> [snip] when you turn farmers loose and > try to hold them accountable to economic theories that don't take the > reality of farming into account, to sink or swim on their own, more > often than not, they sink.
I don't understand how farming is supposed to be different from other investments. You invest money/effort, reap the result, sell you product at the market price. If it's profitable you win, if it's not you lose. Same rules as for anyone. The risks are hard to calculate in farming and therefore they ought be trying to charge higher prices to compensate. If local farmers can't get people to pay a high enough price to compensate them for their risk (a.k.a insurance against bad crops) it can only be because of cheaper competition - because without cheaper competition people will be compelled to pay the price of food. Thus if cheaper competition exists then it's simple market forces that put your farmers out of business - like any other, nothing peculiar to farming about it. That's where the security of food supply comes in - a rational person might feel uneasy about outsourcing their food production to other countries. It becomes a strategic target (and exactly the one Germany assaulted in the Atlantic battle of WW2). However to my mind if a government wants to ensure local production for security of supply the correct method is barring foreign imports rather than subsidising local producers so the internal market can be left to function with minimal distortion. If you're going to open up to foreign markets then you have to stop thinking about international relationships as zero sum games between competing nations and work harder on international institutions and integration to reduce the possibility of strategic assaults on the infrastructure you build. Problem is everyone wants to have cakes and eat them too - be independent nations while getting cheap goods from overseas. It's untenable. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
