Global Economy vs. Self-Sufficient Economy

Discuss.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE BOTH...

if... all nations had equal trading value...

since they dont... global economies... hurt.. and can help the small nations.... but the problem really is..

its the big players who are pulling the strings...

and its the little ones. who are jumping to catch them.


the small nations need to become self sufficient... then.. it would be great for them to export.

right now... its just exploitation.

-MT

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can have both.
Anyone in a nation participating in a global economy can move back to a farm and grow [food] and raise [livestock] and survive on what they produce.

Why should it be an either or question ?

And any government that coerces anyone to refrain from global participation is a tyrant/dictator.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First off, it isn't really up to governments, it is up to the individual traders, consumers, producers, and investors of each country. And only with racist nationalism or ignorance would anyone choose self-sufficiency over global trade. Global trade ensures that each person figures out what they are better at than anyone else, and does that thing. It creates enormous wealth for everyone involved.

Self-sufficiency is bad for everyone, and only appeals to the prejudiced and ignorant. It is a method of harming oneself in order to also harm other people. Imagine the ignorance of having each State in the United States manufacture all of the products required for the state. Greenhouses attempting to grow oranges in Maine. Lobster-farms in South Florida. It would cost more, waste resources, harm the economy, and all for what? State pride? Imagine each county in each state trying to do the same thing. Now each town in each county. Each neighborhood. If you really imagine how this would work, all the way down to the neighborhood, you can see how this methodology would take us right back to subsistence living. With no art, culture, science, medicine, architecture. Just people hammering out a tough existence.

Now look at the wonders of global trade. Each person doing what they excel at, and getting as much for those skills as the market will allow. Look at how cheap goods, food, services have become. Look at how rich every country that joins this world market becomes. How the East Asian Tigers took off when they joined. How South Korea has done. What India has done. What China is doing.

There are piles and piles of evidence in one direction of this issue, and nothing but hate and ignorance supporting the other side.

 

THAT IS ONLY POSSIBLE... if a nation puts up tariffs to prevent big nations.. like the usa.. from selling its cheap food to them.

right now... all across the world... farmers cannot make any money, because they cannot produce food for less than the usa.

right now... all they do.. is grow food to feed themselves.

the global market... provents small growers in small nations from becoming part of their economy.

why?

because... free trade.... makes it impossible.

-MT

 

I don't think a self sufficient economy is possible because every economy is dependent on the other. If a self sufficient economy is possible then it wouldn't engage in foreign trade. Even if the whole world is made into a single economy still there something would be scarce. So self sufficiency is impossible. But going global would certainly help because everyone will have an access to every good that's available in the whole world.

 

That is true in practice for reasons that Swivel gave in his first post 4 paragraph, but I would add one more factor: Marginal cost of production are lower than average costs, so it you can sell more of your product by exporting some it is to your profit advantage. All this does not imply that a self sufficient economy is impossible. In fact most of human history has taken place within essentially closed economies.

I disagree with Swivel's second paragraph being always true, but it certainly is in normal times. the one starting: "Self-sufficiency is bad for everyone, and only appeals to the prejudiced and ignorant. ...."

If you can "go it alone" when the rest of the world is going into economic collapse deep depression, then obviously you are better off. For example the Amish during the 1929 depression were essentially unaffected by it. China has never been a completely self sufficient economy but has at least 2000 years of being nearly one and as it is a controlled "free market" it can do so again when the rest of the world is going down. Not quite yet position to do so, but the high altitude railroad to Tibet’s minerals, rapid conversion to nuclear and hydro power, etc will make it need mainly to import food stocks as its farmers move to the city at nearly 1 million per month.

 

Logic flawed

Your logic here is flawed.

If a person in a country participating in global markets chooses self suffieciency for himself and family that is his right.
Now if the US comes along and says ..... "we are more efficient than you are so we can sell you this food for 1/3 your costs"
This self sufficient farmer now has an ADDITIONAL choice.
Either stay on his farm living at the standard he has chosen for himself
OR
enter the global market, buy the inexpensive food and do something else with what he has saved.

Only governments denying him his freedom can prevent him from choosing the path he wishes. Tarriffs will eliminate the choice offered by the US and country wide bans on global markets COERCE all his fellow citizens to go back to the farm too.

 

^^ Well-worded.

 

Not if the US also has differential tariffs on produced goods vs raw goods, so the farmer can not only not sell his produce, but also gets very little for his produced goods.

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRe...#ProtectionismForTheRichOpenMarketsForThePoor

 

Not only is MT's logic flawed, but his "facts" are wrong also.

The US is not the most economical agriculture producer when the huge farm subsidies are considered. For example, almost African countries can produce cotton and sell it in USA at lower prices than US producers, but do not do so because the US producer is given some of your tax dollars.

In the case of alcohol production, I have the numbers. - The cost of producing a gallon of alcohol in Brazil and delivering it to a US port (Miami) is 60% or less than the cost of production in the US from corn.

In 2006, Brazil produced 17.5billion liters of alcohol, 2.5 billion of which were profitably exported to the USA, despite paying $0.54/ gallon importation tariff and in competition with the subsidy given the corn farmers (largest of all US farm subsidies) and the direct gift of $0.50/ per gallon that the alcohol producers receive. I.e. Brazil can produce alcohol at least $1.04/ gallon cheaper than the US producers. As it takes only 20% of the fossil energy to produce a a unit of alcohol energy, in contrast with approximately zero energy gain when produced in US from corn, the importation of Alcohol from Brazil is discouraged so that US oil* consumption will not fall significantly, if at all when US stitches to alcohol fueled cars. US government is of the oil men, for the oil men and by the oil men and never will injure the Saudi Royal family which as bank rolled both Bush presidents in their election campaigns for three decades. - Too bad that Joe American must pay more to drive, higher taxes for the subsidies, and eat more costly food (corn feeds pigs, chickens etc. also and is at all time high greater than $4/ bushel because it is more profitable to sell it to the alcohol producer)

More at thread: "How DUMB can US voters be?"
--------------------
*GWB is always careful to say that his plan can reduce GASOLINE consumption by 20% in 2020. If OIL consumption is lower in 2020, it will be because Amercians are not buying as many SUVs, RVs and pickup trucks, but more smaller more efficient European style cars during the next 14 years, not due to corn based alcohol.

 

I AGREE.... salvation for the countries of the world... is not through their farming potential.....

but the only reason any nation suffers from ills caused by the global market, it is because it has willingly openned itself up to it.

it doesnt have to... and it can close its doors just as easily.

free trade... is open doors.. all the time.

i am for fair trade... which is all closed doors.. with polite knocking.

-MT

 

A country must develop a self-sufficient economy before joining the global economy. Otherwise, it won't be able to compete in the global market.

 

the usa.... doesnt just crush the farm potential of nations...

it completely stops it..

each year the usa... gives billions of dollars in food aid.

this is free food... bought from usa farmers.


they recently... some... have tried to get the usa.. to use that yearly billions of dollars... and spend it in the poor nations.

spent it to buy food from those nations farmers... to feed them.


the usa.... says no.

it will spend... but only to buy from its farmers.


to send all over the world... keeping the usa.. in control of the world food markets... by giving out food... that crushs all hope of farmers being able to sell their food.


also in africa... sure.. they can produce cheap cotton..

and use it to make clothes.. to sell in africa.

but ... over the last 20 years... what has happenned?

the cotton farms and cotton mills in africa... are shutting down... why?

cause the usa.. sends boat loads of super cheap clothes to africa.

all the extra unsold clothes... of the usa markets...

ends up as dirt cheap... dirt cheap.. clothes in poor nations.

so cheap... clothes produces in those countries cant compete.

and their governments... dont seem to care for obvious reasons.


they have been fooled... into believing as some of you do..

that global markets will help them.

and maybe it does.... it helps those in power to line their pockets.

but the people.... they are always paying the price.

-MT

 

THE SIMPLE FACT IS...

THE GLOBALIST... ARE APPLYING ECONOMIC PRESSURE.. to force people to go to work... producing the things that the globalists want them to produce.....


the globalist.. want to control all markets.

free trade... is anything but.


YOUR FAILURE TO SEE THIS.... is why it has continued for so long.

-MT

 

A mixture of both is best. The local economy should be abe to provide the essentials, but specialization should come from around the globe.

 

Exactly how do you force someone to go to work ?
People have choices and if the global company pays more than your other alternatives [as is so prevalent here in Thailand], what is wrong with
choosing what's best for your family ?

I know of no Gulags existing today, which is what you imply.
Do you know of some ?
Where are they ?

 

THE THIRD WORLD.

-mt

 

The third world ? The third world are gulags ?

So the poverty and other ills of the third world are CAUSED by [some of] the first world nations ? How any intelligent person can hold an opinion like this is beyond me.

The leaders of these nations bear no responsibility in your eyes ?
The history that led to their present condition is not important ?
The choices [when they are possible] the citizens made are not relevant ?
The values of the people and their leaders are not an issue ?

Gobalization will eventually help bring these poor souls [or at least their children] out of their deprivation. That is if corrupt leaders like Mugabe can be kept away from exploiting them.

 

On (0) & (2): Certainly not solely due to the wealth extracted from third world by more advance countries in EU & US mainly, but that has been a strong contributing factor. This economic exploitation is almost as important as the high birth rates, encouraged by the Catholic church mainly. (More "rich-nation" influence.)
In many South American countries the average daily caloric intake now is lower than pre-Columbus! In Bolivia the masses now chew coca leaves to relieve hunger pains. etc. In Peru, literally an entire mountain of high grade silver ore was taken with the only local effect on the natives being that they were forced (essentially as feed slaves, living in barracks) to extract it instead of do their subsistence farming in the surrounding regions from where they were taken.
I do not know much about Africa, but I bet the same is true there. - I.e. fewer were starving to death before the white man's religion and economics came there than are now. I do know that in Nigeria, it is the same old story. - The oil is producing zero benefit for the natives, but they are revolting, kidnapping some westerners almost every week now.

On (1): Normally, ever since the "Monroe Doctrine" and actually for decades before this policy was officially proclaimed to keep the Europeans out of the new world hemisphere, (I.e. tell them they had their African colonies and should limit their exploitation to them.) the US has effective selected the leaders, at least until the last couple of decades. In the 1800s this was done by "gun-boat diplomacy." In the first 3/4 of the 1900s it was done by military aid to oligarchies that got rich along with US corporation, like Chitta (not called "banana republics" for no reason).

During the last 25 years of the 1900s only the mechanism of implementation changed. - The US government (via CIA usually) was more directly involved. For example, when a left-leaning local leader arose, like Alenda in Chile, the CIA killed him (on 9/11)**with the aid of the local military they had been arming and supporting for years. In ABC (Argentina, Brazil, Chile) and almost all of the smaller countries, the US supported military rulers were still completely in power until 1978. At least 50,000 left-leaning (mainly students) "disappered" in only ABC during the military rule period*. Then the US began to loss grip. The US was more concerned with SE Asia (As it is now in Iraq - I.e. US took its eye off the South American ball so to speak).

Now that US attention is focused on Iraq, several local leaders, who remember this history of exploitation and are truly trying to change the conditions of the masses have recently come to power. Most notably Moraes in Bolivia & Chavez in Venezuela***. In both these countries their natural wealth (mainly energy resources) is now going to better the life of the people. You probably know about Chavez's building schools, and with Cuba's aid, free medical centers etc, so I will just state that Bolivia is doing the same. Now instead of 88% of the profits from natural gas going to the foreign companies (mainly those selling gas in Brazil as gas is harder to ship than oil) and the 12% being returned either to the US (for older generation weapons and water cannons for crowd control etc) or to Swiss bank accounts (for the personnel use and economic security of the oligarchy), the tables have turned. I.e. the foreign companies now get only 12% of the profits and Moraes is using the 88% locally to build schools, roads, hospitals clinics etc. (I saw a photo in my local news paper of a literacy class - all were middle age and older men with their funny black hats on in the class room. - because of the above history most of the population is illerate)

On (3) "choice of the citizens" - LOL - Your comments reflect an amazing ignorance of how colonial rule transitioned to (at best) oligarch rule or dictatorships in most of the third world.
India is the only significant exception, of one going directly towards democracy; although some like South Africa and the ABCs of South American have recently moved towards democratic rule and now their citizens are, in part, responsible for their futures, but their history and lack of eduction is still a burden, often leading to their continued explotation.


On (4) Yes their values are relevant - why now that they can have some influence on their government, they are voting over whelmingly for local leaders who build schools, hospitals, roads, etc., instead of their prior US-supported oligarch that gave most of the natural wealth away to foreigners and placed their small cut (but very large individually - most are multi-millionaires) in Swiss Banks.
----------------------
*Current president of Chile's father was among the thousands tortured to death. (Less important persons were typically drugged for interogation and they taken in the US supplied Helicopters out to sea and simply pushed out, still in their drugged state.)

**Probably the reason OBL selected this date for his attack on the US, but any propaganda against the US he hoped to gain did not materialize as most Americans are ignorant of fact that this is the date the CIA chose to install a government in Chile that killed more than all the occupants of the twin towers in NYC - I.e. some where upwards of 50,000 not just 3,000 as in the US's 9/11.

***Venezuela’s GDP 2nd place growth rate (10%) was slightly less than China's 1st place in 2006 but may become the highest in the world this year. US's is about 4 times lower, but this is because [1] Venezuela is changing from a low level with most of its productivity benefiting foreigners and the local oligarch and [2] due to the fact that they US economy is much greater so it is much harder to make a 10% increase. Chavez took control of the oil resources, and because of the current profits in oil, all the major companies (except one -Royal Dutch Shell - I seem to recall) have accepted the new terms to remain working in Venezuela which probably has more oil (in tar sands) than rest of the world. (This huge reserve is too important in the long term to be shut out from. - Why all but one of the major oil companies accepted nationalization of what they previously "owned.")

SUMMARY: Before placing all the blame for the state of the third world, on the third world itself, you should learn at least a little about how their state came about and was maintained by the “First world”.