4 ms·

It's justified for agriculture. Famine sucks, and relying on trade with other nations to feed your people is a losing proposition as well.

nickff 12y ago
>"relying on trade with other nations to feed your people is a losing proposition..." Please explain the rationale behind this argument; the substance of your reasoning is not clear from this statement.
- deciplex 12y ago
  Well, look at how much people complain about gas prices, and the extent to which that can influence government, and try to imagine what would happen if people were starving instead of merely paying more than they are used to for transportation. We prop up the government of Saudi Arabia, and to some extent this is true of Israel as well, and in fact most of what we do in the Middle East - at great cost diplomatically - all for oil. And food is more important than oil. The food supply is simply too useful a lever for politics, to hand it over to a third party, i.e. a foreign country.
  - nickff 12y ago
    You make an interesting argument, though I cannot imagine how any foreign power would have a greater influence on politics than the existing farm lobby (, as is true both in the USA and Europe). I am also unconvinced that foreign aid (and other instruments of foreign relations) are largely being used for the purpose of obtaining oil. If one closely examines the history of OPEC, there is little evidence that it has had any significant impact on the determination of oil prices since the 1970s. Foreign aid seems to be used for all sorts of unproductive (and sometimes unintelligible) reasons, which can easily be demonstrated by looking at where the foreign aid budget is spent. A large proportion of foreign affairs spending appears to be on mercantilist ventures, which often overlap with oil extraction, but is clearly a very different motive.
    - deciplex 12y ago
      >You make an interesting argument, though I cannot imagine how any foreign power would have a greater influence on politics than the existing farm lobby (, as is true both in the USA and Europe). Perhaps not, at least not in modern times. However, a powerful, even corrupt, farm lobby is preferable to a suzerain, which is what any third party who you rely on to feed your people would be. For the rest of your post, I agree most foreign aid is money not well spent, at least in the case of the US. But, that's only because most of the money spent by the US government is not well spent, because it is corrupt beyond redemption. It's not clear that propping up Saudi Arabia decreases the price of oil for the US. It's not clear that keeping Israel around as a destabilizing presence in the Middle East, decreases the price of oil for the US. Hell, it's not even all that clear to me that the Middle East is so strategically important when it comes to oil in the first place - we get more oil from Canada than from the ME, and Latin America as well, after all. Not to mention domestic production. It figures largely into the political calculus nonetheless - I never said American leaders were smart. Perhaps our actions in the ME are more about denying resources to others, than securing them for ourselves. Perhaps, more than anything, they are the result of a world power being run into decline by a pack of short-sighted fanatical xenophobic fools (and here, I am not referring to the American political establishment).
ak217 12y ago
I think you're trying to say that agriculture is a national security critical industry. OK - is depleting the water table and causing a chronic regional drought good for national security, too?
- deciplex 12y ago
  Yes, that's what I'm saying, and no, obviously depleting the water table is stupid - and, in the long run, harmful to national security for the same reason. I was just pointing out what should be obvious - not disagreeing with the parent comment.

nickff 12y ago

>"relying on trade with other nations to feed your people is a losing proposition..." Please explain the rationale behind this argument; the substance of your reasoning is not clear from this statement.

deciplex 12y ago
Well, look at how much people complain about gas prices, and the extent to which that can influence government, and try to imagine what would happen if people were starving instead of merely paying more than they are used to for transportation. We prop up the government of Saudi Arabia, and to some extent this is true of Israel as well, and in fact most of what we do in the Middle East - at great cost diplomatically - all for oil. And food is more important than oil. The food supply is simply too useful a lever for politics, to hand it over to a third party, i.e. a foreign country.
- nickff 12y ago
  You make an interesting argument, though I cannot imagine how any foreign power would have a greater influence on politics than the existing farm lobby (, as is true both in the USA and Europe). I am also unconvinced that foreign aid (and other instruments of foreign relations) are largely being used for the purpose of obtaining oil. If one closely examines the history of OPEC, there is little evidence that it has had any significant impact on the determination of oil prices since the 1970s. Foreign aid seems to be used for all sorts of unproductive (and sometimes unintelligible) reasons, which can easily be demonstrated by looking at where the foreign aid budget is spent. A large proportion of foreign affairs spending appears to be on mercantilist ventures, which often overlap with oil extraction, but is clearly a very different motive.
  - deciplex 12y ago
    >You make an interesting argument, though I cannot imagine how any foreign power would have a greater influence on politics than the existing farm lobby (, as is true both in the USA and Europe). Perhaps not, at least not in modern times. However, a powerful, even corrupt, farm lobby is preferable to a suzerain, which is what any third party who you rely on to feed your people would be. For the rest of your post, I agree most foreign aid is money not well spent, at least in the case of the US. But, that's only because most of the money spent by the US government is not well spent, because it is corrupt beyond redemption. It's not clear that propping up Saudi Arabia decreases the price of oil for the US. It's not clear that keeping Israel around as a destabilizing presence in the Middle East, decreases the price of oil for the US. Hell, it's not even all that clear to me that the Middle East is so strategically important when it comes to oil in the first place - we get more oil from Canada than from the ME, and Latin America as well, after all. Not to mention domestic production. It figures largely into the political calculus nonetheless - I never said American leaders were smart. Perhaps our actions in the ME are more about denying resources to others, than securing them for ourselves. Perhaps, more than anything, they are the result of a world power being run into decline by a pack of short-sighted fanatical xenophobic fools (and here, I am not referring to the American political establishment).

ak217 12y ago

I think you're trying to say that agriculture is a national security critical industry. OK - is depleting the water table and causing a chronic regional drought good for national security, too?

deciplex 12y ago
Yes, that's what I'm saying, and no, obviously depleting the water table is stupid - and, in the long run, harmful to national security for the same reason. I was just pointing out what should be obvious - not disagreeing with the parent comment.