7 ms·

>Understanding Ricardian/comparative advantage, recognising that dairy is not a matter of national security, and importing it. A country can do without uranium

>Understanding Ricardian/comparative advantage, recognising that dairy is not a matter of national security, and importing it. A country can do without uranium, it can't do without dairy. As another example of food security being a matter of national security - look what happened to Egypt 2+ years ago once wheat prices rose - for years before that Egypt was geared ("international specialization") toward fruits/strawberries/etc... production for export while becoming world's biggest wheat importer.

lgieron 13y ago
It doesn't really matter if they produced wheat or not - as it's a globally traded commodity, the price of Egyptian wheat would've been the same (unless the country stepped out of international free trade agreements, which would've had massive consequences).
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  that's the point - Egypt didn't take necessary measures for their food security. I lived through food/gas shortages and high prices at the end of USSR so i think i know how Egypt people felt. Now living in the US i appreciate the US disregard for international free trade agreements when it comes to food and gas - i.e. farmers subsidies and prohibition for oil export - thus making sure that shortages and high-prices of 197x have much less chances of happening again. Free trade is a great idea, yet it works only when implemented by all participants to the same extent and it just doesn't make any sense when implemented unilaterally (or by minor number of participants and/or to different degree).
  - eru 13y ago
    The high food prices of the mid 2000's were most severe in commodities that were the least internationally traded..
- nhaehnle 13y ago
  ... massive consequences such as keeping your population alive. Don't buy into the free market propaganda too much. The biggest proponents of free market propaganda (I am looking at the EU and the US) have programs that explicitly target food security. Neither would hesitate to introduce export controls to prevent famine-induced revolts.
marcosdumay 13y ago
Food security is not the same as milk security. Food security is a matter of national security, milk security is not. A country can do quite well with a reduced supply of milk. In Egypt the cost of weat increased toghether with the price of all other grains. And people need grains (but not weat), so they revolted. Also, what their agriculture changed for is not very relevant, the root of the problem is that their agriculture does not produce enough value for direct consuption or exchange into food (what made their money worth less, and imported food expensive). Growing fruits probably helped reduce the problem.
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  there are different levels of security. "Thanks God, children aren't going to bed hungry (and thus probably survive next few days)" vs. "children going to bed after glass of good milk and cookie (and thus probably grow healthy)". Norway [successfully] invests its national wealth in maintaining the latter level. Looks very smart to me. To be able to give them meaningful advice to do things differently (like, for example, importing), one has to show an example of a country which does things differently (and at least as successful in achieving the goal as Norway).
  - yongjik 13y ago
    http://chartsbin.com/view/1491 http://chartsbin.com/view/1491 Apparently the Japanese consume 76.45 kg milk per year per person (as of 2007), while Norwegians consume 261.52 kg. Yet the Japanese have no problem living healthy, long lives. South Korea gets by merrily with just 26.9 kg, roughly half of Palestine (49.17 kg). (Sure, our country has lots of social/health problems, but "not enough milk" is not one of them.)
    - VladRussian2 13y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence#Evolutionary_advantages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence#Evolutionar... "Where the C allele indicated lactase non-persistence and the T allele indicated lactase persistence, the study found that women that were homozygous for the C allele exhibited worse health than women with a C and a T allele and women with two T alleles. Women who were CC reported more hip and wrist fractures, more osteoporosis, and more cataracts than the other groups.[13] They also were on average 4–6 mm shorter than the other women, as well as slightly lighter in weight" For colder, European climate, bigger weight/size is preferable (and bigger body requires stronger bones). Not so for warmer/Asian areas where smaller body size is ok and thus more favorable, in particular because it requires less animal protein, etc... which is less available there than in Europe.
stefan_kendall 13y ago
I absolutely guarantee you that you can live quite healthily without dairy. You're essentially arguing against all free trade. Should Norway policy ensure it can build its own computers, phones, or shoes? A world that relies on trade is a world at peace.
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >You're essentially arguing against all free trade. it is a stretch. Free trade just isn't always the best approach to every situation. >A world that relies on trade is a world at peace. again, big stretch. Just for example: http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21578978-world-1913-was-worryingly-similar-world-today-year-sky-fell http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21578978-world-... "Rather, the world of 1913 was quite like that of 2013: modern, substantially urbanised and, even as Woodrow Wilson set about slashing import tariffs, thriving on global trade. "
  - vidarh 13y ago
    > "Rather, the world of 1913 was quite like that of 2013: modern, substantially urbanised and, even as Woodrow Wilson set about slashing import tariffs, thriving on global trade. " Good point - people were in fact using the argument that the extent of international trade made large wars between powers like Germany and the UK unlikely...
- vacri 13y ago
  A world that relies on trade is a world at peace. Colonialism was driven by a lust for trade, so that's hardly a truism.
- vidarh 13y ago
  There's a difference between food security and securing access to "nice to haves". Food security is about ensuring short-term survival in the event of war (think blockade), or global upheavals large enough to prevent trade. The entire point is that it is protection against a situation where trade is disrupted and the world is not at peace.
thaumasiotes 13y ago
> A country can do without uranium, it can't do without dairy. Look outside Europe. Dairy consumption is not even the global norm.
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  Norway is in Europe where dairy is a staple food. So here you go: "A country can do without uranium, it can't do without staple food".
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    If one staple food disappears, the country won't just starve; that would be stupid. It will start eating something else. If Norway entirely stopped producing food, it would still eat just fine, and if it entirely stopped eating dairy, it would still have plenty of food.
    - VladRussian2 13y ago
      >If one staple food disappears, the country won't just starve; that would be stupid. shortage of staple food will cause price spike with related economical/political/social effects. Staple food isn't just a whimsical choice of consumer. Beside some exceptions (where people moved and brought their tradition with them), a staple food is a result of hundreds or thousands of years of evolutionary optimization for that population in that region. Milk in Europe is exactly such a case, and is a very important one to the population there. (see my other post in this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7034795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7034795). Specifically, in case of milk in Norway any issues with its availability, in addition to short term price-spike related effects, would in long term affect negatively health and well being of children whose body/skeleton would be forming at the time.
      - thaumasiotes 13y ago
        I'm completely on board with the idea that eliminating milk from the northwest european diet would be hugely disruptive and have unknown knock-on nutritional effects due to long-term adaptation to milk consumption. My point in that area was limited to the idea that hunger wouldn't be an issue. However, my other point, that Norway can easily import 100% of its food demand (see "if Norway entirely stopped producing food, it would still eat just fine"), stands.
jessaustin 13y ago
Egypt used to be an agricultural powerhouse and wheat exporter. The reason it's not now, is partly because they planted oddball crops for export to Europe, but principally because land and water was taken from "traditional" farmers and given to well-connected rich people and foreign companies. (This was an even worse form of land reform than that seen in other parts of Africa.) Mubarak deserves everything he's gotten, and worse. If he had left the traditional farm sector intact, his cronies wouldn't have been able to steal so much, but Egypt would still be able to feed itself, and he might still have been in power today. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec11/egyptfood_11-30.html http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec11/egyptfood_11...

lgieron 13y ago

It doesn't really matter if they produced wheat or not - as it's a globally traded commodity, the price of Egyptian wheat would've been the same (unless the country stepped out of international free trade agreements, which would've had massive consequences).

VladRussian2 13y ago
that's the point - Egypt didn't take necessary measures for their food security. I lived through food/gas shortages and high prices at the end of USSR so i think i know how Egypt people felt. Now living in the US i appreciate the US disregard for international free trade agreements when it comes to food and gas - i.e. farmers subsidies and prohibition for oil export - thus making sure that shortages and high-prices of 197x have much less chances of happening again. Free trade is a great idea, yet it works only when implemented by all participants to the same extent and it just doesn't make any sense when implemented unilaterally (or by minor number of participants and/or to different degree).
- eru 13y ago
  The high food prices of the mid 2000's were most severe in commodities that were the least internationally traded..
nhaehnle 13y ago
... massive consequences such as keeping your population alive. Don't buy into the free market propaganda too much. The biggest proponents of free market propaganda (I am looking at the EU and the US) have programs that explicitly target food security. Neither would hesitate to introduce export controls to prevent famine-induced revolts.

marcosdumay 13y ago

Food security is not the same as milk security. Food security is a matter of national security, milk security is not. A country can do quite well with a reduced supply of milk. In Egypt the cost of weat increased toghether with the price of all other grains. And people need grains (but not weat), so they revolted. Also, what their agriculture changed for is not very relevant, the root of the problem is that their agriculture does not produce enough value for direct consuption or exchange into food (what made their money worth less, and imported food expensive). Growing fruits probably helped reduce the problem.

VladRussian2 13y ago
there are different levels of security. "Thanks God, children aren't going to bed hungry (and thus probably survive next few days)" vs. "children going to bed after glass of good milk and cookie (and thus probably grow healthy)". Norway [successfully] invests its national wealth in maintaining the latter level. Looks very smart to me. To be able to give them meaningful advice to do things differently (like, for example, importing), one has to show an example of a country which does things differently (and at least as successful in achieving the goal as Norway).
- yongjik 13y ago
  http://chartsbin.com/view/1491 http://chartsbin.com/view/1491 Apparently the Japanese consume 76.45 kg milk per year per person (as of 2007), while Norwegians consume 261.52 kg. Yet the Japanese have no problem living healthy, long lives. South Korea gets by merrily with just 26.9 kg, roughly half of Palestine (49.17 kg). (Sure, our country has lots of social/health problems, but "not enough milk" is not one of them.)
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence#Evolutionary_advantages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence#Evolutionar... "Where the C allele indicated lactase non-persistence and the T allele indicated lactase persistence, the study found that women that were homozygous for the C allele exhibited worse health than women with a C and a T allele and women with two T alleles. Women who were CC reported more hip and wrist fractures, more osteoporosis, and more cataracts than the other groups.[13] They also were on average 4–6 mm shorter than the other women, as well as slightly lighter in weight" For colder, European climate, bigger weight/size is preferable (and bigger body requires stronger bones). Not so for warmer/Asian areas where smaller body size is ok and thus more favorable, in particular because it requires less animal protein, etc... which is less available there than in Europe.

stefan_kendall 13y ago

I absolutely guarantee you that you can live quite healthily without dairy. You're essentially arguing against all free trade. Should Norway policy ensure it can build its own computers, phones, or shoes? A world that relies on trade is a world at peace.

VladRussian2 13y ago
>You're essentially arguing against all free trade. it is a stretch. Free trade just isn't always the best approach to every situation. >A world that relies on trade is a world at peace. again, big stretch. Just for example: http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21578978-world-1913-was-worryingly-similar-world-today-year-sky-fell http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21578978-world-... "Rather, the world of 1913 was quite like that of 2013: modern, substantially urbanised and, even as Woodrow Wilson set about slashing import tariffs, thriving on global trade. "
- vidarh 13y ago
  > "Rather, the world of 1913 was quite like that of 2013: modern, substantially urbanised and, even as Woodrow Wilson set about slashing import tariffs, thriving on global trade. " Good point - people were in fact using the argument that the extent of international trade made large wars between powers like Germany and the UK unlikely...
vacri 13y ago
A world that relies on trade is a world at peace. Colonialism was driven by a lust for trade, so that's hardly a truism.
vidarh 13y ago
There's a difference between food security and securing access to "nice to haves". Food security is about ensuring short-term survival in the event of war (think blockade), or global upheavals large enough to prevent trade. The entire point is that it is protection against a situation where trade is disrupted and the world is not at peace.

thaumasiotes 13y ago

> A country can do without uranium, it can't do without dairy. Look outside Europe. Dairy consumption is not even the global norm.

VladRussian2 13y ago
Norway is in Europe where dairy is a staple food. So here you go: "A country can do without uranium, it can't do without staple food".
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  If one staple food disappears, the country won't just starve; that would be stupid. It will start eating something else. If Norway entirely stopped producing food, it would still eat just fine, and if it entirely stopped eating dairy, it would still have plenty of food.
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    >If one staple food disappears, the country won't just starve; that would be stupid. shortage of staple food will cause price spike with related economical/political/social effects. Staple food isn't just a whimsical choice of consumer. Beside some exceptions (where people moved and brought their tradition with them), a staple food is a result of hundreds or thousands of years of evolutionary optimization for that population in that region. Milk in Europe is exactly such a case, and is a very important one to the population there. (see my other post in this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7034795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7034795). Specifically, in case of milk in Norway any issues with its availability, in addition to short term price-spike related effects, would in long term affect negatively health and well being of children whose body/skeleton would be forming at the time.
    - thaumasiotes 13y ago
      I'm completely on board with the idea that eliminating milk from the northwest european diet would be hugely disruptive and have unknown knock-on nutritional effects due to long-term adaptation to milk consumption. My point in that area was limited to the idea that hunger wouldn't be an issue. However, my other point, that Norway can easily import 100% of its food demand (see "if Norway entirely stopped producing food, it would still eat just fine"), stands.

jessaustin 13y ago

Egypt used to be an agricultural powerhouse and wheat exporter. The reason it's not now, is partly because they planted oddball crops for export to Europe, but principally because land and water was taken from "traditional" farmers and given to well-connected rich people and foreign companies. (This was an even worse form of land reform than that seen in other parts of Africa.) Mubarak deserves everything he's gotten, and worse. If he had left the traditional farm sector intact, his cronies wouldn't have been able to steal so much, but Egypt would still be able to feed itself, and he might still have been in power today. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec11/egyptfood_11-30.html http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec11/egyptfood_11...