Also what about the actions of Monsanto, wiping out small farmers and forcing them to pay for their GMO seed.

"So I guess they'd just hand it out for free if each state were an autarky? "

Straw man.

"You're just using "market" to describe any bad thing."

No, crapapple is using the government to describe any bad thing. How can you be a serious person and claim that free trade hasn't caused the neglect of food production?

It wouldn't be handed out for free, but it'd be a lot more affordable under conditions of food self sufficiency than food dependency. This is common sense.

Then say free trade. "Market" is uselessly imprecise.

Free trade makes everyone better off in the end.

The problem with free trade is not that people starve, it's that farmers in less competitive countries lose their livelihoods because of CHEAPER imports. That's why the Doha Round was all about farmer subsidies, not hand-ringing over some looming mass-starvation.

I think that the BEST form of government is the risky one. Communism (the theoretical kind) is an equality based system so there is less chance of a corrupt person gaining too much power, yet less chance of getting to your full potential. America's system has a LOT higher chance of corruption in places of power but it also gives more opportunity for affluence. Personally a monarchy is how i would roll, but if you ever get a corrupt king just like that everything falls apart. otherwise monarchy

caus eet kool -.-

neither of those are particularly true and it's not a dichotomy. Also monarchies are bad.

i said theoritical commuism not the one's we've seen. because let's face it, Stalin was a Capitalist Communist.
Secondly MONARCHIES WOULD STRIKE YOU DOWN WITH THEIR ALMIGHTY POWER

okay i am definitely kidding about the monarchy thing sorry i realized that wasn't obvious in first post

@Blue Baboon -- great post, thanks. Good stuff to noodle on.

"Free trade makes everyone better off in the end."

No it doesn't. No country has developed via free trade. The US developed via protectionism. Britain developed via protectionism. Japan developed via protectionism, ditto South Korea, Taiwan, and China.

The free traders stay impoverished.

"it's that farmers in less competitive countries lose their livelihoods because of CHEAPER imports."

Which means fewer farmers engaging in the production of food, duh.

Somalia used to be self-sufficient way it came to food. Despite the incredibly harsh climate and frequent drought, Somalia could always feed itself. Then the IMF imposed structural readjustments on what was once a socialist economy, Somalia has had recurring famines ever since. The market at work.

It does make people better off, PatBuchanan33. And whether a country "developed" with or without free trade is a wholly separate issue than whether it's good today. At most, your argument would just be that developing countries should be excluded from free trade blocs.


"Which means fewer farmers engaging in the production of food, duh."

Yeah, but fewer farmers does not inexorably lead to less food. If anything, it means more people eat, since people can afford to buy more of the cheaper imported food. It still leaves you with the second problem of unemployed farmers, but that's SEPARATE from free trade causing famine.

As for Somalia, it stopped being a socialist economy at the same time its government totally collapsed into civil war and anarchy. Why is "the market" responsible for the famine and not the wars? Oh, because it happens to suit your silly point.

free trade can be good but it has to come along with other benefits for the people. It can't be used a siphon to extract wealth from a country. The Nordic countries have been successful in opening up trade while funding robust social programs and using publicly owned campaigns to contribute to sovereign wealth funds.

@Invictus: Since you want to enter this debate, what is your evidence that hunger in the UK today is directly cause by government intervention?

That is the bullshit claim that no-one has been able to defend. Since you are taking that side - your turn.

I'm not taking that side. Saying the government causes hunger is an incredibly stupid thing to say. I'm countering Putin33's moronic idea that free trade causes famine. Nothing more.

Tell that to the Irish or the Bengalis.