[ivan_gammel]

This kind of incentive should not block trade. If we need sufficient production capacity for security reasons, it’s ok to subsidize it, but the product should still compete on the market and surplus can always be donated to UN. There’s enough starving people on this planet.

[oulipo2]

Right now the current system is totally inefficient, with a lot of food waste, and a lot of ruined landscapes and soil because of pollution and intrants

We need on the contrary to produce less globally, but more organically, and to reduce waste and produce locally

[ivan_gammel]

It may be inefficient, but protectionism is never a solution and we are not yet in a state where food is abundant and accessible to everyone.

[oulipo2]

On the contrary, it's quite apparent today that globalization and free borders have largely failed the people, and that some amount of protectionism should be put back in place

[ivan_gammel]

No, it is not apparent. Globalization has driven economic growth in a lot of countries, both developing and developed. There’s steady increase in HDI everywhere, decrease in extreme poverty, less hunger, better education etc etc. Nothing of that would be possible in postcolonial protectionist world. What you are talking about as reasonable amount isn’t protectionist, it’s just a sane set of domestic policies (welfare, education, industrial policy etc) that help countries to survive and grow in globalized world. There’s a difference between gatekeeping local markets and steering local industries for better competition and consumer protection. The latter just sets strict rules, but still allows global players to participate. Automotive sector has plenty of examples like that.

[oulipo2]

We're speaking of the effect ON DEVELOPED COUNTRIES WORKFORCE, it mostly has failed the people, with jobs sent overseas, and lower quality goods, full of pesticides, coming in. All that for what? Just overconsumption that mostly ends in the trash. A new world IS possible