What aspect of globalization caused 'independent agrarian people' to become 'destitute'? Still no answer to that. Urbanization isn't an answer unless it comes with 'forced eviction', but that's a minor one.
I gave several answers, all of which you ignored. I will direct you to my post #36288 for the list. I also provided several academic papers that analyzed these factors in depth.
There you said it was caused by cheap goods undercutting local producers. That's not a problem for independent agrarian people who can use their own produce to support themselves without money. Farms are free if you inherited them off your parents, and them from their parents.
LOL, you've obviously never worked on a farm. A dose of reality:
1) It is extremely rare for a single farmer to be able to provide everything his/her family needs,
2) Even 10,000 years ago, it is well established that farmers traded for the goods they needed, ergo
3) Todays farmers, even in pre-industrialized nations will be dependent on trade with others to make ends meet (i.e. trading for food goods they cannot produce themselves, for clothing, farm instruments, breeding stock,etc)
How the issues with globalization I've brought up fit into that should be self-evident. If external producers are present, and producing for a lesser cost that the farmers, the farmers loose their ability to trade, and thus loose their ability to meet their basic needs.
Once again, all of those kinds of details were provided, in depth, in those papers I cited.
You're confusing "the way things were before" with "the way things should be". That's not the point. I agree industrialization is very good for people over the long term.
But that is exactly the point. Historically, industrialization was conducted in a fashion which befitted local industries, and local individuals. The net effect was that over time the quality of life of the majority of individuals went up.
In the modern era this is no longer the case - countries no longer industrialize, but instead are used by already-industrialized nations as a source of cheap labor, cheap materials, etc. As such this industrialization is done for the benefit of others, often at the expense of the indigenous population and their economic development.
The solution to the later problem is simple - remove/reduce the aspects of globalization that are responsible for this change. Make it unprofitable for LMC's to profit off of behaviors that damage local economies - i.e. through tariffs, allowing developing nations to control trade in their regions, etc.
So basically you're saying that because you don't like my opinion, you are going to refuse to look at the factual base upon which that opinion is based.
They probably support your new argument that industrialization is better than not.
Still looking for reasons to ignore the factual base to my opinions I see - cannot say I'm surprized by this...
And, as stated before, they directly support the statement that I've been making from day 1 - that globalization has impacted 3rd world nations in a negative fashion, that globalization is a major factor in their decreasing quality of life, and that globalization is largely responsible for their inability to form independent, and stable local economies.
I want something that supports your original point that subsistence farming is better than what's happened, and that it's because of selling goods overseas.
And since I never made this claim, why would I have to provide a citation supporting it?
To make it simple, my original claim was/is:
1)the
quality of life of these nations is lower now than it was in their pre-industrialized (i.e. agrigarian) era,
2) a drop in the QOL during industrialization is a new phenomena, unique to a globalized economy, and
3) globalization "forces" are what has caused that loss in QOL
Once again, all of those claims are supported in those citations I provided, which you clearly haven't even bothered to read the abstracts of.
I just want a plausable chain of reasoning from "international trade" to "self-sufficient farmers can no longer operate".
Once again, since I never made that specific claim, why would I have to support it? As I've been hammering on since the first time this point came up, the reason people leave farms is multifactorial, and is only partially due to globalization forces. It is what happens to them
after they leave the farms where globalization causes the largest issues, and where it has reduced their quality of life.
But hey, continue to ignore my citations, twist my words, and fail to support your own claims. Its obvious that you cannot find one iota of evidence to support your own claims, ergo the only options left to you are to whine and lie about the things I've written.
Bryan
