> Just two minor points - be careful not to treat "agricultural goods" and "food" as the same. As one example, the US is a major (THE major) producer and exporter of corn...but a dizzying amount of that corn is NOT for direct human consumption. It's largely animal feed, and a few industrial uses.
Oh, totally. Corn, specifically, has a really interesting history in grading, purpose, and politics in America. A lot of corn growing is meant to keep supply of other good down, that is, if the farm is not just paid to _not grow_ at all.
> The US is great (climate-wise) for producing corn, soybean, etc, but there are some OTHER foods that we are less good at producing than other countries, be it climate or infrastructure.
That's somewhat true, but becomes more true in time with repeat yield of nitrogen-fed corn production. That's mostly infrastructure though (with some time to rotate and repair soil).
> Basic trade principles show that it's better all around if everyone focuses on their specialties and trades rather than each trying to be fully self-sufficient.
Better "all around" for market efficiency in international-driven trade. The market in New York State could be optimized for specialized production that would well-exceed its own demand (with a couple areas of Long Island converting from specialty/rare goods to more general production).
> So it's a bit simplistic to say our grocery prices will rise only to the point where it makes sense to switch to domestic production...that switch implies a lot of inefficiencies, which means that there is an upper cap on how much prices can rise, but not that we want to get to that point.
You said it -- there is a huge amount of waste and risk in going international with product, so producers will go domestic at the earliest point possible. Foodtech (why I've done research into this topic) is really fascinating because of the complexity and fuzzy political costs.