There is no particular advantage in supplying your own food. If a
farmer in another country can produce the stuff you eat cheaper and
better than you are better off buying from that country and devoting
your own resources to something you are good at. "Food security" is
18th century mercantilism.
Unfortunately, most countries have a sentimental attachment to
agriculture, not surprising since just a few generations ago it was
the biggest industry almost everywhere. Today, even though farmers
typically comprise only 2-3% of the population in OECD countries, the
farm lobby has disproportionate political power and uses it to
perpetuate price supports, protection from foreign competition and so
on. The US is by no means the only or the worst sinner--those honors
belong to countries like Switzerland, Japan and Norway. The EU is as
bad as the US with the stupid Common Agricultural Policy.
The only virtuous country is New Zealand, which some time in the early
1990s (I cannot remember the exact year and I am too rushed to look it
up right now) abolished almost all agricultural subsidies and tariffs
on food imports. Guess what? Today, New Zealand still has a thriving
farm sector, but one that survives thanks to the quality and prices of
its products instead of government largesse.
Nathan
Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu
http://www.nathanfoto.com
Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog
On Aug 16, 2009, at 3:24 PM, Joel Wilcox wrote:
> You are an economist, correct? No offense intended, but I'm surprised
> you would characterize an issue so nuanced quite so broadly. Isn't it
> quite complex, since it involves food supply and who controls what and
> how whole countries compete in the world for markets? It has nothing
> to do with welfare other than the fact that governments are involved.
> Domestic sources of food are literally of biblical significance in the
> scheme of things. What actually is more fundamental? I'm quite
> certain that no one would care about a small family farmer if there
> weren't something distinctly chilling about corporations controlling
> food supply Sorry if I'm missing something here. I'm not learned in
> this area.
>
> Joel W.
>
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Nathan
> Wajsman<photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Yeah, and most farmers would not survive without subsidies and
>> various
>> other largesse from the Federal Government, so they are effectively
>> welfare recipients, just without the stigma that the welfare
>> recipients in cities experience.
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|