RE: Feeding People (2)

["Mowery, R. Neal (RNM) " <RNM@y12.doe.gov>]

NM: "Jean-Marie's proposal would cause the world's poor to pay
> twice as much for food than would an open market...". <
> 
J-MG: Very true: some poor
> people would not benefit from the world market price of cereals, as long
> as
> it would be necessary to protect their micro-economy. So what ? The point
> is that these people will keep pride of workmanship, dignity and the small
> income which let them survive in their villages. 
> 
NM-2: People in poverty do not suffer from a lack of self-esteem and
dignity.  They suffer from a lack of resources.

J-MG: It's not true that "with trade barriers in place, every consumer in
New
> Delhi must pay what is in essence a subsidy to support the existence of
> the
> local farmers." 
> 
NM-2: Of course it is true.  Every gram of grain purchased by a poor
non-farmer in New Delhi would cost him twice as much as it would if it were
bought at world market prices.  The local farmers benefit, but the poor
consumers suffer.  
 
> J-MG: This statement is a bureaucratic point of view, contrary to a
> systemic approach. 
> 
NM-2: Evaluating the effects of a decision on the rest of the economy is the
systemic approach at its best.  Restricting one's view only to the farmers
is suboptimization.

J-MG: In some cases it's necessary to put trade barriers for a certain
period of time in order to prepare transition. Even the USA are using trade
barriers to protect themselves.

NM-2: On this we agree. Temporary barriers have their place in managing an
internal economy.  Will you agree that they also have a cost to society?

> J-MG: Small farmers in Africa and Asia must be protected from evils of
> globalization as long as they are not educated enough. The chain reaction
> should be: (1) education, better skills, better farming tools; (2)
> productivity improves; (3) better way of living, more time to learn; (4)
> more education... and so on. The process may take 50 years before they
> have
> significant results, provided their leaders don't make mistakes.
> 
NM-2: If barriers are established to allow for production restructuring as
you describe, I would agree.  I disagree that simply doubling the price of
food for at least 2-3 generations in hope that "signficant" results can
occur is reasonable.  It is a steep price for the rest of society, and
prevents economic growth for many many years.  

NM: >If the New Delhi farmer cannot successfully compete in the grain
market,
> >perhaps he should grow something else.  Perhaps a perishable commodity
> >would be more successfully grown and marketed by local farmer than by
> >farmers half a world away.
> 
J-MG:  You mean: they must do it, and quickly ! Again this is the point of
view of
> rich and arrogant individuals who don't care of poor people. If we
> followed
> this way of thinking poverty would become a crime.
> 
NM-2: I appreciate Jean-Marie's passion for his position, but I strongly
resent his implication that I don't care about poor people, or that I would
make poverty a crime.  The belief that people can rise to the occassion,
that people are innovative and creative, and that a farmer can do more than
grow wheat respects those people more than one that says otherwise.  Will
they need help at times?  Surely they will!  Can trade barriers provide time
for improvement?  Sure they can, but other things must happen for
improvement to occur.  Will trade barriers harm others in the society?
Absolutely.  Every purchaser of locally-grown grain will suffer because
cannot buy grain at world prices.

Farmers in the mountains where I live could not compete well with corn and
wheat producers in the Midwest.  Many farms are gone now.  But some farmers
simply changed.  Some changed to dairy products.  Some planted orchards.
Some dug ponds and raised fish.  The area even has a handful of wineries
now.  A program that helped the New Dehli farmer to convert to other crops
over five years while gradually reducing his dependance on growing grain
might be a reasonable basis for trade barriers.  But trade barriers in leiu
of improvement or diversification are harmful to the rest of society, and
will never result in a solution to the problem.  I believe that ignoring
this harm to the consumer is to ignore systems theory.  I also believe that
to perpetuate a failed system by protecting it from competition and
expecting it to get better without intervention is inconsistent with theory
and with history.  

Solving the farmers' problem is fine, unless we simply give the problem to
someone else.  The effects of closed borders and the resulting high food
prices for all of society must be considered in this equation to know if the
idea is really a system-wide solution.  

Speaking only for myself and not my employer.

> * Neal Mowery - Materials Management  
> * BWXT Y-12, LLC  
> * Y-12 National Security Complex 
> * Oak Ridge, Tennessee   (865) 574-0796    rnm@y12.doe.gov