Stefan:

> I WOULD LIKE to buy a Ferrari but can't afford because my fincancial
> situation doesn't allow. How sad. ;-)

Bad analogy: a Ferrari won't improve your health (on the contrary! :-)),
whereas we agree that many illnesses are due to poor nutrition.

> 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.

I don't have any garden (I lived in the center of Paris, and now in
the center of Philadelphia). I could move, but it's less convenient for
me (loss of time in transportation). And I don't know any person who
would grow something for me.

> 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.

Yes, that's what I am doing. I only used Orkos when the organic sources were
too (heat-)denatured. The point is, that Burger and co. always blame
the quality of food when there is something wrong. Sure, since we use
the instinct, it is important that instinct functions accurately,
but I would prefer to find a compromise (such as using 50% instinct and
50% intellectual selection), so that the result with ordinary food
(organic *or not*) is satisfying.

Of course, I mainly use organic food, but I am not a "purist". When I
find "nice" fruits or vegetables which are not organic, or when I
don't have the time to search for organic food, or when I am invited
somewhere, in the plane... I eat non organic.

Even if I eat mainly organic, I would like organic food not to be
*necessary* for my nutrition, i.e., that a good result could be
achieved when buying ordinary food in the supermarkets, and that
if I happened to have only food from the supermarket for 3 months,
I wouldn't be unhappy, and my diet wouldn't fail.

> 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.

But prices would still be high: you have been trying hard in several
posts to justify prices at Orkos, to say that high prices are inherent
to their methods of production (a lot of spoilage, no artificial feeding,
etc...)

And that wasn't my point. I would like that, even with 0.1% of the
French population eating instinctively, a person who earns a modest
salary be able to practive instinctive nutrition, or a kind of
compromise, without having with the "instinctive stop" as you
call it.

> 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.

I don't criticize you personally. If you earn enough money, it is a much
more valuable to spend it in Orkos food than in Ferraries :-)

But for me (at least for the moment, and for the few years to come), I
cannot afford 98% Orkos food. And even if I could, I would prefer
first to *prove* on myself that eating raw with low-quality food is
possible.

> 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.

As you may guess, I agree with Christian. Company often take time to
find employees, because they have many candidates, and the want
to hire the best ones for the lowest wages. Maybe the really skilled
experts have some power, but the average person is "happy" enough
to find a job, even if not well paid, and, in case of a problem, can
only shut his mouth if he doesn't want to be fired.

> 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.

It may be true in some cases, but it is very easy to blame others for
not willing to learn when you are privileged and had had a good
environment, good opportunities (and financial conditions) to learn.
And it is also a problem when you specialize in a field, there are
-say- 10000 persons with the same profile and the market only requires
5000. In the other fields, you are less skilled and/or the wages
are lower. For instance, I know many people who have studied 4+ years
at university, and yet who have to accept an employment of secretary.
And in my case (7 years university), I would rather be unemployed
for a while than empty public garbage.

N.B.: I said I wouldn't talk about that anymore, but I couldn't
resist... :-( But I promise to keep volume low.


Best wishes,

Jean-Louis
([log in to unmask])