3 ms·

> a place that produces no food and has to import 100% of what is needed to survive like, say, New York City? Sure! No, the rooftop garden on the Park Slope W

> a place that produces no food and has to import 100% of what is needed to survive like, say, New York City? Sure! No, the rooftop garden on the Park Slope Whole Foods does not count.

malka 10y ago
Ny is not in a position where the people whom feed it could use it as a leverage in diplomatic relationships
- throwanem 10y ago
  'Who feed it', not 'whom'. The latter is the objective case of the pronoun, parallel to e.g. "them"; just as we wouldn't say "them feed it", we wouldn't say "whom feed it", either.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  NYC was actually very pro confederacy at the very beginning of the civil war because they were so economically dependent on the south.
phaus 10y ago
He's obviously talking about doing so on an international level. As long as the US is around, New York will never have to question whether or not the other states will be willing to do business with it. While its highly unlikely, its slightly more believable that in the event of another world war or some kind of global food epidemic, a country that doesn't produce its own food might be completely screwed.
mc32 10y ago
NYC is part of a larger constituent unit. Japan, for example not being part of a larger state, goes to great pains to subsidize its inefficient agriculture in order that they not rely entirely on trade for their foodstuffs. It's not that they think being dependent _right now_ is an issue. The issue is what state would they be putting themselves in were large producers to put an embargo on them (or there be plagues elsewhere affecting production and thus the little which gets produced by other countries gets reserved for those countries's local consumption).
- stcredzero 10y ago
  Such dependencies were the British Empire's key vulnerability during WWI and WWII. They are a part of the reason why the British had to mortgage their empire to the US to pay for those wars.

> a place that produces no food and has to import 100% of what is needed to survive like, say, New York City? Sure! No, the rooftop garden on the Park Slope Whole Foods does not count.

malka 10y ago

Ny is not in a position where the people whom feed it could use it as a leverage in diplomatic relationships

throwanem 10y ago
'Who feed it', not 'whom'. The latter is the objective case of the pronoun, parallel to e.g. "them"; just as we wouldn't say "them feed it", we wouldn't say "whom feed it", either.
seanmcdirmid 10y ago
NYC was actually very pro confederacy at the very beginning of the civil war because they were so economically dependent on the south.

phaus 10y ago

He's obviously talking about doing so on an international level. As long as the US is around, New York will never have to question whether or not the other states will be willing to do business with it. While its highly unlikely, its slightly more believable that in the event of another world war or some kind of global food epidemic, a country that doesn't produce its own food might be completely screwed.

mc32 10y ago

NYC is part of a larger constituent unit. Japan, for example not being part of a larger state, goes to great pains to subsidize its inefficient agriculture in order that they not rely entirely on trade for their foodstuffs. It's not that they think being dependent _right now_ is an issue. The issue is what state would they be putting themselves in were large producers to put an embargo on them (or there be plagues elsewhere affecting production and thus the little which gets produced by other countries gets reserved for those countries's local consumption).

stcredzero 10y ago
Such dependencies were the British Empire's key vulnerability during WWI and WWII. They are a part of the reason why the British had to mortgage their empire to the US to pay for those wars.