Hi all,

since out moderator seems to have been disappeared I enjoy participation
in an off-subject issue here. :-)


Well, I see I am surrounded by leftists. ;-)

Jean-Louis:
>And people are not forced to buy but maybe some WOULD LIKE to,
>and are not financially at ease enough. Worse, Burger and co say all
>the time that instincto doesn't work if food is denatured, i.e. you
>have to buy Orkos, otherwise your instinct will be misled.

I WOULD LIKE to buy a Ferrari but can't afford because my fincancial
situation doesn't allow. How sad. ;-)
Right, you should use instincto-quality food. But who said, that you
m u s t   use Orkos-food? Have your own garden or ask friends who
aren't engaged in artifical fertilizers etc. if they can grow some-
thing for you. Try organic food sources - not all are bad. All of this
may be more complicated than buying at Orkos (at least if you're in
Europe.) But it is   c h e a p e r. On the other hand you spend your
time in searching for food-suppliers. Time is money. Find your own
break-even point. For me it's 98% Orkos and 2% searching around for
other food-suppliers, testing them, etc.

Jean-Louis:
>Personally, my leftist-oriented mind tells me that a diet not
>affordable by -say- 80% of the French population is not acceptable.
>I would rather find a compromise than pay 3 times the price of an
>ordinary (cooked) meal.

If only 10% of the french population would live instinctively there
would be established food-suppliers with much lower prices. What makes
Orkos so terrible expensive is, that their methods differ from  a l l
other food-suppliers. If that would be over, a major source for higher
prices would have disappeared. The first organic food stores had to
fight for their food. Now they are quite established and things work
smoother and easier (and cheaper). Orkos is still in the phase of
fighting. (The first mobile telephones were terrible expensive I
hear...)
I would rather pay 3 times the price than eating chemicals, pollution,
heated, irradiated and other treated food.
My health is worth it. I've got only this one body.

Jean-Louis:
>Word: manichaeism

You are joking. I wouldn't have gotten this either. But thanks for
the explanation.

Christian:
>So under full employment, there is a
>balance between employer and employee. Thus, there is no interest for
>capital owners to fight unemployment. They lose their pressure on the
>workers. So Stefan's argument only applies in a society with no or
>very little unemployment.

Wrong. We have app. 5 millions of unemployed people now in Germany.
My company recently searched for a secretary and some software develo-
pers. Well we searched over one year for each of them!!!
The market for them was a socalled employee-market: the employees
who are qualified can decide, which company they take.
This applies to several other parts of the whole market too.
Another example: skilled workers are rare and are urgently searched
for by lots of companies.
It seems, that the 5 mio. unemployed ones haven't learned anything or
(worse) are not willing to work. But (again) this is   t h e i r   pro-
blem. It doesn't prove that the market does not function.

Instinctively marketed wishes,

Stefan