kim

[It wouldn't select the author along with the text, and when I went back to get the author's name to put at the top, the facebook page renewed itself so I can't find it.  I think his name was Steven Jellon.]

go ·

Our nation is getting richer and poorer at the same time. Total wealth is increasing (at least for the time being) but it is concentrating so intensely that many Americans are getting poorer even as wealth increases overall. A few Americans garner an ever-larger share of total wealth, leaving many with an ever-smaller share.

This is not just the few capturing the lion's share of new wealth. The top is actively taking wealth from the bottom. The bottom half of Americans are depleting their savings and going into debt paying the top for the necessities of life. What little wealth they have is flowing away, heading for the top. 40 million Americans have zero net worth, 14 million have negative net worth. Almost half of Americans have no reserve whatsoever. As the old working man's song put it, "Everyday older and deeper in debt."

The bottom half increasingly rely on the government's assistance to live. Some of those who don't (yet) need help see that as taking from the productive to support the unproductive. It is exactly that. Those who deride government assurances as "socialism" want to curtail it as though that were possible..

Inequality is a failure of capitalism. If capitalism cannot provide at least minimally to everyone, then it is not a successful system. Consider what happens to the bottom if government assistance is curtailed? And importantly, think about what folks deprived in the midst of plenty might do to the top? People will not sit and starve just because well-provided folks don't want to share the bounty of their capitalism. Poverty is a failure of capitalism.

Egalitarian capitalism is a necessity, not an option to be foregone at will. Passing laws codifying inequality will be no protection. Providing for those whom capitalism overlooks is paying to protect oneself as from any natural disaster. Pass laws against earthquakes and see what it gets you. Humanity has "earthquakes" too. They will not be stopped by statutes.

Buy the insurance that social government provides. Give the poor what your capitalism does not provide them or face the consequences. Capitalism's failure remains uncorrected and you could get real socialism. That has happened disastrously in large swaths of the world. It is exactly how we got that 300-pound walking, stinking disaster that is Donald Trump.

It is your capitalism; you are responsible for it. It is not for the poor to bear the entire cost of its failures. Make it work at least minimally for all; or share its fruits. Or continue the self-righteous financial moralization and take what happens.

See less

ANS -- About the Homeless

ANS group -- this is an essay about homelessness, and that it isn't a right or left problem, but a problem with the economy.  Other countries don't have the homelessness problem we do.  China doesn't.  The democratic socialist countries don't.  We should be ashamed.

--Kim

John Jacobsen

18 hours ago ·

I’ve been living in San Francisco this month, and walking through parts of downtown, the homelessness is simply staggering, and depressing.

Not one person here, one person there. Whole blocks. Tents. People lying on sidewalks. People clearly sick. People clearly addicted. People who appear to be suffering from mental illness. People who simply look exhausted and destitute.

Hundreds of human beings living in conditions that no civilized country—certainly not the richest country on earth—should find acceptable.

And it got me thinking about something we hear constantly:

This is what happens when liberals run cities.

San Francisco. Seattle. Portland. Los Angeles. Democrats run them, homelessness explodes, crime explodes, therefore liberalism is the problem.

Except when you actually start looking at the data, the story becomes considerably more complicated.

There are conservative cities with serious homelessness and crime problems, too: Fresno, Oklahoma City, Bakersfield, Fort Worth, Colorado Springs, Virginia Beach, Mesa, Anchorage.

Meanwhile, some cities have reduced homelessness under Democratic administrations, and some have reduced it under Republican ones.

So perhaps we’re asking the wrong question.

Maybe homelessness isn’t fundamentally a liberal problem or a conservative problem.

Maybe it is an American economic problem.

More specifically, I think it exposes one of the profound failures of our particular version of capitalism: we have allowed something as fundamental to human survival as shelter to become unaffordable to millions of people, and then we act surprised when the poorest and most vulnerable eventually fall off the bottom.

Whenever homelessness comes up, people immediately point to mental illness and drugs. And of course those are enormous problems among people living on the street. But the data tells us something important that gets lost in that argument: at the population level, the places with the most homelessness are not simply the places with the most drug addiction or mental illness. They are overwhelmingly places where housing is scarce and people at the bottom of the economic ladder cannot afford it.

That doesn’t mean drugs and mental illness don’t cause some individuals to become homeless. They absolutely can. And once someone is living on the street, both problems can become dramatically worse.

But if addiction and mental illness were the primary explanation for why one American city has vastly more homelessness than another, we would expect homelessness rates to track those conditions closely.

They don’t.

What they track far more consistently is the cost and availability of housing.

Research has repeatedly found a strong relationship between housing costs, housing scarcity and homelessness. One widely cited analysis found that every $100 increase in median rent was associated with roughly a 9% increase in homelessness.

Think about that.

Because we desperately want homelessness to be about drugs.

Or mental illness.

Or laziness.

Or bad choices.

Because if those are the causes, then homelessness becomes an individual failure rather than a systemic one.

It’s not the system that failed; it’s the person sleeping on the sidewalk who failed.

And that fits neatly into the same argument we have used for generations to resist stronger social safety nets: people are poor because they’re lazy. They don’t want to work. They made bad choices. Therefore helping them merely rewards irresponsibility.

It is a comforting explanation because it absolves the rest of us—and the economic system itself—of responsibility.

But the data complicates that story enormously.

Mental illness and addiction are very real and often devastating factors in individual cases, but they do not adequately explain why homelessness is so much higher in some American cities than others. Housing costs and housing availability do a far better job of that.

And perhaps that is what makes the housing explanation so uncomfortable.

It forces us to consider the possibility that homelessness isn’t simply what happens when individuals fail capitalism.

Sometimes it is what happens when capitalism fails individuals.

And there is another uncomfortable truth: homelessness itself can intensify the very problems we then blame for homelessness.

A major UCSF study of homeless Californians found that among people who regularly used drugs, 42% said that their regular drug use began after they first became homeless.

Think about what living on the street actually means.

Imagine sleeping on a sidewalk night after night and remaining mentally healthy.

Imagine trying to get sober while sleeping in a tent surrounded by drugs.

Imagine trying to hold down a job when you don’t have a shower, an address, a safe place for your possessions or somewhere to sleep.

By the time we encounter someone screaming at invisible demons on a San Francisco sidewalk, we may be looking at the end of the story.

We need to start asking what happened at the beginning.

And very often, at the beginning, somebody couldn’t afford a place to live.

None of this means cities should simply surrender their streets. I don’t believe that either.

People should be able to walk down a sidewalk. Businesses should be able to operate. People openly selling fentanyl should be arrested. Violent people should not be allowed to terrorize neighborhoods. Someone experiencing a psychiatric crisis should not be abandoned on a sidewalk in the name of compassion.

We need public order.

We need police.

We need mental-health treatment.

We need addiction treatment.

But we also desperately need housing.

And not merely fantastically expensive “affordable housing” projects that take years to approve and build. We need apartments. SROs. Micro-apartments. Converted office buildings. Supportive housing. Public housing. Private housing. Subsidized housing. More density. Faster permitting. Fewer ridiculous zoning restrictions.

And we need emergency assistance that catches somebody who is $1,500 short of making rent before that person loses the apartment and enters a homelessness system that may ultimately cost society vastly more.

America once had enormous numbers of extremely inexpensive single-room-occupancy hotels. We systematically eliminated much of that bottom rung of the housing ladder through redevelopment, zoning and building regulations. Pew estimates that if the SRO housing stock had simply grown along with other housing, America would have roughly 2.5 million additional low-cost homes today.

That is a systemic failure.

Call it capitalism. Call it failed housing policy. Call it decades of NIMBYism. Call it government regulation. Call it inadequate government investment.

In reality, it contains elements of all of them.

The American housing market works spectacularly well for many people who own scarce property in desirable places. Rising property values create enormous wealth.

But every rapidly appreciating $2 million house is also telling us something else: land and shelter in that community have become extraordinarily expensive.

And somebody is always at the bottom of an economic ladder.

If the bottom rung is a $500 room, that person may have a room.

If the bottom rung is a $1,800 studio, eventually somebody sleeps outside.

That isn’t liberal.

That isn’t conservative.

That’s arithmetic.

And this is why I find the endless partisan argument about homelessness so maddening.

Liberals don’t want people living in tents.

Conservatives don’t want people living in tents.

Businesses don’t want people sleeping in their doorways.

Homeowners don’t want encampments in their neighborhoods.

And I feel fairly confident that the people living in the goddamn tents don’t want to be living in the tents either.

So why are we still arguing about which political tribe is to blame?

What I have seen walking around San Francisco this month is unacceptable. What I saw in Seattle was unacceptable. And I don’t care whether the mayor has a D or an R after their name.

A country as rich as the United States can do better than this.

But doing better costs money.

Housing people costs money. Building housing costs money. Mental-health care costs money. Addiction treatment costs money. Social workers cost money. Effective policing costs money. Rental assistance costs money.

We seem willing to spend extraordinary amounts dealing with people after their lives collapse while remaining remarkably reluctant to spend enough to prevent the collapse in the first place.

And underneath all of this, for me, is a very simple moral principle:

I believe the strong have an obligation to help the weak.

I believe the measure of a society is not how much its most fortunate can accumulate, but whether those who have enough are willing to reach back for those who do not.

We should feed the hungry, shelter those without a home, care for the sick, and lift up those who have fallen—not because they have earned our compassion, but because compassion should not have to be earned.

There but for fortune go any one of us.

And if we have the means to ease another human being’s suffering and simply choose not to, what exactly does our prosperity say about us?

See less

ANS -- Seedlessness in Fruit

This is about oranges, but it gives you a lot of information about how they get seedless or nearly seedless fruit, and why it has less flavor. 

Just thought we needed to get away from politics for a bit.  

--Kim

Marlene McCall

15 hours ago ·

An AI query inspired by my breakfast, which included a Valencia orange -- with seeds. Although it's lengthy (and a bit technical in spots), check it out if you're interested in biology, agriculture, or even how fruits have evolved over the years.

********************************

A lot of fruits over the years have been domesticated to have fewer seeds or to be totally seedless. I'm curious as to how this has been done over the years and whether it is any different today. I can imagine, like other traits, that a farmer could carefully choose those individual plants that have randomly produced fewer seeds, and use those plants to vegetatively produce the next generation. Is that it? Is there something more? Can something be done in the genetics that is not reliant on natural randomness?

You have a fantastic intuition—what you described is exactly how seedless fruits started, but the story goes much deeper.

Historically, selective breeding and vegetative propagation (like cloning cuttings) were the foundation. However, modern agriculture relies on sophisticated genetic and chromosomal manipulation to produce seedless varieties on demand, completely bypassing the need to wait for a lucky mutation.

Here is how humans transformed fruits from seed-filled to seedless, both then and now.

1. The Traditional Way: Natural Mutations & Cloning

You hit the nail on the head. For thousands of years, farmers looked for somatic mutations — random, natural genetic accidents where a single branch or plant produced fruit with fewer or no seeds. Because a seedless plant cannot reproduce on its own, humans stepped in to keep the line alive through vegetative propagation:

• Grafting: Cutting a branch from the mutant tree and fusing it onto a sturdy rootstock.

• Cuttings: Planting a piece of the stem directly into the ground to grow a clone.

Examples: Bananas, Navel oranges, and Sultana (green) grapes all started this way. Every single Navel orange you eat today is a genetic clone of a single mutant tree found on a Brazilian plantation in the early 1800s.

2. The Modern Way: Chromosomal Manipulation (Polyploidy)

Today, scientists don't wait around for nature. The most common method for creating seedless fruits — like seedless watermelons — is manipulating the number of chromosomes the plant has, a state called polyploidy.

It works like a genetic puzzle:

1. The 4X Parent: Scientists treat a normal watermelon plant (which is diploid, having 2 sets of chromosomes, or 2X) with a natural chemical called colchicine. This chemical duplicates its chromosomes, making it a tetraploid plant (4 sets of chromosomes, or 4X).

2. The Cross-Pollination: They breed the 4X plant with a normal 2X plant.

3. The 3X Seed: The resulting seeds are triploid (3 sets of chromosomes, or 3X).

When you plant that 3X seed, the tree or vine grows, but it is completely sterile. Because 3 is an odd number, the plant's cells cannot divide evenly to create viable seeds or pollen. To get fruit, farmers plant normal 2X watermelons nearby so bees can bring pollen to the 3X plant; the pollen triggers the 3X plant to grow fruit, but no seeds form inside.

3. Cellular Technology: Tissue Culture & Triploid Breeding

Instead of just crossing plants in a field, modern scientists use endosperm culture. The endosperm is the tissue inside a seed that naturally has three sets of chromosomes (3X). Scientists can extract this tiny speck of 3X tissue in a sterile lab, place it in a petri dish with growth hormones, and coax it into growing an entire, fully mature triploid plant. This bypasses years of traditional cross-breeding.

4. Direct Genetic Engineering (The Future)

Can we edit the genome directly? Yes. Scientists are now using CRISPR gene editing and specific genetic modifications to create "built-in" seedlessness, legally known as Parthenocarpy (fruit production without fertilization).

Instead of messing with whole chromosomes, scientists target specific genes:

• They alter genes responsible for seed coat development, meaning the seed never forms its hard outer shell.

• They manipulate auxin and gibberellin (plant hormones) genes so the fruit thinks it has been pollinated and grows plump, even though no fertilization ever took place.

While many CRISPR-edited seedless fruits (like seedless tomatoes) are currently in research phases or strictly regulated, this is where the industry is moving because it allows scientists to make an existing, delicious fruit variety seedless without changing any of its other traits.

Would you like to explore how a specific fruit (like the banana or the avocado) was made seedless, or dive deeper into the pros and cons of farming genetically identical crops?

1. Anything interesting you can tell me about the development of seedless grapes? Also, is it only tables grapes meant for eating that are seedless, or wine grapes also?

2. I'm curious whether this particular characteristic -- seedlessness -- is connected to characteristics like flavor or texture. You mentioned seedless navel oranges. I happen to think that Valencia oranges, which are not seedless, have much better flavor. Is there a connection? Or is it just that so many different traits are being worked on at the same time, over the plant generations, that there might seem to be a connection where there actually is not a connection?

The Secret History of Seedless Grapes

You might find it surprising that commercial seedless grapes are not actually seedless.

Most fruits, like watermelon, achieve seedlessness through parthenocarpy (the fruit grows entirely without fertilization, so no seed ever starts to form). Grapes do something completely different called stenospermocarpy.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) | (.gov) +1

• The Genetic "Trick": When a seedless grape flower is pollinated by a bee, fertilization actually happens normally. The grape starts growing, and a baby seed begins to develop. However, a specific genetic mutation kicks in early on, causing the embryo to abort and the seed coat to stop hardening.

• The Remnants: The seed stops growing, but the fruit continues to expand. When you bite into a green or red seedless grape from the grocery store, those tiny, soft, translucent specks in the very center are actually the "ghosts" of aborted seeds.

• The Hormonal Hurdle: Because seeds naturally pump out growth hormones (like gibberellin) to tell the plant to make the fruit big and juicy, early seedless grapes were tiny and pathetic. Today, farmers must manually spray seedless grapevines with natural plant hormones to "trick" the berries into growing to a normal consumer size.

Are there seedless wine grapes?

Virtually all premium wine grapes have seeds. You will almost never see a commercial Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay, or Pinot Noir that is seedless, and there are two massive reasons for this:

1. Tannins and Structure: Winemakers want seeds. Grape seeds (along with the skins) are packed with polyphenols and tannins. Tannins provide the bitter, astringent structure, complexity, and aging potential that define great red wines. Seedless grapes produce wine that is flat, flabby, and lacks character.

2. The "Thompson" Exception: The famous Thompson Seedless grape (originally an ancient Persian variety called Sultana) is occasionally used to make cheap, bulk box wines or distilled into brandy. However, its primary purpose is still table eating and raisins.

Flavor vs. Seedlessness: Is There a Connection?

Your observation about Valencia oranges having better flavor than Navel oranges is spot on. There is a deep, multifaceted relationship between seedlessness and flavor. It is a mix of biological trade-offs and human priorities.

1. The Energy Trade-Off (Biology)

Seeds are incredibly resource-intensive for a plant to make. In some fruits, eliminating the seeds means the plant can redirect all its sugars and energy entirely into the flesh, making the fruit sweeter.

However, seeds act as hormonal command centers. They signal the plant to send specific complex nutrients, acids, and aromatic compounds to the fruit. When you eliminate the seed, you often accidentally eliminate the chemical triggers that create a deep, complex flavor profile. This is why many heirloom, heavily seeded fruits (like old-school watermelons or seeded grapes) have a richer, more "nuanced" or tart flavor, whereas seedless varieties taste primarily of simple, mono-dimensional sweetness.

2. The Navel vs. Valencia Dilemma

In the case of your oranges, you are experiencing a direct chemical byproduct of seedlessness:

• Navel Oranges (Seedless): Navels contain a high amount of a compound called limonin in their flesh. When a Navel orange is squeezed into juice and exposed to oxygen, a chemical reaction occurs that turns the limonin incredibly bitter within hours.

• Valencia Oranges (Seeded): Valencias keep their limonin safely sequestered inside their seeds. Because the flesh has almost no limonin, Valencia juice stays sweet, rich, and intensely flavorful days after squeezing.

3. The "Breeding Blindspot" (Human Intervention)

Your intuition that "too many traits are being worked on at once" is entirely correct. For the last 50 years, commercial agriculture prioritized a very specific checklist for grocery store fruit:

• Seedlessness (for convenience)

• Thick skin (to survive being bounced around in shipping trucks)

• Long shelf-life

• Uniform aesthetic color

When breeders focus intensely on cross-pollinating exclusively for shipping durability and seedlessness, flavor is almost always the trait that gets left behind. Because complex flavor profiles rely on a delicate web of dozens of different genes, it is incredibly easy to accidentally breed them out when you are hyper-focused on making a fruit seedless.

Scientists are currently using new genetic tools to try and "re-introduce" heirloom flavors back into modern seedless fruits.

See less