[tirrellp]

Because 'Geopolitical Risk' is a thing.

Its nice when you can buy $60/bushel wheat. Its not so nice when your dealer cuts you off.

The extra $40/bushel you pay to produce in-house, thats your insurance policy against having your supplies cut off. In a world where geopolitical lines are shifting, it's a matter of national security and optionality to have your own food production capacity. Risk management.

[wolverine876]

That's not risk management, that's a panicked reaction. Risk management accepts risk, takes into account likelihood and cost, and finds the most economical outcome.

Nationalism makes you poor.

[jessekv]

Taking into account the most economical outcome in the short/medium term also can make your country or community poor in the long term. If you care about the future of where you live, its important to cultivate and support local industry, even when its more expensive.

[wolverine876]

> Taking into account the most economical outcome in the short/medium term also can make your country or community poor in the long term. If you care about the future of where you live, its important to cultivate and support local industry, even when its more expensive.

Your solution is the short-term one, maybe not even that. In the long run, your community is much better off producing what it does best and trading with others for what they produce best, rather than everyone trying to do everything at some mediocre level.

Your solution is like Microsoft building its own furniture and cars and flying its own planes, rather than making software and buying the furniture, cars, and air travel from those who are expert in it.

[jessekv]

Your reply comes right out of ECON 101, and is broadly speaking correct. Still, you've missed the point.

Let's use your example, Microsoft. Companies have different incentives than communities or countries, but I think we can make this work.

For many years, Microsoft only sold software, and let others who were experts in hardware make the hardware and install microsoft on it. Later, they realised that it was strategically important to manufacture their own consumer hardware, and now you have the Surface lineup. Maybe in the near future, they will decide they need to start manufacturing their own chips. If they do that, it's not going to be cheap, especially in the short term. In fact, Microsoft might never be able to produce chips more cheaply than Intel. But they still could choose to do it in-house (or just buy Intel) if the alternative is to lose their dominant position in the market.

[wolverine876]

> Your reply comes right out of ECON 101

What a bizarre things to say. First of all, are you an economist who can comment on other people's sophistication? Second, who cares? The merits are what matters, and you agree it's "broady speaking, correct".

[jabradoodle]

Countries subsidise food production for reasons of national security. This is not a new or controversial idea.

[vkou]

And risk management in this sphere consists of subsidizing local producers.

The world is three meals away from anarchy, being dependent on the caprice of global markets for food is a great recipe for getting regime-changed by starving people.

[wolverine876]

> The world is three meals away from anarchy, being dependent on the caprice of global markets for food is a great recipe for getting regime-changed by starving people.

The evidence shows that vastly overstates the risks: It hasn't happened or even come close to happening yet. In fact, name any place that has turned anarachic due to food shortages.

The modern global markets are not capricious, but the most efficient, effective distributors of resources in the history of the world.