Autarky

My country has not been able to grow enough to feed itself since the 16th century, so it wouldn't work for us.

There are not many countries that have all raw materials needed (again, in our case, all we have is natural gas. Not much to survive on...). And it would mean that all inhabitants would have to be satisfied with just the bare essentials, no luxuries, wich is not in human nature.

I agree that in the present state of the world Autarky is probably not going to work, but I still think it should be an ideal to be strived for. (nations being as self-sufficient as possible) 

It all depends on how you look at it-- I would tend to agree with Adalwolf.   It's ridiculous to see people in grocery stores buying food shipped from other continents while local farmers are subsidized to grow less.  It just doesn't make sense. (As an example.)

Originally posted by Dan Carkner It all depends on how you look at it-- I would tend to agree with Adalwolf.   It's ridiculous to see people in grocery stores buying food shipped from other continents while local farmers are subsidized to grow less.  It just doesn't make sense. (As an example.)

Of course its possible to form an autarky in the modern world. Infact its not just possible, its easy. I love to see the economist in people coming forward and brining out some ridiculous speal about how its not viable and wouldn't work bla bla.

Why isn't it possible? Most nations do import a lot of food, obviously, but that does not mean they cannot be self suffecient - with a few exceptions. Britain as an example, can easily meet all its food needs. It has enough raw materials for electricity and required commodities.

Cuba is an example of a fairly autarkic state.

The main problem with autarky, outside of these grand economic notions, is that societies needs are so high, based on the lifestyle that everyone wants to live. People aren't willing to 'cut down', look at Global Warming etc, people aren't even willing to use energy saving lightbulbs, let alone make any real changes in their lifestyle to cut down.

Would people be happy about giving up good cars, computers, broadband etc, all the things that make the middle class people of the earth satisfied with life? Well of course not.

As for autarkys in the global world, of course it cannot work to make a nation rich or improve the way of life on a modern understanding of what is rich. It only works to make a nation self-suffecient.

It would also mean countries like America and the West would need a lot more farmers and would have less people to do better jobs like office jobs or factory jobs.

There are already plenty of unemployed and most people are employed in non-productive jobs. You would just have to cut out the jobs that are not required.

As for needing more farmers, the need would be small. It would just require farmers to take on food projects rather then cash crops. Increasingly real products are taken away from domestic farming in the UK and America, in favour of lucrative crops. If that was reversed, they could easily, based on modern farming principles, grow large amounts of crops etc.

not that i think any of this is a good idea!



Edited by Ovidius - 18-Apr-2007 at 11:51

As the head of American state of treasury welll pointed out in 1944 :'' where goods can not cross borders, armies will''

Edited by TheDiplomat - 19-Apr-2007 at 10:36

Originally posted by Timotheus Cuba is an example of a fairly autarkic state. Have you any idea of the quality of life in Cuba?

Yes, I am aware of the quality of life in Cuba.

However, I'd suggest that most of this is due to a certain countries ridiculous Boycott.

Also, as I clearly expressed in my above post - Autarky doesn't necessarily mean a 'better' way of life. But what exactly is Cuba's 'quality of life' measured against?? Within this, you will find why Cuba's autarky is 'not so bad'.