On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Brad DeLong wrote:
> So in what sense is U.S. agriculture not "productive"?
In yield per unit land, like the man said. You're acting like yield of the land is an unusual way to use the term "agricultural productivity."
> A "productive" agriculture in the U.S.--given its relatively low
> population, the high product of labor outside agriculture, and its
> enormous endowment of land--would seem to be an agriculture that
> economized on labor and used its land extensively, thus achieving a high
> level of output per worker and a not-so-high level of output per acre.
Exactly. And by this reasoning, in a country with the opposite characteristics -- a low man-to-arable-land ratio and a low product of labor outside agriculture -- which is a pretty fair characterization of the entire third world -- this would have to be considered an "unproductive" agriculture. And some other, almost opposite model, would seem to be indicated.
No?
Je ne comprends pas votre "sheesh."
Michael