…the end of man is to know

Anyone who has taken econ 101 knows that trade is good. Countries which specialize in making what they are most efficient at will, ultimately, have the most stuff for the least amount of effort. That’s why the US invents the idea of an iPod and China makes the iPods. However, even some of the most ardent free traders believe in creating a self-sufficiency of food. I believe we can find a middle-ground of quasi-independence. We can limit subsidies while maintaining some amount of domestic food production.

Food is unique in that it is absolutely essential for survival. If China stops exporting iPods, we’ll party like its 1999 and bust out some CD players. If Greenland gets uppity and halts ice exports, we’ll adapt. If Brazil is the only exporter of sugar, we would, to an extent, be at Brazil’s mercy. The food issue strikes at a key relationship between politics and economics: countries don’t trust each other and refuse to sacrifice the guarantee of not starving.

Basic economics preaches that sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, rice-paddied Southeast Asia, and a few grain-heavy regions should be the sole producers of food. Japan sticks to technology, the US uses brain power, and Luxembourg focuses on….okay, I’m not even positive that Luxembourg is a country, let alone its chief exports. The problem is that underdeveloped countries cannot have the power to starve out imperial powers, or so our politicians argue. Despotic leaders of agricultural powerhouses could use a “food shield” the same way despotic leaders of oil producers use the “oil shield”.

So what is the result? Massive agricultural subsidies, tariffs, and export quotas. Subsidies force the average American to pay more money in taxes ($89 billion in 2007) so they can pay more money at the local grocery store. Tariffs hurt other countries’ attempts to grow their economies, forcing the American consumer to spend more and buy inefficiently produced goods. The drive for agricultural independence has severe economic and political ramifications.

If we’re so damn concerned about the risks of ticking off agricultural economies, why are politicians content to restrict free (read: fair) trade? Many underdeveloped countries are hostile to American tariffs and agricultural subsidies. If food markets were opened, there would be no reason for the growing economies to intentionally stop selling their products.

While I don’t suggest completely free markets which totally strip any nation of food independence, the US is far from a happy medium. Subsidies and tariffs have gone too far and are economically irresponsible. Low tariffs and minimal subsidies would go a long way to lowering taxes, dropping prices at the farmer’s market, and stripping the international community’s fear of American imperialism and exceptionalism.

So instead of looking at geography, let’s judge food purchases on a more pragmatic and appropriate scale: taste.