A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

That would roughly double the state GDP while dropping
less than 2% of GDP in agricultural production.

I don't know where you get the idea that a 50% reduction in agriculture in
California would result in less than a 50% reduction in agricultural
production in California.

Your head's been in your ass too long - you can no longer read. A 50%
reduction in agriculture in California will result in a 2% reduction
in California's GDP. You do know what GDP means, don't you?

Of course. I was merely twitting you for your lack of clarity of writing.

The pertinent question is, however, what a 50% reduction in agriculture in
California means to the nation as a whole, and to our needs for foodstuffs.

And then there's the issue of what happens to the ag lands once the
production is stopped.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser