Steve:
> >In other words, what the authors are saying is that by returning the
> terms
> >of trades to their "natural" levels would do much to move economic
> >activity to becoming more sustainable.
John:
> Yes but I would add that it is 'self-sufficiency' that should result.
> Each
> region growing what it most suited to grow. Low intensity farming, low
> inputs, modess outputs. Most tree crops are labour extensive, that is
> they
> do not require much work. Most agriculture is not labour intensive even
> if
> one does not own a tractor.
Okay, now we are getting somewhere!
I am going to, with all due respect <g>, disagree with you John. Here is
why. Suppose we have a simple world that is divided into two regions, A
and B. Suppose region A is rich in resource 1 and poor in resource 2 and
the exact opposite for region B. Instead of having two isolated regions
that try to make do with what they got (with region A overusing resource 2
and region B overusing resource 1), they could under free trade both be
better off and no overuse either resource in their respective areas. That
is what I think the authors are arguing for. That free trade can help
reduce such things as the intensive farming we see in the developed
countries by spreading the farming around to more countries each one
putting less stress on the local environment. This could also help some
some of the distrubution problems. Instead of shippng food all over the
world form a few countries (i.e. long shipping distances with high
resource use) agricultural goods could end up being shipped much shorter
distances.
Steve
=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
--Jamey Lee West
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|