Genre: Opinion/Argumentation

There is something in trade I can't say that I've ever really understood this idea that we must all eat only the things that have been grown in our own region. "Region" of course is a variable thing. It seems to depend on how deep the green of the fool recommending it is. Something from "the nation" to "your back yard" is the spectrum. But as I say, I've never really understood the point. For we know what happens when food supplies are indeed restricted to just the region one is actually in. We've been there before, back before we had decent roads. And what used to happen is that when the local crops failed then everyone died of starvation: even if 30 miles away there was a bumper crop. Quite why anyone wants to recreate the bad parts of the Middle Ages I'm really not quite sure. . . Localists and proponents of yokelnomics -- the policies which would take us back to peasant economies of the distant past -- pose the greatest danger to food security. There are good points about buying local but not at the expense of free trade which is an essential part of addressing world hunger. Rate this: Share this: Like this: This entry was posted on Monday, November 12th, 2012 at 9:00 am and is filed under politics , trade . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response , or trackback from your own site. Post navigation 7 Responses to There is something in trade Tim Worstall says that he can't say that he's ever really understood this idea that we must all eat only the things that have been grown in our own region. He's right. He hasn't been able to understand it and nor it seems, Ele, have you. You extrapolate the concept out, as is your habit, to the extreme end, so that you can dismiss it as 'yokelnomics' and mock what you clearly don't 'get'. You do say though, that there are good points about buying local food, but spoil your moment of rationality by invoking the 'threat it poses' to free trade and food security, and through your reproduction of Worstall's extremist comments, the image of the Middle Ages, starvation and 'green fools'. I think you are being very silly here, Ele. It's not the buying of local food in itself that is a threat to trade. It's the regulation required to force it upon people that is where the real threat lies. How else would you make it happen when not everyone is of a green mind? No one I know is talking about 'forcing it on people', Tracey. Perhaps you and Ele and Mr Worstall are just jumping the gun, making a mountain out of a mole-hill, over-egging the pudding. I think you are. As for 'making it happen' -- I'm one for the 'show the way by your own behaviour' and 'promote the ideas in a way that makes them attractive' kind of guy. It's annoying to have to try to counter the kind of fear-mongery over green-proposals I find here, but I do it because someone has to Good on you Robert, but when you get sick of waiting for the sheep to follow, and if you have some power, what then? We've been growing our own food (about 60% by weight) for years. People are interested, and if you give food to them for free; very interested, but most want all the benefits of the supermarket model as well. Convenience and variety in particular. Change will be a long time coming. I don't believe it will happen to any great degree without innovation from industry, including the farming industry. Another point to keep in mind is that restricting trade to a "region" means you limit the size of the market and thus you are limited in you ability to take advantage of specialisation and the division of labour. As George Stigler put it "The Division of Labor is Limited by the Extent of the Market". In short you make yourself poorer than you would otherwise be.