3 ms·

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 ca

• 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.