Where does our food come from?

Like I have said there is no point of having environmental, health, and labour laws if we simply stop producing it ourselves and import from nations that have no such laws in place.

Or we need to enforce them much more strictly.

The only problem with that is, where are we going to get all our produce in the winter.....hot houses? Canada just does not have the environment to produce the vast majority of our produce, therefore we to import the majority of it.

While I agree with your sentiment, Korben, you're not thinking this through on a welfare basis for the poor people of these countries. When we buy produce from Chile or Mexico, you're right, we're allowing produce to enter our country from places where labour and environmental laws are lax compared to ours. But who would be harmed if we stopped? The farmers in these piss-poor countries DEPEND on exporting their wares to us. Sure, they'd love our standards, but they have other concerns, like feeding their families. The labour and environmental laws we enjoy are a luxury, a luxury few countries can afford. I'm glad we have them. I wish other countries could afford them, but they have other priorities. Over time, as their economies mature then we can demand more of their governments, but for now, we're helping them as best we can by supporting their economic development through trade. Are we exploiting them? To a degree, yes, but we're also their only hope for economic improvement.

Capitalism is essentially a Ponzi scheme. Lemmy's right--our demand for goods raises the average standard of living for the Chinese. After a while they'll get wise and outsource the crappy work elsewhere--and so on and son on. As long as there's another player out there, the game continues.

Of course, you could look at it the other way too: virtual slaves with few rights living under a communist regime supply us with our prosperity.

It's like the old argument in the US over slavery. Some thought that it wasn't nice to have slaves. Others pointed out that in Africa they had nothing, and not only that, since they weren't Christian, there immortal souls were in peril. SO really, they were helping the Africans. Sounds silly now, but that was a prevalent viewpoint at the time.

Well, Lemmy, dont forget that alot of these farmers used to produce for domestic consumption before globalization dumped heavily subsidized produce from North America, Europe and other piss-poor countries on their door.

E.G. instead of growing and selling rice to their countrymen, heavily subsidized US rice was forced on Haiti and put those farmers out of business A nation which used to produce almost all of its primary food staple now imports the majority. In other nations like India farmers are economically 'forced' to grow things like genetically modified soy and cotton for export industrial use and have to import food staples because trade liberalization has made food production unprofitable for them.

Theres a triangulation of trade going on. If we all grew what we need for ourselves and only imported the things we couldn't produce, the world would probably be a better place.

You're absolutely right about subsidies; they're the most foolish form of trade barrier. I didn't want it to sound like I'm a proponent of globalization. I certainly think we should be demanding more of China, for example. And I also don't think we should be pawns of the banana republics like Honduras. But we must consider who is hurt when we get too critical of the domestic policies of our trading partners. Cutting off their only source of income isn't right either, especially for the poor bastards harvesting the coffee and bananas.

Your last point, however, I totally disagree with. Specializing in the production of the things each country is good at has absolute benefits. In fact, the FEWER things each country does, the GREATER chance for gains from trade. This is especially true when we're comparing advanced economies with third world ones.

Yeah but what is the definition of "good at?" We say Honduras is "good at" agriculture, but we really mean, is that even with massive production ineffciencies, widespread corruption, worker incompetence, inventory losses and primitive technology, their lax regulations and destitute population mean their final product is cheap.

Countries with fewer resources are forced to be adept traders, but they are constantly at the mercy of trading partners. Especially when their resource is agriculture, which can be grown in other places. Its not oil, its plants. If Hondurans don't want to toil away in near-slavery so we can have a $1.50 double-double, we'll take our cofee plantation somewhere else, that or either stage a coup in their country after a few years of economic embargo. Those countries are our pawns.

The definition of "good at", is any production that that country is relatively more efficient in producing than us. Comparative Advantage. But I completely agree with you. And who's fault is it? The answer is OUR'S. We allow our domestic corporations to do those dirty deeds.

"Efficient": see my last re: "cheaper" even if it require more material input for less output, e.g. 50 hondurans who steal or ruin half of what they pick is more "efficient" and than 1 Canadian on a tractor producing the twice the amount because the hondurans are landless peasants with no running water making a dollar a day. They want more, but we determine what they take.

But my point is that "efficient" is a loaded term: Efficient FOR WHOM? Certainly not for them, when they are working harder, wasting more and earning less. Just like the winners make the history books, the militiarily and economically dominant country gets to define "efficient".

I don't think you're quite grasping the concept of Comparative Advantage. Gains from trade are available even when one country does EVERYTHING more efficiently. The key is RELATIVE efficiency. The Honduran banana situation is a horrible example of corporate (and military) exploitation. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't buy bananas (or whatever) from Honduras. It means we should re-think the role of the corporation. You're basically taking out our bad behaviour on the Hondurans.

Oh no, I fully blame the corporations and the western consumers who use their savings to justify the situation that is FORCED upon the Hondurans, the Haitians, and just about everyone else in the first world.

I have no problem with fair trade between economic equals, but I dont think its possible to have fair trade with poorer countries because

1) Governments of wealthy nations will always exploit the poverty of developing countries to our advantage, tying in trade conditions with military support, development aid, IMF rules, etc.

2)Corporations engage in arbitrage to put our workers and farmers out of work and outsource domestic production to poor countries, in ways that dont always help the people of those poor countires. Globalization 2.0 has seen a decline in the number of new factories built in 3rd world countries and an increase in the number of existing 3rd world factories that produce for locals being bought up or contracted out to western companies to sell outsourced goods to the west. The massive difference between the marginal savings we see at the register and what the people in those countries actually make is gobbled up by the multi-national as new revenue.

The only problem with that is, where are we going to get all our produce in the winter.....hot houses? Canada just does not have the environment to produce the vast majority of our produce, therefore we to import the majority of it.


Oh I know that we have to import. We just don't need to import from countries that have no laws protecting workers and the environment. We can still import from the USA, they can produce all year round and the USA has better environmental laws than Canada



I don't think the current system is their only hope to economic improvement, we are simply keeping them stuck in the same place, poverty. We give them money but never enough to help them out of their situation. I'm not saying they must have the exact same standards as us but they need to have something, burning down the rain forest so that we can have a burger for 99 cents should not be acceptable. A compromise is Fair Trade. Better yet we put a tariff on all foods coming from these poor countries and use that money for international development. Canada being a nation that seems obsessed with "human rights" should be very tough in all our trade agreements about the treatment of workers.

However there is no reason we should feel bad about halting trade with a nation like China, the government of China has money coming out of every hole. They can afford improved working conditions and environmental laws.

Canada shouldn't buy Venezuelan oil then. I can't think of any communist regimes out there anymore....except the North Koreans and they're so phouckt up they can't even produce CO2