4 ms·

I strongly disagree. Trade is very relevant to improving living standards and living standards are very relevant to migration (which is the term I should have u

I strongly disagree. Trade is very relevant to improving living standards and living standards are very relevant to migration (which is the term I should have used instead of refugees in spite of the fact that these two issues are closely linked). Of course this is a complex subject, but I am responding to the extremely oversimplified idea that not buying from neighbouring regions is somehow supporting "where we live".

lostlogin 7y ago
This I completely agreed with until 3 weeks ago. When borders close you need local industries and a degree of security in terms of food and other resources. The foreign owned supermarket couldn’t provide and the locally owned one couldn’t either (there are only 2 here in New Zealand), and it took over an hour queuing to find this out. However I contacted a farm with a mill which could. I don’t know what to think now, as it isn’t practical to make everything in one country.
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  I don't doubt that it's a good idea to have some local food production everywhere. But huge olive plantations in Spain, Italy or Greece are not that. They wouldn't exist in this form without trade. Also, self sufficiency doesn't really work, not for very long at least. After a few weeks, you run out of some chemical or some replacement part. The right response to a pandemic can't be to return to a medieval style economy.
  - baud147258 7y ago
    > huge olive plantations in Spain, Italy or Greece are not that. They wouldn't exist in this form without trade. So you would move the "huge olive plantations" from Spain, Italy and Greece to Turkey and Tunisia, which also couldn't exist without trade?
    - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
      No, I wouldn't "move" anything. I just wouldn't boycott them based on the premise that trade only benefits one side.
      - baud147258 7y ago
        I don't disagree that trade has benefits on both sides, but why would I need to import oil from the other side when it can be produced locally?
        fauigerzigerk 7y ago
        For one, it's not produced locally. I live in London. There are no olive trees here. I'm buying a lot of Spanish, Italian and Greek olive oil because I like it and I trust their standards. But I see no reason why I should reject Moroccan or Turkish olive oil as a matter of principle. I think that barring any special circumstances, it's best for the progress of humanity if consumers buy the best value for money. It creates upward pressure on productivity, which is ultimately the _only_ thing that increases potential living standards for everyone. I know this is very complex, and there are many ways in which prices can be distorted so that "value for money" isn't what it appears to be on the surface. However, there are equally many ways in which alleged "distortions" are exploited as an excuse for damaging protectionism. For instance, the "cheap labour" argument is often used in an extremely biased way. One person's "cheap labour" is another person's improvement in living standards and yet another person's access to healthy food that was previously only available to the wealthy. Perhaps a more succinct answer to your question is this: To force local producers to move up the value chain or become more productive.
        close04 7y ago
        > But I see no reason why I should reject Moroccan or Turkish olive oil as a matter of principle But this is the point you're missing: it's not just a matter of principle. It's a matter of reasoning. For a EU citizen buying from Italy, Greece, or Spain makes more sense (money permitting) than buying from Morocco because it's far more likely that a weaker EU country economy will negatively affect their country or the whole EU than a weak Moroccan economy. What happens to the UK economy if all or many UK citizens start buying stuff made abroad out of some moral obligation? Because if it is negatively impacted in any way then it pretty much proves it was not just a matter of principle. And to counter some more of your points, local olive producers are already the highest on the value chain and at this point any productivity boosts will come at a cost many are not willing to accept and that conflicts with the previous point. Think chemicals, think lower quality, etc. Why are free-range chickens (and eggs) so popular in the UK if you could just increase productivity with high stocking density? With every comment you throw the goalpost in another zipcode.
  - addHocker 7y ago
    The right economy for a pandemic doesent seem to be a globalized one either. The old world is gone, it wont come back for at least two generations.
  - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
    Depends on how you define self sufficiency. If Sweden considers olive oil a staple and thinks it can’t be self sufficient because they can’t supply locals with locally grown olive oil, then that’s a wrong definition of self sufficiency.
    - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
      So what is a valid and useful definition of self sufficiency in your opinion? I think any definition would lead to massively plummeting living standards in a country the size of Sweden. It's not just about stuff that doesn't exist in a particular country. It's mostly about lost economies of scale.
      - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
        What were the Swedes eating before they could ship food from all over the world? We have hydroponics, automation and the ability of western worlds to pay what food is worth. Developing countries and poor countries should be able to use their resources for their advancement and not to provide cheap food to richer countries. If Sweden cannot grow olive oil because it’s an exotic commodity from a foreign land, they must pay dearly for it. The notion that we buy cheap from nations that have a surfeit of resources and are favourably placed for ag closer to the equator has its origins in colonialism. Over consumption in richer countries stem from unequal trade terms and results in inequalities. Just imagine..you can never ever grow or make olive oil in Sweden. How valuable it must be for them? Why isn’t Turkey making bank and stashing Euros like Alladins and inside treasure cave? Africa’s natural resources and Chile’s minerals ...why are they picking up pennies while the whole world proposers trading while they don’t? I see the same thing in Ag. Farmers have the most precious non renewable resource ..water and land. You cannot print land, you know? And yet, why are farmers always in debt and killing themselves because they can’t pay back the bank for their quarter million dollar tractors and credit lines? Something smells fishy, no?
close04 7y ago
You suggested there is a moral duty of an individual in the EU to buy specifically from outside Europe (like Morocco or Turkey) because they were expected to receive migrants. What about the moral argument that by buying from any oppressive or dictatorial regime you are supporting that regime? And wouldn't this directly hurt local businesses? Given that the cost of living and production in the EU is higher the only way those businesses can survive is if a wealthier population buys the product, which is a much narrower segment of the market. > not buying from neighbouring regions is somehow supporting "where we live" Yes, buying from "someone" does support "someone". You can't be surprised by this, can you? Businesses need customers to survive. Without customers all local producers especially in such "expensive" countries become local importers from cheaper countries. What happens to the local economy once so much of the production is moved abroad, especially in exceptional situations like today? What happens when relation with that country go sour? You suggest that EU citizens should leave Greek and Italian family business out to dry because Morocco and Turkey are receiving immigrants. This is a weak argument, appealing only to pity ("but think of the immigrants") and brushing aside everything else.
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  >You suggested there is a moral duty of an individual in the EU to buy specifically from outside Europe (like Morocco or Turkey) because they were expected to receive migrants. No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all and it's not what I'm doing myself. I'm suggesting to buy the best value for money wherever it may come from (barring special circumstances). I'm also suggesting that reducing trade with poorer neighbors has downsides for everybody, even if you are convinced that buying locally is economically beneficial. >Yes, buying from "where they live" does support "where you live". No, it does not necessarily do that. If you buy the same quality at a higher price locally, you may well be preventing your local economy from moving up the value chain or from becoming more productive and more competitive. >You made a weak argument, appealing only to pity That would be true if I was advocating buying worse value for money to support those countries. But that's not what I'm saying at all.
  - close04 7y ago

lostlogin 7y ago

This I completely agreed with until 3 weeks ago. When borders close you need local industries and a degree of security in terms of food and other resources. The foreign owned supermarket couldn’t provide and the locally owned one couldn’t either (there are only 2 here in New Zealand), and it took over an hour queuing to find this out. However I contacted a farm with a mill which could. I don’t know what to think now, as it isn’t practical to make everything in one country.

fauigerzigerk 7y ago
I don't doubt that it's a good idea to have some local food production everywhere. But huge olive plantations in Spain, Italy or Greece are not that. They wouldn't exist in this form without trade. Also, self sufficiency doesn't really work, not for very long at least. After a few weeks, you run out of some chemical or some replacement part. The right response to a pandemic can't be to return to a medieval style economy.
- baud147258 7y ago
  > huge olive plantations in Spain, Italy or Greece are not that. They wouldn't exist in this form without trade. So you would move the "huge olive plantations" from Spain, Italy and Greece to Turkey and Tunisia, which also couldn't exist without trade?
  - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
    No, I wouldn't "move" anything. I just wouldn't boycott them based on the premise that trade only benefits one side.
    - baud147258 7y ago
      I don't disagree that trade has benefits on both sides, but why would I need to import oil from the other side when it can be produced locally?
      - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
        For one, it's not produced locally. I live in London. There are no olive trees here. I'm buying a lot of Spanish, Italian and Greek olive oil because I like it and I trust their standards. But I see no reason why I should reject Moroccan or Turkish olive oil as a matter of principle. I think that barring any special circumstances, it's best for the progress of humanity if consumers buy the best value for money. It creates upward pressure on productivity, which is ultimately the _only_ thing that increases potential living standards for everyone. I know this is very complex, and there are many ways in which prices can be distorted so that "value for money" isn't what it appears to be on the surface. However, there are equally many ways in which alleged "distortions" are exploited as an excuse for damaging protectionism. For instance, the "cheap labour" argument is often used in an extremely biased way. One person's "cheap labour" is another person's improvement in living standards and yet another person's access to healthy food that was previously only available to the wealthy. Perhaps a more succinct answer to your question is this: To force local producers to move up the value chain or become more productive.
        close04 7y ago
        > But I see no reason why I should reject Moroccan or Turkish olive oil as a matter of principle But this is the point you're missing: it's not just a matter of principle. It's a matter of reasoning. For a EU citizen buying from Italy, Greece, or Spain makes more sense (money permitting) than buying from Morocco because it's far more likely that a weaker EU country economy will negatively affect their country or the whole EU than a weak Moroccan economy. What happens to the UK economy if all or many UK citizens start buying stuff made abroad out of some moral obligation? Because if it is negatively impacted in any way then it pretty much proves it was not just a matter of principle. And to counter some more of your points, local olive producers are already the highest on the value chain and at this point any productivity boosts will come at a cost many are not willing to accept and that conflicts with the previous point. Think chemicals, think lower quality, etc. Why are free-range chickens (and eggs) so popular in the UK if you could just increase productivity with high stocking density? With every comment you throw the goalpost in another zipcode.
- addHocker 7y ago
  The right economy for a pandemic doesent seem to be a globalized one either. The old world is gone, it wont come back for at least two generations.
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  Depends on how you define self sufficiency. If Sweden considers olive oil a staple and thinks it can’t be self sufficient because they can’t supply locals with locally grown olive oil, then that’s a wrong definition of self sufficiency.
  - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
    So what is a valid and useful definition of self sufficiency in your opinion? I think any definition would lead to massively plummeting living standards in a country the size of Sweden. It's not just about stuff that doesn't exist in a particular country. It's mostly about lost economies of scale.
    - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
      What were the Swedes eating before they could ship food from all over the world? We have hydroponics, automation and the ability of western worlds to pay what food is worth. Developing countries and poor countries should be able to use their resources for their advancement and not to provide cheap food to richer countries. If Sweden cannot grow olive oil because it’s an exotic commodity from a foreign land, they must pay dearly for it. The notion that we buy cheap from nations that have a surfeit of resources and are favourably placed for ag closer to the equator has its origins in colonialism. Over consumption in richer countries stem from unequal trade terms and results in inequalities. Just imagine..you can never ever grow or make olive oil in Sweden. How valuable it must be for them? Why isn’t Turkey making bank and stashing Euros like Alladins and inside treasure cave? Africa’s natural resources and Chile’s minerals ...why are they picking up pennies while the whole world proposers trading while they don’t? I see the same thing in Ag. Farmers have the most precious non renewable resource ..water and land. You cannot print land, you know? And yet, why are farmers always in debt and killing themselves because they can’t pay back the bank for their quarter million dollar tractors and credit lines? Something smells fishy, no?

close04 7y ago

You suggested there is a moral duty of an individual in the EU to buy specifically from outside Europe (like Morocco or Turkey) because they were expected to receive migrants. What about the moral argument that by buying from any oppressive or dictatorial regime you are supporting that regime? And wouldn't this directly hurt local businesses? Given that the cost of living and production in the EU is higher the only way those businesses can survive is if a wealthier population buys the product, which is a much narrower segment of the market. > not buying from neighbouring regions is somehow supporting "where we live" Yes, buying from "someone" does support "someone". You can't be surprised by this, can you? Businesses need customers to survive. Without customers all local producers especially in such "expensive" countries become local importers from cheaper countries. What happens to the local economy once so much of the production is moved abroad, especially in exceptional situations like today? What happens when relation with that country go sour? You suggest that EU citizens should leave Greek and Italian family business out to dry because Morocco and Turkey are receiving immigrants. This is a weak argument, appealing only to pity ("but think of the immigrants") and brushing aside everything else.

fauigerzigerk 7y ago
>You suggested there is a moral duty of an individual in the EU to buy specifically from outside Europe (like Morocco or Turkey) because they were expected to receive migrants. No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all and it's not what I'm doing myself. I'm suggesting to buy the best value for money wherever it may come from (barring special circumstances). I'm also suggesting that reducing trade with poorer neighbors has downsides for everybody, even if you are convinced that buying locally is economically beneficial. >Yes, buying from "where they live" does support "where you live". No, it does not necessarily do that. If you buy the same quality at a higher price locally, you may well be preventing your local economy from moving up the value chain or from becoming more productive and more competitive. >You made a weak argument, appealing only to pity That would be true if I was advocating buying worse value for money to support those countries. But that's not what I'm saying at all.
- close04 7y ago