-ATION NATION

This is my brilliant idea for a book. It's called -Ation Nation. Since I don't really want to write a whole book, It'll just be a series of posts. I'd love as many comments as you can muster, folks, so I'll try to keep it interesting.

GLOBALIZATION

My Microeconomics class used the model of a farmer and a rancher. This suggests that both producers can benefit from specializing in one crop and then trading it with the other. This simple model used only time as the input for their products. And the conclusion was of course: TRADE IS GOOD FOR EVERYONE! Yeah right. Here's an email I wrote to my prof. this morning.

John,

I am worried about the farmer and the rancher. I know that it is a model to explain comparative advantage and absolute advantage, but I can't help realize that it does not make sense for two reasons.

1. It assumes that maximum production is ideal.
2. It is so simple that when applied to the real world it suggests specialization and trade are good in every situation when in fact they can lead to pollution, waste, and exploitation of people and the land.


1.Your slide suggested two options: to trade or not to trade. Most of the following lecture was focused on trading, and only two graphs were devoted to the non-trade model. These graphs didn't make a pretty picture. The bottom line was that if they both worked alone there were fewer potatoes and less meat to be had by either. This made the lack of trade seem inferior to the more productive model, in which each producer specialized in one crop and traded.

What these slides didn't take into account was the fact that maybe the farmer doesn't need all the meat and potatoes she can get. And the same for the rancher. I think that providing goods that are above and beyond peoples needs by too much can lead to health problems. They would be making so much meat and potatoes that they'd be the fattest people in the world. Sustaining oneself does not always mean maximum production, It more often means meeting your needs (and hopefully a few of your wants) using what you have. More is not always better, especially when externalities of maximum production include soil erosion, water pollution, and other agricultural environmental costs. And where does it stop? What if we introduce pesticides into the equation, and if these toxic products help increase production, does that automatically mean that their use is "better" because it produces more? When does it stop?

2. It is too simple because trade does not occur like this on the global scale.

What if the two producers live fifty miles apart, like I asked in class? What about one thousand? What if the rancher lives in California and the farmer lives in Mexico and they are both shipping their goods to centralized processing plants in Nevada to make cheap hamburgers and fries which are then sent to Williston, Vermont? Is that really more efficient than if the trade were eliminated and the rancher ate his own meat and the farmer ate her own potatoes?
And what about the factory in china that makes halloween spider rings? I hate those things. They use scarce resources, pollute, and the worst thing is that they are useless trash before they are ever thrown away, even before they are ever sold.

It is a matter of scale. I certainly don't believe that everyone needs to fend for themselves, I do however believe we can work together on smaller scales, using what we have to meet our needs rather than using such despicable means to achieve unfavorable ends.

We don't need every commodity in every part of the world. Let there be differences in the distribution of resources based on, well, the distribution of resources! Rather than based on the distribution of wealth. Why does Pheonix Arizona exist? Why does Las Vegas exist? There is not enough water for the people to drink, and yet there are golf courses with green grass and fountains that shoot fifty feet into the air, and the Colorado River no longer reaches the Mexican border. That is not a wise use of resources and it hurts everyone to be so irresponsible.

Adam McCullough
Resource Conservation: Ecology
Junior