FW: WHICH ROAD TO QATAR: FOOD FIRST OR EXPORT FIRST?

[Mark Jones]

Doug Henwood wrote:

> I know U.S. farmers certainly like exporting
> their crops.

I'm sceptical (of course) about the following, but, you know, probably it
makes sense.

Mark Jones

---------------------------

>>I sympathize therefore, with those who would minimize, rather
than those who would maximize, economic entanglement
between nations. Ideas, knowledge, art, hospitality, travel---
these are the things which should of their nature be
international. But let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and
conveniently possible, and, above all, let finance be primarily national. <<

J M Keynes
....

... archaeologists in North Dakota recently
discovered that a particular type of flint rock that lent itself especially
well for making spear and arrow heads, can only be found in North Dakota.
Yet
spears and arrow heads made from this flint can be found all over North and
South America. Indians living in what is now North Dakota traded them. They
apparently also extensively traded food stuffs. But the interesting thing
about the trade policies of these indigenous people is that they insisted on
meeting the needs of the village first. Trade was based on surplus
production.

We contend that these ancient trade policies were wise. Accordingly, while
we
support international trade, we question whether our local economies ought
to
be made dependent on, or victims of, a global economy which seeks to fit all
cultures and communities into a one-size-fits-all economic system. We
question the wisdom of forcing all cultures and countries, each of which
have
emerged out of different histories and different economic situations, into
one
economic straight jacket. ....

Herman Daly has reminded us that trade is only free when we are free not to
trade. (Daly, 1996) What Daly recognizes is that when the economy of a local
community or region is dependent on distant communities to supply its needs
and buy its raw materials, then its own economy becomes extremely vulnerable
to economic forces over which it has no control. The effect of the collapse
of
the Asian and Russian economies on Northern Plains farmers in the United
States in recent months [1998] has clearly demonstrated that phenomenon.

We can, for example, see this principle at work as we watch the agricultural
economy of North Dakota collapse. The globalization and industrialization of
agriculture has reduced farmers in North Dakota to raw materials suppliers
of
a few specialized commodities---primarily wheat and beef cattle. That means
that almost no local resources are devoted to producing locally needed value
added products for local consumption. That, in turn, means that we export
all
of our cheap raw materials and import all of our needed, expensive
value-added
products. This drains both, the wealth of the region's income, and the
wealth
potential of the region's raw materials out of our local communities. Such
an
economy is reminiscent of colonial economies.

Of course the proponents of economic neo-liberalism will argue that while
all
this may be true, it is still to the overall economic advantage of local
communities to be part of a global economy so we can avail ourselves of the
benefits of "comparative advantage".

The theory of comparative advantage was first espoused by David Ricardo, one
of the great classical economists. To put it simply, the theory of
comparative advantage suggests that each country (or region) should produce
what it can produce most efficiently and import those things that others can
produce more efficiently. And no trade barriers should be erected to
"protect" the less efficient local production systems. This is the classical
argument advocated by free trade proponents.

But as Daly points out, Ricardo's theory was based on a very specific set of
assumptions, including the expectation that capital would remain "immobile
between nations." Daly argues that since capital is now no longer rooted in
local communities, Ricardo, were he alive today, "would not support a policy
of free trade." Given the fact that capital today is controlled primarily by
transnational corporations (TNC's) who are not held accountable to any local
community, we no longer accrue the benefits of comparative advantage to the
communities in which we live. Most of the benefits accrue to shareholders of
TNC's who generally live in distant communities.

Consequently, Daly suggests that we need to ascertain whether or not trade
is
really mutually beneficial before we engage in it. We should determine
whether or not "the gains from international trade and specialization are
not
canceled by the immediate disadvantages: higher transportation costs,
increased dependence on distant supplies and markets, and a reduced range of
choice of ways for citizens to make a living." We should also determine
whether or not trade will cause a deterioration of natural eco-systems,
destroy local natural resources or reduce quality of life before we trade.

But proponents of economic neo-liberalism will argue that even if these
negative consequences occur, the globalization of agriculture is still
necessary to feed an expanding human population. We have to feed the world!

That assumption is based on at least three flawed propositions. First is the
assumption that people are hungry because we are short of food---that
farmers
are unable to produce enough. That assertion is totally false and repeatedly
proven to be so. (Kirschenmann, 1997, Lappe` and Collins, 1986)

Second is the assumption that we can solve the population explosion problem
simply by intensifying food production, especially the production of cereal
grains. But ecologists have raised disturbing questions about that
proposition. They argue that such intensification itself creates serious
obstacles to meeting those goals. The obstacles include:
*the destruction of the very genetic resources needed to develop
transgenic technologies;
*the degradation of the very ecosystem services needed to increase
production;
*the environmental and human health consequences of
intensive agricultural practices;
*the extreme climactic changes that accompany global
warming which will likely jeopardize food production capacity.
(Daily, et. al., 1998, Baskin, 1997)

Third, is the assumption that the only way to produce enough food for future
human population growth is by intensifying our mass production of a few
specialized commodities with new technologies. But we know from several
thousand years of observation that small-scale, labor-intensive, local food
production systems, wherein local people have access to production
resources,
are by far the most productive.

For example, under the ecological management of the Anasazi Indians, a small
region near Dolores, Colorado in the desert Southwest, supported a
population
of over 100,000 citizens around 1,000 AD. That same region today supports
less than 15,000. The Anasazi raised dryland corn that produced an average
40
bushels per acre. Today with all the modern technologies at our disposal,
farmers can only obtain 14 bushels per acre average dryland corn production
in
that same region. (Anazasi Museum, Dolores, Co)

Once and for all we should acknowledge that hunger is caused by social
inequity and the lack of access to food producing resources, not lack of
production.
[Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society Position Paper]

www.co-intelligence.org/index.html