4 ms·

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 would

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.
        fauigerzigerk 7y ago
        >For a EU citizen buying from Italy, Greece, or Spain makes more sense than buying from Morocco because it's far more likely that a weaker local EU economy will negatively affect their country or the EU than a weak Moroccan economy. No. You are implying that buying locally strengthens the domestic economy whereas importing weakens the domestic economy. That reasoning is flawed as a general principle (even though it may well be true in specific cases or circumstances). >What happens to the UK economy if all or many UK citizens start buying stuff made abroad out of some moral obligation? Well, that would be extremely stupid and I'm not advocating it at all. There is no such moral obligation and I didn't say anything to that effect.
        close04 7y ago
        > No. You are implying that buying locally strengthens the domestic economy whereas importing weakens the domestic economy The more customers local businesses lose in favor of off-shore producers the weaker they get, to the point where they disappear or become importers. If you're an EU citizen you're more likely to be impacted if another EU country's economy isn't going well than if Morocco's economy suffers. One thing is for sure, economies don't strengthen by giving up local production and export in favor of importing or all-local consumption. > Well, that would be extremely stupid. There is no such moral obligation and I didn't say anything to that effect. Now why would that be stupid? After the passionate argumentation that trade is very relevant to improving living standards in those poorer countries and that it does not weaken the domestic economy you come back to say that doing it would be stupid? You just shot your argument in both feet and sawed them off for good measure. Or perhaps arbitrarily only some people should buy from off-shore while others from near-shore. As for the "moral argument" you said exactly something to that effect: > the same countries we want to take in all the refugees from Africa and the Middle East. The EU-Turkey refugee agreement is for over 6bn Euros in aid. That's in case you thought all that "refugee taking" is expected to be paid in olives or trade assistance.
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?

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.
      - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
        >For a EU citizen buying from Italy, Greece, or Spain makes more sense than buying from Morocco because it's far more likely that a weaker local EU economy will negatively affect their country or the EU than a weak Moroccan economy. No. You are implying that buying locally strengthens the domestic economy whereas importing weakens the domestic economy. That reasoning is flawed as a general principle (even though it may well be true in specific cases or circumstances). >What happens to the UK economy if all or many UK citizens start buying stuff made abroad out of some moral obligation? Well, that would be extremely stupid and I'm not advocating it at all. There is no such moral obligation and I didn't say anything to that effect.
        close04 7y ago
        > No. You are implying that buying locally strengthens the domestic economy whereas importing weakens the domestic economy The more customers local businesses lose in favor of off-shore producers the weaker they get, to the point where they disappear or become importers. If you're an EU citizen you're more likely to be impacted if another EU country's economy isn't going well than if Morocco's economy suffers. One thing is for sure, economies don't strengthen by giving up local production and export in favor of importing or all-local consumption. > Well, that would be extremely stupid. There is no such moral obligation and I didn't say anything to that effect. Now why would that be stupid? After the passionate argumentation that trade is very relevant to improving living standards in those poorer countries and that it does not weaken the domestic economy you come back to say that doing it would be stupid? You just shot your argument in both feet and sawed them off for good measure. Or perhaps arbitrarily only some people should buy from off-shore while others from near-shore. As for the "moral argument" you said exactly something to that effect: > the same countries we want to take in all the refugees from Africa and the Middle East. The EU-Turkey refugee agreement is for over 6bn Euros in aid. That's in case you thought all that "refugee taking" is expected to be paid in olives or trade assistance.

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?