Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wobbly]

Something I see at the crux of these arguments about "big" vs "small" is that there are a lot of arguments built on the premise that the "rich are selfish and greedy", when in realty most people are "selfish and greedy", most rotten politicians get elected, because there is an equal rot in the electorate. My whole life I've watched selfish polticians get elected pork barrelling the electorate. But people talk about politicians being the problem, not voters. I see a mirror, and both sides are as ugly as each other.

[Duuvian]

Bears are also increasing.

[Great Order]

Is that what we call a bear market?

[Robot Parade Leader]

The eggs thing. Yeah, look at that great big spike recently. You may have to scroll over to the right. Stable egg prices for years and decades and then boom. All through the 80s and 90s were stable. They went up a little in the 2000s. How much do you wanna bet they were stable in the 60s and 70s? What happened to keep things stable then? Why aren't they stable now? Wasn't there supposed to be massive inflation or "stagflation" in the 80s? or something? Look at the stable prices then. Yeah, sure it blipped up a little on that graph in, I dunno,1983 or 1984, but except for that. They hovered around a dollar for what, 25 or 30 years on that line graph and there has been inflation during that quarter century too so what gives?

How did we get this crap stable before and how do we get it stable again. It isn't impossible because it was done before.

And as normal, all the conservatives screamed bloody murder at the idea of raising a minimum wage. They said it would lead to job losses and every terrible bad thing they could. Nothing bad happened. Just scaremongering to avoid their rightful fate of having the money they stole from society taken away from them. Funny how everyone else "didn't earn it," but when the shoe's on the other foot it hits the fan. Yeah, you do need $20/hours to live in California. Cost of living varies. This only applied to large chains with more than 60 locations, so it didn't hit the smaller places.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/californias-20-fast-food-minimum-wage-didnt-lead-to-major-job-losses-study-finds/ar-AA1rZAOe

The "radical ideas" now include being able to afford to live? We don't need massive multi chain burger operations not paying their employees a wage they can exist on.

The whole hurricane thing in the American South has been a mess of conspiracy theory lies.

https://www.newsweek.com/how-republicans-voted-against-fema-funding-reacted-hurricane-helene-1965729

https://i.imgur.com/k9an6CL.jpeg

She's been told to knock it off, because her "they can control the weather" crap is just nuts, but she's doubling down more every day. Sitting congresswoman says this crap and she's not stopping, even after other Republicans have told her to, because it is irresponsible after all the hurricane stuff.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-weather-control-hurricane-b2626699.html

Democrats have a difference of opinion based on longstanding researched stuff and are called insane and dangerous and told we are going to destroy society if any of that happens. Doesn't matter what it is or how good it goes, any democratic policy is "bad." But whatever conservative thing that is made up whenever is somehow "good," like Brexit, which was supposed to make everything in the UK wonderful, but didn't. Meanwhile, more conspiracy theory nonsense and somehow this woman is allowed in congress. She's said the antisemitic "Jewish space laser" nonsense "causing California wildfires" and now she's just expanding the nuttiness to this as "weather control." There's no sense or truth in any of it, but we should listen to the other things she says too and let her be in Congress despite being nuts. If we could control the weather, we would and we'd make it nicer, or maybe use it as a weapon against foreign enemies to scare them into behaving or not starting wars? I don't know, it doesn't matter because all the nonsense is nonsense. If there was a Democrat that went anywhere near this insanity they'd be out of office. Heck, Biden's debate screw up wasn't anywhere near this bad and they got him not to run for reelection again.

It's just a total double standard.

If Biden, or any Democratic congress member started ranting like this, it wouldn't be tolerated, but Marjorie Taylor Greene spreading ‘beyond ridiculous’ claims is just perfectly ok. She's fine. Her job is fine. We should respect her. O,and we shouldn't ask her to control the weather. Because if we could then why don't they make it nice outside or better for growing crops? It's all lies is why and nobody controls the weather to cause hurricanes.

[McTraveller]

Funny thing, just today I read an article about how things in real terms are actually cheaper than they were a few years ago, but people still "feel" like prices are high. Like how people forget that gasoline was $3.50/gal for regular way back in 2005, and right now in my neighborhood it's... $3.39/gal.  (To be fair, something did get busted with grades of gasoline; they used to be $0.10 apart, and now they are I think $0.60 or $0.70 between grade levels.)

Basically eggs were getting cheaper (in real terms) for a long time, and then recently they effectively re-normalized.  So they weren't stable, but were falling.  The way you get prices stable: start making more eggs! There's a massive amount of property out there, raise some chickens and start farming! And don't sell the farm to the big chains. I mean what do you want, someone (e.g., the government) to force people to farm eggs, when they'd rather do something else? Do you really want the government to set the prices for the goods you sell? Clearly you don't want that as a sole proprietor - so what non-arbitrary point do you want to start saying it's OK for the government to declare the price of eggs?  I mean heck what if I only wanted to produce 1 dozen eggs a year and support my family off that, why can't I charge $100k for that super special ultra pure, lovingly tendered eggs that my kids snuggled and played with the chickens all day?

---

Minimum wage effects are extraordinarily complex, so I basically discount all discussion on them because those conversations are almost always political or sentimental instead of based in actual fact. Basically, minimum wage by itself doesn't correlate with employment, it's always coupled with other factors.

There's no way to "steal money from society" incidentally; money doesn't work like that.  The money in fact is still "in" society, and it's extremely difficult to determine if profit to companies is more or less efficiently allocated that way than if it was paid as wage or salary.

I mean think about it this way: say you designed some new fancy widget, but need 9 people to make and sell them.  When you get $100 for the widget (after paying for raw materials), how do you distribute that among the 10 of you?  What about if you now designed a new widget, and need 4 more people to make the second one? Say you get another $100 net per new widget.  Do the 9 workers making widget A "deserve" some of the revenue from widget B? What about you as the designer - you're getting money from 2 widgets, but you didn't "build" any of them. What about if you hire a cleaning crew to clean your facility, and you hire them 1 day a week (and they are hired by different companies on other days of the week).  How much of the revenue from your widgets should the cleaning company get?

Saying "people should have enough income to live" is also somewhat disingenuous, because there is such a wide range of living situations there is no meaningful minimum level.  Does everyone "deserve" to live by themselves in a 1000 square foot house? Is it "wrong" for people to have to live with roommates or family? Should society foot the bill to allow that, even if a person isn't doing work that is highly valued (see my example of "do you really think society should pay you $50k (or whatever) for any arbitrary task?")

Economics is, sadly, substantially more complicated than people think. There truly is "no such thing as a free lunch."  I mean think about it - you could take all $40 billion or whatever Elon Musk is worth and distribute it equally across the US - and you'd give everyone a mere $121.  And if you gave people $121, do you think we'd get more eggs? No, probably what we'd get is basically the same number of eggs, but people would complain slightly less about the extra $1 every couple weeks.

[Frumple]

And if you gave people $121, do you think we'd get more eggs? No, probably what we'd get is basically the same number of eggs, but people would complain slightly less about the extra $1 every couple weeks.

I mean, no, the spicy trick is you probably would get more eggs, and just in general improve the health of the economy for most of the population, because most of the folks getting that $121 would be a) Spending it, and b) Spending it on necessities or popular luxuries as opposed to whatever the hell musk does while tripping on special k. It'd almost certainly make the various markets healthier and more responsive. Maybe not to a gigantic degree, but it'd be noticeable!

The general population getting that 121 bucks probably cares a lot more about eggs (and basically everything else that maintains or improves life and livelihood for non-grifters, for that matter) than musk does, so you'd actually have a pretty non-zero chance to see egg production go up in response to that

[Maximum Spin]

And if you gave people $121, do you think we'd get more eggs? No, probably what we'd get is basically the same number of eggs, but people would complain slightly less about the extra $1 every couple weeks.

I mean, no, the spicy trick is you probably would get more eggs, and just in general improve the health of the economy for most of the population, because most of the folks getting that $121 would be a) Spending it, and b) Spending it on necessities or popular luxuries as opposed to whatever the hell musk does while tripping on special k. It'd almost certainly make the various markets healthier and more responsive. Maybe not to a gigantic degree, but it'd be noticeable!

The general population getting that 121 bucks probably cares a lot more about eggs (and basically everything else that maintains or improves life and livelihood for non-grifters, for that matter) than musk does, so you'd actually have a pretty non-zero chance to see egg production go up in response to that

That's not really how it works, though - even if total consumption of eggs, not just spending on eggs, increased, which isn't at all convincing, a one-time increase of $121 a person won't sustain any investment in more egg production. At best, this might cause a temporary bidding up of the price of chickens. After that, the money goes right back to the same circulation it was already in.

[McTraveller]

I think you may get more eggs, but at a new higher equilibrium price point. I don't think we're going to have some magic thing that makes chickens produce more eggs faster and for less cost than they do now.  So to get more eggs you have to convince existing players to make more, or convince new players to first invest in a new farm and then make more.

Even for "personal use"; even if you consume a dozen eggs a week at $3/dozen, I can't imagine you'd break even on the capital (yardwork, coop structures) and operating (feed, chickens, energy, chicken waste management) costs in less than 3 or 4 years. Plus the extra work, so unless you really enjoy farming, there's not a lot of incentive for this.  The entry point calculus for higher volumes doesn't get much better.

I just don't see what policy would work here, unless you really do want to funnel taxpayer money into egg production, when there very well might be things society as a whole needs more than eggs.  You could put price caps on eggs, but that will almost guarantee supply won't increase (unless the cap is so ridiculously high it's the same as not having a cap in the first place). I'm struggling to think of other policy options.

[Maximum Spin]

I just don't see what policy would work here, unless you really do want to funnel taxpayer money into egg production, when there very well might be things society as a whole needs more than eggs.  You could put price caps on eggs, but that will almost guarantee supply won't increase (unless the cap is so ridiculously high it's the same as not having a cap in the first place). I'm struggling to think of other policy options.

Short of fully restructuring society so that it's normal for every neighborhood to have some chickens, I don't think there is one.

[Eric Blank]

Most rural towns it is normal for someone to have chickens. Many people, even. Lots of different livestock or pets like horses. But we can't (legally) sell our eggs, we don't have any of the thousands of dollars of licenses or registrations or safety checks necessary to put any product we make on the market, eggs or meat included. Best we can do is give them to someone as a "gift" and accept empty cartons in return.

If you want to restructure society to make small businesses like selling eggs profitable again, eliminate all the monetary fees associated with registrations at both state and federal levels. People can pass the licensing and safety checks, we can't afford the costs of doing so though.

[Maximum Spin]

Most rural towns it is normal for someone to have chickens. Many people, even. Lots of different livestock or pets like horses. But we can't (legally) sell our eggs, we don't have any of the thousands of dollars of licenses or registrations or safety checks necessary to put any product we make on the market, eggs or meat included. Best we can do is give them to someone as a "gift" and accept empty cartons in return.

If you want to restructure society to make small businesses like selling eggs profitable again, eliminate all the monetary fees associated with registrations at both state and federal levels. People can pass the licensing and safety checks, we can't afford the costs of doing so though.

Several of the farms near me do sell eggs, probably illegally. I'm all for it, of course, but I don't really want to raise chickens myself.

[McTraveller]

I looked it up; in the US it's state law (and maybe local) that sets agricultural laws. Some states have no requirements. So I guess vote? But this is an example of laws that mean well - I mean nobody wants food-borne illness, so there are fees. And even if you had fully socialized fees, you'd still presumably need to register so the public taxpayer-funded inspectors knew what to inspect.

So: do you believe in food safety, which takes resources to ensure, so must be funded somehow? Is it better to fund it directly by those consuming the product (by making farmers pay the fees, and pass on and include in the final price), or in aggregate, paid by taxes by everyone including people who cannot even use the product due to say allergies?

It's not obvious to me... because there are tradeoffs which can be subjective...

[Robot Parade Leader]

You're not going to agree with me and that's ok. More eggs/food. More jobs. If the private sector keeps failing at those then yes, the government should take it over. And you get to vote out the people in charge if they suck.

Funny thing, just today I read an article about how things in real terms are actually cheaper than they were a few years ago, but people still "feel" like prices are high. Like how people forget that gasoline was $3.50/gal for regular way back in 2005, and right now in my neighborhood it's... $3.39/gal.  (To be fair, something did get busted with grades of gasoline; they used to be $0.10 apart, and now they are I think $0.60 or $0.70 between grade levels.)

Basically eggs were getting cheaper (in real terms) for a long time, and then recently they effectively re-normalized.  So they weren't stable, but were falling.  The way you get prices stable: start making more eggs! There's a massive amount of property out there, raise some chickens and start farming! And don't sell the farm to the big chains. I mean what do you want, someone (e.g., the government) to force people to farm eggs, when they'd rather do something else? Do you really want the government to set the prices for the goods you sell? Clearly you don't want that as a sole proprietor - so what non-arbitrary point do you want to start saying it's OK for the government to declare the price of eggs?  I mean heck what if I only wanted to produce 1 dozen eggs a year and support my family off that, why can't I charge $100k for that super special ultra pure, lovingly tendered eggs that my kids snuggled and played with the chickens all day?

---

Minimum wage effects are extraordinarily complex, so I basically discount all discussion on them because those conversations are almost always political or sentimental instead of based in actual fact. Basically, minimum wage by itself doesn't correlate with employment, it's always coupled with other factors.

There's no way to "steal money from society" incidentally; money doesn't work like that.  The money in fact is still "in" society, and it's extremely difficult to determine if profit to companies is more or less efficiently allocated that way than if it was paid as wage or salary.

I mean think about it this way: say you designed some new fancy widget, but need 9 people to make and sell them.  When you get $100 for the widget (after paying for raw materials), how do you distribute that among the 10 of you?  What about if you now designed a new widget, and need 4 more people to make the second one? Say you get another $100 net per new widget.  Do the 9 workers making widget A "deserve" some of the revenue from widget B? What about you as the designer - you're getting money from 2 widgets, but you didn't "build" any of them. What about if you hire a cleaning crew to clean your facility, and you hire them 1 day a week (and they are hired by different companies on other days of the week).  How much of the revenue from your widgets should the cleaning company get?

Saying "people should have enough income to live" is also somewhat disingenuous, because there is such a wide range of living situations there is no meaningful minimum level.  Does everyone "deserve" to live by themselves in a 1000 square foot house? Is it "wrong" for people to have to live with roommates or family? Should society foot the bill to allow that, even if a person isn't doing work that is highly valued (see my example of "do you really think society should pay you $50k (or whatever) for any arbitrary task?")

Economics is, sadly, substantially more complicated than people think. There truly is "no such thing as a free lunch."  I mean think about it - you could take all $40 billion or whatever Elon Musk is worth and distribute it equally across the US - and you'd give everyone a mere $121.  And if you gave people $121, do you think we'd get more eggs? No, probably what we'd get is basically the same number of eggs, but people would complain slightly less about the extra $1 every couple weeks.

"The way you get prices stable: start making more eggs! There's a massive amount of property out there, raise some chickens and start farming! And don't sell the farm to the big chains. I mean what do you want, someone (e.g., the government) to force people to farm eggs, when they'd rather do something else?"

Yes. I'm tired of mass hunger as a "choice." There's enough land out there. They could work up a system to pay for it. But please we should go ahead and have more lawns that don't do anything but cost money to mow? Letting people go hungry should not be an option. Let's just make more people we can't feed? https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/key-statistics-graphics/
13.5% of US households are food insecure. Out of those 5.1% are very food insecure.

This is not an acceptable or sustainable thing. I hear a lot about how people should get jobs, and it is time we created some when the private sector has failed to do that after we gave them so many tax breaks for it, yes as an end goal, and yes on taxpayer's dimes, specifically rich ones who can pay a larger percentage of their incomes or a proxy for incomes when they disguise their compensation as something else.

We have millions of hungry kids in this country that only get stable meals through free school lunches that are just not funded right.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7220a6.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YypArYDcjA        John Oliver's show on it presented on Youtube.
https://apnews.com/article/free-school-lunch-child-hunger-7d38b5a84e533129f507d76cc05c622f

According to Wikipedia this is 8% or Four million American children "experience prolonged periodic food insufficiency and hunger each year", which amounts to 8% of children under the age of 12. [ 7 ] An additional 21% are at risk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_meal_programs_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Four%20million%20American%20children%20%22experience%20prolonged%20periodic%20food,health%20and%20well-being%20of%20children%20in%20several%20ways.

We have old people in this country who don't have food and at times have to chose between food and medication. Here is Jim McGovern trying to get funding for meals on wheels to feed hungry senior citizens. I don't want old people going hungry and I am glad taxes, including mine, go to feed them. If that makes me a bad person or something then I'm ok with that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2JRdz550N0

Then we have conservative politicians saying more bonkers things like hunger just doesn't exist:
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/gop-rep-claimed-s-never-met-hungry-person-state-rcna75023
If this politician wants to meet hungry people then soup kitchens/ food banks like the one I volunteer at can give him a ladle to help feed them.

"Do you really want the government to set the prices for the goods you sell? Clearly you don't want that as a sole proprietor - so what non-arbitrary point do you want to start saying it's OK for the government to declare the price of eggs?"

Yes, through increasing production through government owned and operated enterprises as the private enterprises fail. Ideally the entire egg industry thing would be nationalized and eminent domain would pay for the acquisition as partially paid for by future profits. As an accommodation, private enterprises could pay the government for the privilege of being able to operate in the production of eggs under the government's rules. Operation without license: criminal offense, educational classes, repeat offense imprisonment for destabilizing the food supply, third offense felony. Operate within the system or don't. That'll eliminate some CEOs (an absolutely wonderful thing to get rid of) while creating proper government control that should have expanded after it rescued us from the Great Depression. The quantity of production can be controlled and that means the price can be. I just don't believe it is impossible. The government could do something. The government could own the land and the chickens. Yes, this is "radical." No, I don't care. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2024/02/living-in-shelters.html "Nearly 327,000 in U.S. Lived in Emergency and Transitional Shelters." The answer to that can't just be a shrug and a "you don't really want the government to do [insert thing here], but that's exactly what it has been forever. Your answer is pretty much the standard usual answer. I get it. It's getting worse though. It is now a crime to sleep outside too. Those are just the numbers of people in bad situations like that, but there are a lot of others hurting but doing a little better and it is too many.

I kinda do want the government in charge of this. I want someone researching this in real time to get the right answer on pricing signals to increase or decrease productivity instead of whatever magic buzzword corporate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts dartboard gets darts thrown at it to make whatever corporate executive decision buzzword result that is completely divorced from real life. We already have this and it's called Wall Street and it is not working as well with the horrid "deregulation." Governments tell people what to do because without them the strong abuse the rest and corporates tell us what to do. It is a massive difference hearing from people who get to tell others what to do when the government doesn't instead of the rest of us. We are going to be told what to do no matter what. I can vote out a bad government, but once that CEO is in, good luck getting him out if he's terrible for everyone but the board of directors making them money at our expense.

"There's no way to "steal money from society" incidentally; money doesn't work like that.  The money in fact is still "in" society, and it's extremely difficult to determine if profit to companies is more or less efficiently allocated that way than if it was paid as wage or salary."

It absolutely is possible to steal from society. Money does work like that. The argument that it somehow is still in circulation makes it ok makes 0 sense to me. So if someone steals a ton of money but it is still spent in society that means it wasn't stolen? I'm sorry but no thank you on that answer. The middle class has been ruined and the top 1% has taken way too much they did not earn and only got by abusing their power. This is not an isolated political belief. We don't need CEOs making as much as they do and there is no benefit to it for anyone but them. Having a middle class that can't really afford to buy much of anything kills demand (willingness and ability to pay). Somebody has to have money to buy the things the businesses make and it is not unreasonable to see that as a good thing. CEO pay is inefficient and every time someone tries to do anything about it there's a fit. https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/30/investing/elon-musk-pay-package-thrown-out/index.html They are taking far more than their share and that's the thing they stole and are only able to keep by abusing their corporate leadership position.

The widget thing answer can't be all the benefit goes to the top. Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's impossible. The compensation can be worked out, but it should not include people adding value getting not enough to live on. Otherwise there is a problem with the business model. I'm tired for large, incredibly profitable corporations paying their workers so little they have to apply for public benefits, which means we the taxpayers are paying what should be the corporation's labor costs.

https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/11/18/taxpayers-subsidize-poverty-wages-walmart-mcdonalds-other-large-corporations-gao

https://www.businessinsider.com/companies-pay-workers-less-than-worth-biden-wants-to-change-2022-3

https://apnews.com/article/how-companies-rip-off-poor-employees-6c5364b4f9c69d9bc1b0093519935a5a

https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0512/how-large-corporations-get-around-paying-less-in-taxes.aspx

I will never believe economics runs by some sort of natural economic system best done with no "intervention." All the rich ever do is intervene and this is "good" but the government does it and it is magically bad? We are all told what to do. There is no way we get to exist without being told what to do. I would rather be able to elect the people telling me what to do instead of some horrible corporate CEO that basically can't be removed no matter what. I get he can be but it won't happen or it will only happen after his golden parachute separation package. CEOs of large companies are parasites who should not exist.

[Starver]

This is not an acceptable or sustainable thing.

Sure it is! Depending upon your politics, either get the food-insecure to eat some of the food-secure (thus moving them out of insecurity) or get the food-secure to eat the food-insecure (not much meat on 'em, maybe, but at least permanently removes people for the non-secure sections). Solved!

It might depend upon who wins in November as to which proposal you get to pursue, but I modestly submit both logical directions!

[Duuvian]

For thing like chicken farming, regulations for small producers are sometimes overdone McTraveller. It's difficult for small farmers to sell them to the main distributors. Ironically, the last time I looked into this there was testing being done regarding cleanliness of small chicken farm's butchery facilities vs giant chicken factory facilities and the small farms did much better. That was years ago but I don't know if it changed around. I also haven't looked into it much. Basically though for processed food, at least in my area, it's somewhat limited to cottage goods and usually the market is a farmer's market for that.

For example, to safely sell chicken eggs the process is
1: Gather eggs
2: Wash chicken shit completely off eggs
3: Place in carton
4: Store in refridgerator

That is 100% of the process required to safely sell chicken eggs. Maybe there are exceptions like when your chickens are being targetted by Predators. That means they might be infested with Aliens and I don't want to know what happens to the Eggs then!

Also:
WELCOME TO THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR HOME FOOD PRESERVATION
https://nchfp.uga.edu/

This can be easy!


Preserve by…
Canning
Jams & Jellies
Pickling
Fermenting
Freezing
Drying
Curing & Smoking
Storing

SO EASY TO PRESERVE

The University of Georgia Cooperative Extension has now published a 6th edition of its popular book, So Easy To Preserve. The book was reviewed and updated in 2020. Chapters in the 388-page book include Preserving Food, Canning, Pickled Products, Sweet Spreads and Syrups, Freezing and Drying.

Here is the section on canning tomatoes!


    Canning Tomatoes, Introduction
    Tomato acidification directions
    Tomato Juice
    Tomato and Vegetable Juice Blend
    Crushed Tomatoes (with no added liquid)
    Standard Tomato Sauce
    Whole or Halved Tomatoes (packed in water)
    Whole or Halved Tomatoes (packed in tomato juice)
    Whole or Halved Tomatoes (packed raw without added liquid)
    Tomatoes with Okra or Zucchini
    Spaghetti Sauce without Meat
    Spaghetti Sauce with Meat
    Tomato Ketchup
    Tomato Paste
    Country Western Ketchup
    Blender Ketchup
    Easy Hot Sauce
    Barbecue Sauce
    Tomatillos (packed in water)
    Cayenne Pepper Sauce
    Salsa de Chiles Cayenas (Spanish)

My dad has a juicer for this. It has a turncrank and seems like Civil War era tech made in the '90s. It has a corkscrew which mashes the tomatoes' juice out in a funnel to a mason jar while heaving the pulp and seeds into a bucket below the table. This is then canned with the process where you boil and then chill it that's surely described much finer in the above link. This preserves it without refridgeration until the seal is broken for I don't know how long. Here is a hot tip: on the first run put a single deseeded Ghost Pepper in. Use little mason jars for that and run a few of those. Those jars are for cooking spicy food with. The others are for drinking and they will keep a little bit of the one pepper.

Also if you play tabletop games and want some excellent little alien trees for it, check out this cool thing you can do with peppers:


Here is how:
https://fatalii.net/bonsai_chiles_bonchi/

That site has an amazing collection of information on how to make some kind of super-mutant pepper by touching two flowers together (I try not to blush!). It's outstanding and I printed off like all of the guides there. That's how I remembered what the name of this great site was!