>Sure. Then it becomes a question of who gets the stuff. A situation where you import 50 million people's worth of food, let 10 million waste 20 million's worth

>Sure. Then it becomes a question of who gets the stuff. A situation where you import 50 million people's worth of food, let 10 million waste 20 million's worth of it, and let another 10 million go hungry: is that moral or sustainable? But you will always have food waste regardless what system you have. That's something already considered in calculations for how much food a person would need. Not doing so would be foolish, because it's irrelevant what system you have - food will still be wasted. >Eisenhower's quote. Eisenhower's quote is interesting, but it leaves out comparative advantage. In this case, money indeed is not the whole story. Somebody that's good at making weapons could very well be rubbish at producing food. There's also the fact that you need to be able to defend yourself and your interests. It doesn't matter how much food you produce if somebody else just takes it from you. The modern world relies heavily on trade, but this trade requires that there is some military might on most countries. Otherwise they'll just be taken advantage of.