3 ms·

> Achieving self-sufficiency in these three areas would be like a second independence for us (first was when we got free from Portugal). Every country in the w

> Achieving self-sufficiency in these three areas would be like a second independence for us (first was when we got free from Portugal). Every country in the world is dependent on trade, which is saves a lot of money over self-sufficiency. North Korea is the only country that tries self-sufficiency. If it costs you $100/bushel to produce wheat and you can buy it for $60/bushel (I'm fabricating numbers), why produce it?

bee_rider 3y ago
It is nice to be self-sufficient on survival staples like grains if that is an option. If your competitors are driving a hard bargain and the downside is that you don’t get video game consoles, it isn’t the end of the world, you can call their bluff. If the downside is starvation, it is a bit tougher.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  When has that happened - that a country experienced starvation because grain was withheld? Especially a country the size of Brazil?
  - UncleEntity 3y ago
    Ask the Soviets. Though they were able to find alternative foreign sources to make up the difference and redevelop domestic production.
  - kabouseng 3y ago
    East Germany after WW2
tirrellp 3y ago
Because 'Geopolitical Risk' is a thing. Its nice when you can buy $60/bushel wheat. Its not so nice when your dealer cuts you off. The extra $40/bushel you pay to produce in-house, thats your insurance policy against having your supplies cut off. In a world where geopolitical lines are shifting, it's a matter of national security and optionality to have your own food production capacity. Risk management.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  That's not risk management, that's a panicked reaction. Risk management accepts risk, takes into account likelihood and cost, and finds the most economical outcome. Nationalism makes you poor.
  - jessekv 3y ago
    Taking into account the most economical outcome in the short/medium term also can make your country or community poor in the long term. If you care about the future of where you live, its important to cultivate and support local industry, even when its more expensive.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > Taking into account the most economical outcome in the short/medium term also can make your country or community poor in the long term. If you care about the future of where you live, its important to cultivate and support local industry, even when its more expensive. Your solution is the short-term one, maybe not even that. In the long run, your community is much better off producing what it does best and trading with others for what they produce best, rather than everyone trying to do everything at some mediocre level. Your solution is like Microsoft building its own furniture and cars and flying its own planes, rather than making software and buying the furniture, cars, and air travel from those who are expert in it.
      - jabradoodle 3y ago
        Countries subsidise food production for reasons of national security. This is not a new or controversial idea.
      - jessekv 3y ago
        Your reply comes right out of ECON 101, and is broadly speaking correct. Still, you've missed the point. Let's use your example, Microsoft. Companies have different incentives than communities or countries, but I think we can make this work. For many years, Microsoft only sold software, and let others who were experts in hardware make the hardware and install microsoft on it. Later, they realised that it was strategically important to manufacture their own consumer hardware, and now you have the Surface lineup. Maybe in the near future, they will decide they need to start manufacturing their own chips. If they do that, it's not going to be cheap, especially in the short term. In fact, Microsoft might never be able to produce chips more cheaply than Intel. But they still could choose to do it in-house (or just buy Intel) if the alternative is to lose their dominant position in the market.
UncleEntity 3y ago
> If it costs you $100/bushel to produce wheat and you can buy it for $60/bushel (I'm fabricating numbers), why produce it? “Certain countries” are well known for subsidizing domestic grain production and dumping it on overseas markets which ends up hurting the local farmers as they can’t compete on prices. Given enough time these countries become totally dependent on the imported grains and their entire farming industry goes away. You make the choice on if you’re comfortable depending entirely on foreign production of foodstuffs. —edit— Actually, you don’t get to make the choice…

bee_rider 3y ago

It is nice to be self-sufficient on survival staples like grains if that is an option. If your competitors are driving a hard bargain and the downside is that you don’t get video game consoles, it isn’t the end of the world, you can call their bluff. If the downside is starvation, it is a bit tougher.

wolverine876 3y ago
When has that happened - that a country experienced starvation because grain was withheld? Especially a country the size of Brazil?
- UncleEntity 3y ago
  Ask the Soviets. Though they were able to find alternative foreign sources to make up the difference and redevelop domestic production.
- kabouseng 3y ago
  East Germany after WW2

tirrellp 3y ago

Because 'Geopolitical Risk' is a thing. Its nice when you can buy $60/bushel wheat. Its not so nice when your dealer cuts you off. The extra $40/bushel you pay to produce in-house, thats your insurance policy against having your supplies cut off. In a world where geopolitical lines are shifting, it's a matter of national security and optionality to have your own food production capacity. Risk management.

wolverine876 3y ago
That's not risk management, that's a panicked reaction. Risk management accepts risk, takes into account likelihood and cost, and finds the most economical outcome. Nationalism makes you poor.
- jessekv 3y ago
  Taking into account the most economical outcome in the short/medium term also can make your country or community poor in the long term. If you care about the future of where you live, its important to cultivate and support local industry, even when its more expensive.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > Taking into account the most economical outcome in the short/medium term also can make your country or community poor in the long term. If you care about the future of where you live, its important to cultivate and support local industry, even when its more expensive. Your solution is the short-term one, maybe not even that. In the long run, your community is much better off producing what it does best and trading with others for what they produce best, rather than everyone trying to do everything at some mediocre level. Your solution is like Microsoft building its own furniture and cars and flying its own planes, rather than making software and buying the furniture, cars, and air travel from those who are expert in it.
    - jabradoodle 3y ago
      Countries subsidise food production for reasons of national security. This is not a new or controversial idea.
    - jessekv 3y ago
      Your reply comes right out of ECON 101, and is broadly speaking correct. Still, you've missed the point. Let's use your example, Microsoft. Companies have different incentives than communities or countries, but I think we can make this work. For many years, Microsoft only sold software, and let others who were experts in hardware make the hardware and install microsoft on it. Later, they realised that it was strategically important to manufacture their own consumer hardware, and now you have the Surface lineup. Maybe in the near future, they will decide they need to start manufacturing their own chips. If they do that, it's not going to be cheap, especially in the short term. In fact, Microsoft might never be able to produce chips more cheaply than Intel. But they still could choose to do it in-house (or just buy Intel) if the alternative is to lose their dominant position in the market.

UncleEntity 3y ago

> If it costs you $100/bushel to produce wheat and you can buy it for $60/bushel (I'm fabricating numbers), why produce it? “Certain countries” are well known for subsidizing domestic grain production and dumping it on overseas markets which ends up hurting the local farmers as they can’t compete on prices. Given enough time these countries become totally dependent on the imported grains and their entire farming industry goes away. You make the choice on if you’re comfortable depending entirely on foreign production of foodstuffs. —edit— Actually, you don’t get to make the choice…