The range of sentiment here runs from "good riddance" to "dire economic indicator". I used to be of the mind that food should fit under the standard economic p

The range of sentiment here runs from "good riddance" to "dire economic indicator". I used to be of the mind that food should fit under the standard economic principles of other markets (e.g., produce food where it's cheapest/best/most efficient). However, after seeing what happens during natural disasters/blights/global warming etc, I'm thinking that diversified food production is a national hedge, and wondering if government subsidies towards continuing local production is prudent here. I'm reminded of a documentary on Jamaica, and the effects of forced open trade agreements as part of IMF loan conditions : http://www.lifeanddebt.org/ http://www.lifeanddebt.org/ Clearly, Hawaii is not Jamaica wrt international trade, but it does have some of the same themes : 1. Open trade is not really fair, since subsidies are almost always involved for competing farms as well. 2. The loss of large amounts of easy low paying jobs can be devastating to local economies, which carries additional costs 3. Once gone, agricultural industry is difficult/impossible to restart (requiring large amounts of land, irrigation infrastructure, logistics, etc.)