71–80 of 95 posts
To put this in perspective, it has happened before along similar lines in different produce types. For example, almost all of the vineyards in Europe were wiped out in the 19th century [1]. This is why the oldest vineyards in the world are somewhere in South America. (I think Chile?) Today, as we all know, France is still the most important wine producing country. South Africa has 100k hectares of wine; France has 10…
To put this in perspective, it has happened before along similar lines in different produce types. For example, almost all of the vineyards in Europe were wiped out in the 19th century [1]. This is why the oldest vineyards in the world are somewhere in South America. (I think Chile?) Today, as we all know, France is still the most important wine producing country. South Africa has 100k hectares of wine; France has 10…
The real problem is that these folks (And all other cash crops) have rows and rows of the same crop and nothing else.
That’s not how nature works. Work WITH nature by creating bio-diversity and pests will be eaten by something else, etc.
If you haven’t seen it, I recommend watching “Biggest Little Farm” https://www.biggestlittlefarmmovie.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are other solutions. Institute a minimum wage for farm work. Make it attractive to those who would ordinarily choose to work in a factory to work at a farm. Break the monopolies on food distribution (probably will require the companies to be restructured by law). Create a national food distribution service to compete with the original companies. Provide minimum prices for farmers with the national food distribu…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no need to politicize the issue or bring the completely irrelevant refugee topic in the discussion. Anyway the argument is so oversimplified that it's irrelevant in any discussion. No matter where you buy from a similar argument can just as easily and arbitrarily be used pro or against it.
I strongly disagree. Trade is very relevant to improving living standards and living standards are very relevant to migration (which is the term I should have used instead of refugees in spite of the fact that these two issues are closely linked). Of course this is a complex subject, but I am responding to the extremely oversimplified idea that not buying from neighbouring regions is somehow supporting "where we live…
And wouldn't this directly hurt local businesses? Given that the cost of living and production in the EU is higher the only way those businesses can survive is if a wealthier population buys the product, which is a much narrower segment of the market.
> not buying from neighbouring regions is somehow supporting "where we live"
Yes, buying from "someone" does support "someone". You can't be surprised by this, can you? Businesses need customers to survive. Without customers all local producers especially in such "expensive" countries become local importers from cheaper countries. What happens to the local economy once so much of the production is moved abroad, especially in exceptional situations like today? What happens when relation with that country go sour?
You suggest that EU citizens should leave Greek and Italian family business out to dry because Morocco and Turkey are receiving immigrants.
This is a weak argument, appealing only to pity ("but think of the immigrants") and brushing aside everything else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The irony is that I think some of these "knowledge economy" jobs i.e. doctors and lawyers(and even software engineers) are easier to replace than say nurses(although there is a big conflict going on where lots of nurses actually have more experience and knowledge than doctors) and cleaners. The idea that creating robots that mimic certain mechanic function is easier than creating something that replaces a person that…
Lawyers aren’t mere human dictionaries — they have an understanding of the system that is the law and how everything works in that context. Interacting with a legal system without that domain knowledge leads to Freemen Of The Land, or to thinking that Section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 outlaws all sexual contact with humans “because humans are a type of animal”. What senior lawyers (and senior pharmacists and…
Whether they know it or not the other party's lawyer, the DA, the Judge, the clerk at the courthouse, etc are more likely to (unconsciously) give favorable treatment to a lawyer with a name they recognize who's been working in that jurisdiction for 30yr, been bankrolling the local little league team for 20 and funding local politicians campaigns for 10 than he is with someone's who's just become a partner at a law firm that's only existed for a decade and isn't held in high regard by every other important person in the jurisdiction. People generally give people they know better treatment than people they don't. This effect is important for anyone who's job involves negotiation with other people in an industry without tons of turnover.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I strongly disagree. Trade is very relevant to improving living standards and living standards are very relevant to migration (which is the term I should have used instead of refugees in spite of the fact that these two issues are closely linked). Of course this is a complex subject, but I am responding to the extremely oversimplified idea that not buying from neighbouring regions is somehow supporting "where we live…
You suggested there is a moral duty of an individual in the EU to buy specifically from outside Europe (like Morocco or Turkey) because they were expected to receive migrants. What about the moral argument that by buying from any oppressive or dictatorial regime you are supporting that regime? And wouldn't this directly hurt local businesses? Given that the cost of living and production in the EU is higher the only w…
No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all and it's not what I'm doing myself. I'm suggesting to buy the best value for money wherever it may come from (barring special circumstances).
I'm also suggesting that reducing trade with poorer neighbors has downsides for everybody, even if you are convinced that buying locally is economically beneficial.
>Yes, buying from "where they live" does support "where you live".
No, it does not necessarily do that. If you buy the same quality at a higher price locally, you may well be preventing your local economy from moving up the value chain or from becoming more productive and more competitive.
>You made a weak argument, appealing only to pity
That would be true if I was advocating buying worse value for money to support those countries. But that's not what I'm saying at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't disagree that trade has benefits on both sides, but why would I need to import oil from the other side when it can be produced locally?
For one, it's not produced locally. I live in London. There are no olive trees here. I'm buying a lot of Spanish, Italian and Greek olive oil because I like it and I trust their standards. But I see no reason why I should reject Moroccan or Turkish olive oil as a matter of principle. I think that barring any special circumstances, it's best for the progress of humanity if consumers buy the best value for money. It cr…
But this is the point you're missing: it's not just a matter of principle. It's a matter of reasoning. For a EU citizen buying from Italy, Greece, or Spain makes more sense (money permitting) than buying from Morocco because it's far more likely that a weaker EU country economy will negatively affect their country or the whole EU than a weak Moroccan economy.
What happens to the UK economy if all or many UK citizens start buying stuff made abroad out of some moral obligation? Because if it is negatively impacted in any way then it pretty much proves it was not just a matter of principle.
And to counter some more of your points, local olive producers are already the highest on the value chain and at this point any productivity boosts will come at a cost many are not willing to accept and that conflicts with the previous point. Think chemicals, think lower quality, etc. Why are free-range chickens (and eggs) so popular in the UK if you could just increase productivity with high stocking density?
With every comment you throw the goalpost in another zipcode.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For one, it's not produced locally. I live in London. There are no olive trees here. I'm buying a lot of Spanish, Italian and Greek olive oil because I like it and I trust their standards. But I see no reason why I should reject Moroccan or Turkish olive oil as a matter of principle. I think that barring any special circumstances, it's best for the progress of humanity if consumers buy the best value for money. It cr…
> But I see no reason why I should reject Moroccan or Turkish olive oil as a matter of principle But this is the point you're missing: it's not just a matter of principle. It's a matter of reasoning. For a EU citizen buying from Italy, Greece, or Spain makes more sense (money permitting) than buying from Morocco because it's far more likely that a weaker EU country economy will negatively affect their country or the…
No. You are implying that buying locally strengthens the domestic economy whereas importing weakens the domestic economy. That reasoning is flawed as a general principle (even though it may well be true in specific cases or circumstances).
>What happens to the UK economy if all or many UK citizens start buying stuff made abroad out of some moral obligation?
Well, that would be extremely stupid and I'm not advocating it at all. There is no such moral obligation and I didn't say anything to that effect.
To put this in perspective, it has happened before along similar lines in different produce types. For example, almost all of the vineyards in Europe were wiped out in the 19th century [1]. This is why the oldest vineyards in the world are somewhere in South America. (I think Chile?) Today, as we all know, France is still the most important wine producing country. South Africa has 100k hectares of wine; France has 10…
I think it would be great if you could invest in creating biodiversity more so than accelerating mono-culture agriculture with pesticides. The real problem is that these folks (And all other cash crops) have rows and rows of the same crop and nothing else. That’s not how nature works. Work WITH nature by creating bio-diversity and pests will be eaten by something else, etc. If you haven’t seen it, I recommend watchin…
I don't think this is the time for a monoculture soapbox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it would be great if you could invest in creating biodiversity more so than accelerating mono-culture agriculture with pesticides. The real problem is that these folks (And all other cash crops) have rows and rows of the same crop and nothing else. That’s not how nature works. Work WITH nature by creating bio-diversity and pests will be eaten by something else, etc. If you haven’t seen it, I recommend watchin…
The article notes that this affects multiple olive varieties as well as almond and cherry. I don't think this is the time for a monoculture soapbox.
Why? There are millions of other plant species aside from almond and cherry, thousands of them edible and many of them support natural predators for the insects that spread Xylella.