4 ms·
no thanks for this simplified explanation -- "regular old European conspiratorial anti-whatever" is not the same as being suspicious of debt-and-foreign-trade d
by mistrial9 4y ago
no thanks for this simplified explanation -- "regular old European conspiratorial anti-whatever" is not the same as being suspicious of debt-and-foreign-trade driven core economies. There are winners and losers -- Farmers and their communities are sometimes the losers when you get cheap fruit from 5000km away, and lend money to people for basic needs from centralized and international banking.
- 082349872349872 4y agoOne may be suspicious of debt-and-foreign-trade, but: are there (or have there ever been) any successful autarkic economies?
- mistrial9 4y agothis question is either naive or not sincere. Instead of empty symbolic theory, look at the real history of real people in place and time. All food and territory systems involve "trade" -- a specialists' word on a display shelf adds nothing to real inquiry IMO
- 082349872349872 4y agoIt was naive: I agree farmers and their communities are sometimes (in times after both industrialisation and the "green revolution", even often) the losers, but the best solution to that problem of which I am aware is "take some of the benefits of development and use that to compensate losers". I know of no examples of competitive autarkic economies, so unless you have any, that couldn't be a better solution. And of course, if you have an even better solution than autarky, I'm all ears. (more background: I'm partial to Jane Jacobs' theory that market agriculture has throughout history been subject to the vagaries of fortunes in nearby trade centres. If you have evidence that this theory is mistaken, I'm also willing to revisit that belief)