Should nations produce their own food to insure food safety?
Yes, importing all/most of the food isn't smart
69% (29)
69% (29)
No, food is a product like any other
28.6% (12)
28.6% (12)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Should nations produce their own food to insure food safety?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Do you feel that the state should support agriculture in its nation to at least some degree to make sure that the nation is able to feed itself and doesn't become too dependent on the outside world for food?

Or do you feel that there should be no state support for agriculture and that the free market should reign completely free when it comes to food even if it could mean that the nation becomes mostly or even completely dependent on the outside world for food in case the nation's own food industry and agriculture can't compete with foreign food and agricultural?

Absolutely, I'd go even further to say that where possible the state should be encouraging individuals to grow some of their own food in allotments or on balconies where space is available. It's crazy that we grow food then ship it halfway round the world when it's possible to grow food nearby. It's down there with energy security...you don't particularly want to be reliant on someone else's foreign policy, even if you're their ally.

Yes, having other nations control most of your food supply....isn't smart. There are many things that humans can live without, but food and water are not among them.

Being allies and trading partners is all well and good, but you can not depend on that always being the case.

Basically in the event of war or embargo you're boned, having doomed your country to mass starvation. Yeah every country needs to produce their own.

In a case of going 'North Korea', having a self-sustained agricultural industry to feed your people is crucial. Either way, food availability and diversity is important, and subsidizing agriculture is a good policy to secure a nation's health and future... Unless you're sponsoring corn.

TheIronRuler:
Unless you're sponsoring corn.

What is wrong with corn?

It's an ideal to strive for, but not always possible.

Signapore, Vatican City, and other tiny nations just don't have the room to make food to feed their populations.

Nations with little rain fall or other inhospitable climates makes it virtually impossible to grow enough.

Yes...but there are potentially various problem with that.

You have to keep subsidising your farmers, and that means you have to keep buying whatever they grow, which isn't always for the best.

Esotera:
Absolutely, I'd go even further to say that where possible the state should be encouraging individuals to grow some of their own food in allotments or on balconies where space is available. It's crazy that we grow food then ship it halfway round the world when it's possible to grow food nearby. It's down there with energy security...you don't particularly want to be reliant on someone else's foreign policy, even if you're their ally.

I would go further and say we should have a global food supply.. Oh wait people aren't ready for that yet? They need to hurry the F up people are starving..
Everyone needs to feed everyone.

Crop failures in one nation can cause that nation to starve when only relying on local food as well, While a nation should not be solely dependent on food grown in other nations, ALL nations need to be contributing to the global food supply.

Esotera:
It's crazy that we grow food then ship it halfway round the world when it's possible to grow food nearby.

it generally costs less to ship stuff "halfway round the world" now than it does (for the average urban commuter) to visit the shops to buy it by car.

the modern containerised/mechanised/computerised cargo system is incredibly efficient and cost effective.

Why? The US has more arable farmland than Croatia. Why should the Swiss pay an insane amount of money to make crops that can be more easily produced in the US? Hell, why should the Sudanese try and feed their entire population when the land they reside in cannot support it? Use the land for what you can actually produce. Sorry Khrushchev, corn does not grow well in Siberia.

If you do not want to deal with a trade embargo then do not go to war, build alliances and protect yourself.

No. It's a stupid idea. Anyone ever heard of Lebensraum? Autarky?

By relying upon eachother for the basics of life we help to ensure peace.

hakkarin:

What is wrong with corn?

The USA needlessly subsidises corn production, resulting in de-facto dumping in developing agricultural economies, preventing them from developing.

It seriously messes up a lot of the world.

farson135:
Why? The US has more arable farmland than Croatia. Why should the Swiss pay an insane amount of money to make crops that can be more easily produced in the US?

Because not everything is about the bottom line. Universial healthcare isn't cheap either, but keeping people safe and healthy isn't cheap. Same with food.

farson135:
Hell, why should the Sudanese try and feed their entire population when the land they reside in cannot support it? Use the land for what you can actually produce. Sorry Khrushchev, corn does not grow well in Siberia.

Obviously nations that don't have any good farmland can't resort to large scale agriculture, but nations that can grow their own food should do so to whatever extent they can.

farson135:
If you do not want to deal with a trade embargo then do not go to war, build alliances and protect yourself

Because obviously every country is just like The US or Russia and can easily throw its size around and make its opinions matter to everybody.

Danny Ocean:
No. It's a stupid idea. Anyone ever heard of Lebensraum? Autarky?

I was going to respond to your post in more detail, but then I remembered that anybody who brings nazis into any political discussion is automatically wrong.

Lil devils x:

Esotera:
Absolutely, I'd go even further to say that where possible the state should be encouraging individuals to grow some of their own food in allotments or on balconies where space is available. It's crazy that we grow food then ship it halfway round the world when it's possible to grow food nearby. It's down there with energy security...you don't particularly want to be reliant on someone else's foreign policy, even if you're their ally.

I would go further and say we should have a global food supply.. Oh wait people aren't ready for that yet? They need to hurry the F up people are starving..
Everyone needs to feed everyone.

Crop failures in one nation can cause that nation to starve when only relying on local food as well, While a nation should not be solely dependent on food grown in other nations, ALL nations need to be contributing to the global food supply.

I agree with trading food when there are shortages in other nations, but trading it just because it's cheaper is a massive waste of fossil fuels. Also a global market with few restrictions leads to a race to the bottom or anti-competitive practices like dumping cheap grain in Africa that puts local farmers out of business. There needs to be some degree of protection against that.

Sleekit:

Esotera:
It's crazy that we grow food then ship it halfway round the world when it's possible to grow food nearby.

it generally costs less to ship stuff "halfway round the world" now than it does (for the average urban commuter) to visit the shops to buy it by car.

the modern containerised/mechanised/computerised cargo system is incredibly efficient and cost effective.

Efficient only in terms of economic cost, and even then you're limited based on the type of crop you grow. You're wasting a massive amount of fossil fuels if you choose to ship from all over the world rather than buying locally. That said I don't think consumers can be blamed for wanting cheap food - we need government incentives to make locally produced food a more attractive prospect.

hakkarin:
Because not everything is about the bottom line. Universial healthcare isn't cheap either, but keeping people safe and healthy isn't cheap. Same with food.

Why waste money that could be better used for other things?

Obviously nations that don't have any good farmland can't resort to large scale agriculture, but nations that can grow their own food should do so to whatever extent they can.

Why? Once again, why waste money subsidizing poor agricultural economies when you can buy it cheaper from other countries?

Because obviously every country is just like The US or Russia and can easily throw its size around and make its opinions matter to everybody.

You do realize that what you wrote is the exact opposite of what I wrote right?

It depends on the situation. If you don't mind giving others a strategic lever they can pull against you-- you trust them not to do so for whatever reason-- then sure, import all your food. If otherwise, don't.

farson135:
Why waste money that could be better used for other things?

Such as what? Healthcare and food isn't important enough to pay for?

farson135:
Why? Once again, why waste money subsidizing poor agricultural economies when you can buy it cheaper from other countries?

Because otherwise you are putting the nation's food security at risk, as I have already explained. Which sounds like a reason enough to me.

farson135:
You do realize that what you wrote is the exact opposite of what I wrote right?

No, I did not. You said that nations should just create allies to protect them self's and not go to war. Things however aren't this simple. What if a nation gets attacked by somebody, and then the nation's so called allies decide to desert it? Or what if the nation in question is in a difficult political position and can't easily expect others to come to its aid? Or what if there is some complex economical reason that just prevents enough food from being imported?

In addition, the whole general notion of the government actively having to worry sick about relations and deals with foreign countries just to make sure that the population isn't cut away from something as vital as food is stupid in the first place.

This whole "why produce any food when importing all of it could be cheaper?" is nothing but a shortsighted attempt to safe some extra bucks.

Why not just sell the seatbelts in our cars while we are at it? Nobody will need that shit as long as we just drive safely right? We could just sell that stuff and safe a few dollars and nobody will even care!

hakkarin:
Such as what? Healthcare and food isn't important enough to pay for?

So by your logic I could buy a $0.25 apple from China or a $2.00 apple from here in Austin and come out even by buying the Austin apple.

Because otherwise you are putting the nation's food security at risk, as I have already explained. Which sounds like a reason enough to me.

You are putting your economic security at risk by wasting money on things that would be better bought elsewhere. If you are going to starve, try not going to war with people.

No, I did not. You said that nations should just create allies to protect them self's and not go to war.

I did say that was one option. That is very different from- "Because obviously every country is just like The US or Russia and can easily throw its size around and make its opinions matter to everybody." Which is evidenced by the fact that you did not even try and defend your individual points.

What if a nation gets attacked by somebody, and then the nation's so called allies decide to desert it?

Perhaps they should have resolved the issue before going to war.

Or what if the nation in question is in a difficult political position and can't easily expect others to come to its aid?

Then it should not get involved in wars.

Or what if there is some complex economical reason that just prevents enough food from being imported?

A complex economic reason that will be resolved by cutting off all trade with the outside world. Apparently they have no need for world markets.

In addition, the whole general notion of the government actively having to worry sick about relations and deals with foreign countries just to make sure that the population isn't cut away from something as vital as food is stupid in the first place.

Then don't let the government worry about it. Let the market decide. Wars are not a good thing for markets. If markets had their way then disruptions of trade would not occur.

Besides, what you are describing as stupid is how the world works. Do you honestly think that every country on earth has the capability to provide adequate food for its entire population? I provided three examples in my OP. I can provide dozens more. If trade gets cut off then billions will starve all over the world-

image

This whole "why produce any food when importing all of it could be cheaper?" is nothing but a shortsighted attempt to safe some extra bucks.

And your idea is a shortsighted and paranoid attempt to ensure safety from something that should not happen in the first place. Perhaps you should work more towards ensuring stable global trade rather than telling Mongolians to grow corn in the Gobi.

Why not just sell the seatbelts in our cars while we are at it? Nobody will need that shit as long as we just drive safely right? We could just sell that stuff and safe a few dollars and nobody will even care!

If people want to take that risk then go for it. Why should I care whether some idiot decides to drive his/her motorcycle around in shorts and a t-shirt? Why should you care? It is their life.

It's kind of sad and disturbing to see how many people are still living in the cold war. Globalization has happened. You may not like every part of it, but it's not possible to simply go back without fucking over the entire world. Infrastructure is increasingly global, you're using some of it right now when you're reading this.

Then there's the issue that agriculture is one of the few ways in which the world's poorest and least developed nations can bring in money for development. Throwing subsidies at farmers in the developed world is essentially taking money from the poorest people on the planet.

We have reached the point, at least in the developed world, where a "shortage" does not mean people starving. It means unstable food prices which is possibly a bit inconvenient but is unlikely to kill anyone who has access to a supermarket. Oh no, there's been a bad monsoon in India and Basmati rice is expensive? Well, why not buy another kind of rice? The world is a big place and there are plenty of people who want your money.

Personally, I say fuck protecting your food prices. Spend that money protecting the people who are actually so poor that they need to sell you food in order to have enough surplus to survive a bad harvest. Keeping half the world in subsistance while the other half chomps down on an artificially cheap ringfenced domestic food supply is, above and beyond any ideological economic arguments, kind of inhumane.

evilthecat:
We have reached the point, at least in the developed world, where a "shortage" does not mean people starving. It means unstable food prices which is possibly a bit inconvenient but is unlikely to kill anyone who has access to a supermarket. Oh no, there's been a bad monsoon in India and Basmati rice is expensive? Well, why not buy another kind of rice? The world is a big place and there are plenty of people who want your money.

Er...I agree in the case of normal shortages, the world is a big place.

However, in the case of sanctions, or worse, actual blockades, not so much. The last century or two has seen a lot of this, which severe effects on countries too dependent on trade.

Additionally, just because a nation isn't likely to face this problem now, doesn't mean it won't in the future. I couldn't tell you how long it would take a given nation to become self-sufficient, but if it is longer than the time it would take for self-sufficiency to be necessary, then (at least to an extent) it has to be done before it is.

Having said this, this isn't something which affects all countries equally, of course. The US isn't going to be blockaded or sanctioned by anyone, nor the EU. For isolated countries with weak militaries, this isn't so much the case.

If markets had their way then disruptions of trade would not occur.

Market forces favor war or theft when an actor (person, organization, whatever) within the market will be in a better position by thieving or warring. Will it be personally profitable or will it not? That is the only question the market cares about. And the actions of the market are the sum of the decisions of those within it. When the potential target is within or is the whole of a less organized or not very powerful community (such as one which attempts to leave everything to the market) this is not a difficult state of affairs to accomplish. An organized defense does not appear out of thin air and there are various economies of scale when it comes to military preparation (high degrees of specialization, for example.) This is why the history of mankind is littered with examples of warfare and theft, and why weak states tend to see, instead of the theoretically massive economic growth of a free society, a rise in crime.

Depends heavily on a number of factors. From a national security perspective it'd be a good idea to ensure that you have the capabilities to expand food production on a short notice and that your arable lands are well taken care of beforehand. Insurance is a good idea, wasting money isn't.

hakkarin:

I was going to respond to your post in more detail, but then I remembered that anybody who brings nazis into any political discussion is automatically wrong.

Wow. What a dickish thing to say.

Edit: Actually, you know what? I can't be arsed with this kind of tone any more.

Soviet Steve:
From a national security perspective it'd be a good idea to ensure that you have the capabilities to expand food production on a short notice and that your arable lands are well taken care of beforehand.

Of course, neither of those things necessitate cutting off trade. You can switch suppliers, update your tech, and like you said just generally make plans. I'm sure they already have.

As a communist shouldn't you be all for borderless movement of goods?

evilthecat:
It's kind of sad and disturbing to see how many people are still living in the cold war. Globalization has happened. You may not like every part of it, but it's not possible to simply go back without fucking over the entire world. Infrastructure is increasingly global, you're using some of it right now when you're reading this.

Then there's the issue that agriculture is one of the few ways in which the world's poorest and least developed nations can bring in money for development. Throwing subsidies at farmers in the developed world is essentially taking money from the poorest people on the planet.

We have reached the point, at least in the developed world, where a "shortage" does not mean people starving. It means unstable food prices which is possibly a bit inconvenient but is unlikely to kill anyone who has access to a supermarket. Oh no, there's been a bad monsoon in India and Basmati rice is expensive? Well, why not buy another kind of rice? The world is a big place and there are plenty of people who want your money.

Personally, I say fuck protecting your food prices. Spend that money protecting the people who are actually so poor that they need to sell you food in order to have enough surplus to survive a bad harvest. Keeping half the world in subsistance while the other half chomps down on an artificially cheap ringfenced domestic food supply is, above and beyond any ideological economic arguments, kind of inhumane.

If the US is considered the " developed world" the point has not been reached where people are not starving, and the poor cannot afford the rising food costs due to the way the system is designed. So many would rather throw out food than help those who need it. Homeless have difficulty accessing resources in many areas due to the requirements. No room at the shelter/ no address/ no food stamps. If you have no address, and are completely homeless you cannot receive assistance in many areas. Some places do not even have assistance available within reach and no public transportation for them to get there. This isn't due to lack of food though, this is due to lack of support. Families that make too much to get support, but do not make enough to eat simply do without.
There really is no excuse for this existing in the US, but it does.

Lil devils x:

If the US is considered the " developed world" the point has not been reached where people are not starving, and the poor cannot afford the rising food costs due to the way the system is designed. So many would rather throw out food than help those who need it. Homeless have difficulty accessing resources in many areas due to the requirements. No room at the shelter/ no address/ no food stamps. If you have no address, and are completely homeless you cannot receive assistance in many areas. Some places do not even have assistance available within reach and no public transportation for them to get there. This isn't due to lack of food though, this is due to lack of support. Families that make too much to get support, but do not make enough to eat simply do without.
There really is no excuse for this existing in the US, but it does.

I'm sorry, but this is heavily irrelevant. If you're saying that because a few homeless people are starving (probably nto even enough to make up a percent, and yes, i do mean starving, as in actually dying because of the lack of nutricient food) that doesn't mean that overall people aren't starving.

It's not even the majority that's not starving, it's everyone but the extremely poor that's not starving in the richest countries.

SecretNegative:

Lil devils x:

If the US is considered the " developed world" the point has not been reached where people are not starving, and the poor cannot afford the rising food costs due to the way the system is designed. So many would rather throw out food than help those who need it. Homeless have difficulty accessing resources in many areas due to the requirements. No room at the shelter/ no address/ no food stamps. If you have no address, and are completely homeless you cannot receive assistance in many areas. Some places do not even have assistance available within reach and no public transportation for them to get there. This isn't due to lack of food though, this is due to lack of support. Families that make too much to get support, but do not make enough to eat simply do without.
There really is no excuse for this existing in the US, but it does.

I'm sorry, but this is heavily irrelevant. If you're saying that because a few homeless people are starving (probably nto even enough to make up a percent, and yes, i do mean starving, as in actually dying because of the lack of nutricient food) that doesn't mean that overall people aren't starving.

It's not even the majority that's not starving, it's everyone but the extremely poor that's not starving in the richest countries.

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm
Keeping in mind that 46.9 million considered living in poverty are not even including those that make too much to be considered poverty, but are still doing without food. The government stats are too low, and do not reflect that actual cost of living in many areas. They are dependent on charity to survive. At the shelter, the children coming in were extremely malnourished, some of which required immediate medical attention and IV's. Considering the shelters have been full since hurricane Katrina, I have no idea what those families do that are turned away. When the 2008 crisis hit, the shelters and food pantries were already overburdened, and tent cities started cropping up across the US.

hakkarin:
Do you feel that the state should support agriculture in its nation to at least some degree to make sure that the nation is able to feed itself and doesn't become too dependent on the outside world for food?

Or do you feel that there should be no state support for agriculture and that the free market should reign completely free when it comes to food even if it could mean that the nation becomes mostly or even completely dependent on the outside world for food in case the nation's own food industry and agriculture can't compete with foreign food and agricultural?

I don't see it as a yes/no issue. I see it as a "how" issue.

For example, an argument can be made that the US's corn subsidies take part of the blame for the US's obesity epidemic. Then there are countries like Japan, where it's basically impossible to achieve 100% food self-sufficiency because the terrain doesn't support giant factory farms. And yet the Japanese government tries to encourage what sufficiency they can by setting tariffs on rice to protect Japanese farmers from competition from foreign farmers. Support for farmers once given tends to be politically punishing to take away, so now for example Japan is in the sticky position of it being economically advantageous to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership but being unable to move forward in negotiations because the farmer's lobby is unwilling to give up their rice tariff.

Then again, history shows pretty clearly that starvation can easily lead to unrest. So some degree of insurance is necessary, but the devil is in the details.

Lil devils x:

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm
Keeping in mind that 46.9 million considered living in poverty are not even including those that make too much to be considered poverty, but are still doing without food. The government stats are too low, and do not reflect that actual cost of living in many areas. They are dependent on charity to survive. At the shelter, the children coming in were extremely malnourished, some of which required immediate medical attention and IV's. Considering the shelters have been full since hurricane Katrina, I have no idea what those families do that are turned away. When the 2008 crisis hit, the shelters and food pantries were already overburdened, and tent cities started cropping up across the US.

Again, Poverty does not equal starving. I really hope you do actually know what starving means, because just because you're poor doesn't mean that you starve. Starving to detah is actually very rare in most rich countries.

SecretNegative:

Again, Poverty does not equal starving. I really hope you do actually know what starving means, because just because you're poor doesn't mean that you starve. Starving to detah is actually very rare in most rich countries.

More Common in the richest of all than the rest.

SecretNegative:

Lil devils x:

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm
Keeping in mind that 46.9 million considered living in poverty are not even including those that make too much to be considered poverty, but are still doing without food. The government stats are too low, and do not reflect that actual cost of living in many areas. They are dependent on charity to survive. At the shelter, the children coming in were extremely malnourished, some of which required immediate medical attention and IV's. Considering the shelters have been full since hurricane Katrina, I have no idea what those families do that are turned away. When the 2008 crisis hit, the shelters and food pantries were already overburdened, and tent cities started cropping up across the US.

Again, Poverty does not equal starving. I really hope you do actually know what starving means, because just because you're poor doesn't mean that you starve. Starving to detah is actually very rare in most rich countries.

I am a practicing pediatrician that volunteers at the shelters and the free clinic in a state that considers making $5,000 a year is making too much money for a 6 year old to get medical assistance. I know what starving is tyvm.

Lil devils x:

I am a practicing pediatrician that volunteers at the shelters and the free clinic in a state that considers making $5,000 a year is making too much money for a 6 year old to get medical assistance. I know what starving is tyvm.

I don't why you constantly bring up anecdotal evidence from your personal life every time you argue for something in almost every thread I see you in, but it really doesn't help anyone, least of all you.

The source you provided produced information about poverty, which is different than starvation, obviously. So you still don't have a case. I do feel this little tangent has gone out into Offtopic territory though.

SecretNegative:

Lil devils x:

I am a practicing pediatrician that volunteers at the shelters and the free clinic in a state that considers making $5,000 a year is making too much money for a 6 year old to get medical assistance. I know what starving is tyvm.

I don't why you constantly bring up anecdotal evidence from your personal life every time you argue for something in almost every thread I see you in, but it really doesn't help anyone, least of all you.

The source you provided produced information about poverty, which is different than starvation, obviously. So you still don't have a case. I do feel this little tangent has gone out into Offtopic territory though.

I see people going " anecdotal evidence" blah blah blah, but where I come from people speak from their own experience, and I would much rather hear about your experience with the subject you are discussing, than some random numbers on a sheet of paper. If people are not to discuss what they know, what should they discuss?

You consider the deaths from starvation the only actual deaths from starvation? Prolonged malnutrition takes a serious toll on ones health and even when the deaths are caused by health issues related to malnutrition, they are not attributed to starvation, although they should be considering it was their malnutrition that caused the health issues that caused their deaths. It is difficult to get an actual number of deaths caused by this because they are not recorded that way.

Those living in Poverty do not have access to the resources needed to maintain good health, of course we look at the numbers in poverty to gauge those being affected by this, for example:
http://www.mailman.columbia.edu/academic-departments/epidemiology/research-service/death-poverty
Although we cannot get more accurate numbers, unless of course they start registering them as such, so we use what we have available to attempt to gain a better perspective on the severity of this.

People seem to be ignoring the fact that "food" is not a single defined unit. I dont have lunch and consume 1 "Food". I eat a variety. Now england probably could support itself with some rationing and some careful planning. However it would mean eating a fuck tonne of potatoes morning noon and night. Say goodbye to the banana! And the pinapple! And the avacardo.

You see the world is diverse in ecology and climate. This is good. Because England cant grow bananas so well but it CAN grow potatoes at a fantastic rate with little climate controlled environments it makes sense for us to grow our fuck tonne of potatoes easily and quickly and then go "Alright mate? Thats some nice bananas, fancy a potato?" than to struggle and spend money to grow exotic foods that frankly hate our wet climate.

Unless you want countries dietary standards to go WAY WAY WAY down as they start to only eat what their own climate can produce (Or extremely expensive climate controlled environment grown food in green houses and such) its probably best to grow what our nations climates allow for with the least amount of cost. Then we trade our specialties. The other way is just stupidly wasteful.

Of course it would be nice if we COULD shut down and go into potato mode if needs be. But i like bananas. I like fruit that doesnt grow so well here. And a trade is easier than bending over backwards to meet our own banana demand. It would seriously compromise the health of our citizens to reduce their diet variety so drastically.

The basis of all trade is the fact i can do something better than you can and you can do something better than i can and we exchange that service for mutual benefit. Trying to remove that from any aspect of our lives means forcing a nation to stop specialising and try and dabble in literally everything even in the face of inherent weakness in some categories. This is probably a bad idea.

Why? Just control the import of food and ensure high quality standards. Put appropriate reigns on it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with importing food, especially if you want to have a variety of foods, exotic stuff and luxury goods available for your economy. Sure, supporting/subsidizing agriculture can be a productive measure, but to ask it as if this was a yes/no-issue applicable to all countries in question - regardless of the climate zone, size etc. - is kind of weird. Some countries are better-suited to be surplus food producers than others.

@BiscuitTrouser
But in most of the videogames I've played, "food" was exactly that: A resource counted in numbers, not further differentiated. Are you saying these games were imperfect representations of how the real world works...? I had a couple of food for breakfast earlier...

BiscuitTrouser:
People seem to be ignoring the fact that "food" is not a single defined unit. I dont have lunch and consume 1 "Food". I eat a variety. Now england probably could support itself with some rationing and some careful planning. However it would mean eating a fuck tonne of potatoes morning noon and night. Say goodbye to the banana! And the pinapple! And the avacardo.

You see the world is diverse in ecology and climate. This is good. Because England cant grow bananas so well but it CAN grow potatoes at a fantastic rate with little climate controlled environments it makes sense for us to grow our fuck tonne of potatoes easily and quickly and then go "Alright mate? Thats some nice bananas, fancy a potato?" than to struggle and spend money to grow exotic foods that frankly hate our wet climate.

Unless you want countries dietary standards to go WAY WAY WAY down as they start to only eat what their own climate can produce (Or extremely expensive climate controlled environment grown food in green houses and such) its probably best to grow what our nations climates allow for with the least amount of cost. Then we trade our specialties. The other way is just stupidly wasteful.

Of course it would be nice if we COULD shut down and go into potato mode if needs be. But i like bananas. I like fruit that doesnt grow so well here. And a trade is easier than bending over backwards to meet our own banana demand. It would seriously compromise the health of our citizens to reduce their diet variety so drastically.

The basis of all trade is the fact i can do something better than you can and you can do something better than i can and we exchange that service for mutual benefit. Trying to remove that from any aspect of our lives means forcing a nation to stop specialising and try and dabble in literally everything even in the face of inherent weakness in some categories. This is probably a bad idea.

You are in many ways correct.

I argee that the most logical solution is to have a mixed system. Produce a lot of your own food but import a lot of it also. It should introduce at least a degree of food safety but people would still be able to have their banans.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked