Isolationism:A Good Thing?

candidone1 wrote:

A link means providing something active that we can all click on to read the same information you have read.
The USDA site is rather large.
Narrow it for us.

I didn't get it from the USDA, I read it in a local newspaper & they quoted the USDA. However, since I can't give that link, I thought maybe I could offer some place to look for it. If the questioner is interested, he/she will explore/research.

0 Replies

Isolationism would meen the loss of hundreds of thousands of US jobs.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Isolationism would meen the loss of hundreds of thousands of US jobs.

Isolationism would only effect the govt, it shouldn't effect private industry and its workings.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Isolationism would meen the loss of hundreds of thousands of US jobs.

Unless you haven't noticed, we've lost the jobs without Isolationism.

And, in fact, it would most likely help create new jobs as items which were previously available from overseas become less so...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

In the initial post, LoneStarMadam makes a link between two phenomena, illegal mmigration to the US and the US troops in Iraq.

She is making this link because, they are building hospitals and schools and because the work they are doing is so appreciated by the general public of the foreign country they are in (with the exception of groups armed thugs).

Withdrawing them suddenly would have a definite effect on private industry (as they will tell you).

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

In the initial post, LoneStarMadam makes a link between two phenomena, illegal mmigration to the US and the US troops in Iraq.

She is making this link because, they are building hospitals and schools and because the work they are doing is so appreciated by the general public of the foreign country they are in (with the exception of groups armed thugs).

Withdrawing them suddenly would have a definite effect on private industry (as they will tell you).

We can be self sustaining. if we were to become isolationists & pull our military from a round the world, businesses, etc, we would also stop sending trillions to aid other countries, we would save trillions by not paying other countries for the use of their land to house our bases. The list is so endless & we would have the $$ to sustain our citizens until the initial shock was over. We would survive. Close the borders & bring 'em home People that choose not to live here in that environment could move anyplace they chose.

0 Replies

Trillions for military bases?

The annual lease payment on Gitmo is well below what 30 seconds in Iraq are costing.
I'm sure other deals are equally as lucratative for the US.
Construction and maintenance on the other hand is probably expensive.

0 Replies

Well, I looked but could not find stats on proportion of world food supply by nation. I doubt that I have the necessary research skills for this. (Nimh! Where are you?) I did find something that stated:

Quote:

the U.S., Canada, and Australia together contain less than 6% of the world's population, they currently produce about 20% of the global cereal harvest.

National Academy of Sciences of The USA

I believe that it's reasonable to guess that cereal (rice, corn, wheat) is the largest (in quantity volume if not money) category of foodstuffs, and therefore if these 3 countries together are producing only 20% of global production then the USA does not produce 63% of world food. Perhaps in a particular category (eg. soft drinks) that global percentage might be possible.

On a monetary level, I've heard many times that coffee (which would be a food) is the world's second highest commodity after oil. The USA, outside of the relatively small Hawaiian Kona estates, does not produce any coffee, I don't think. So it would appear that the 63% could not be attainable from a cost of goods POV either.

Maybe the 63% is the percentage of food produced within the USA that is exported from the USA.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

Trillions for military bases?

The annual lease payment on Gitmo is well below what 30 seconds in Iraq are costing.
I'm sure other deals are equally as lucratative for the US.
Construction and maintenance on the other hand is probably expensive.

We have some kind of a very long lease on Gitmo, one that Castro can't stop. I can assure you that it is trillions to lease the land in other countries. Then there's the school buses we lease from the host countries, the local contractors, the list is endless. I worked in the USAF contracting office for a while at Torrejon AB, Spain. The numbers are mind boggeling. Do you have any idea how many countries our military is in? Many more than what you'd imagine & have been for years.
Oh, & your comment about Iraq, you just reinforced the $$$ it would save us & that is seed feed comparitively.

0 Replies

I have no idea how many bases there are around the world.
You?
Hundreds?

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

I have no idea how many bases there are around the world.
You?
Hundreds?

A minimum of 123 (I've heard 173) countries. We have embassies all over the world, we have military at each one of those embassies, & we pay each country for the space we occupy, plus a whole host of other commodities & services.

0 Replies

Tico wrote:

Well, I looked but could not find stats on proportion of world food supply by nation. I doubt that I have the necessary research skills for this. (Nimh! Where are you?) I did find something that stated:

Quote:
the U.S., Canada, and Australia together contain less than 6% of the world's population, they currently produce about 20% of the global cereal harvest.

National Academy of Sciences of The USA

I believe that it's reasonable to guess that cereal (rice, corn, wheat) is the largest (in quantity volume if not money) category of foodstuffs, and therefore if these 3 countries together are producing only 20% of global production then the USA does not produce 63% of world food. Perhaps in a particular category (eg. soft drinks) that global percentage might be possible.

On a monetary level, I've heard many times that coffee (which would be a food) is the world's second highest commodity after oil. The USA, outside of the relatively small Hawaiian Kona estates, does not produce any coffee, I don't think. So it would appear that the 63% could not be attainable from a cost of goods POV either.

Maybe the 63% is the percentage of food produced within the USA that is exported from the USA.

You left soy beans off your list, that is huge. We are the worlds bread basket & we certainly provide more than 20%. I will look for an article, if I find it, I'll post it.

0 Replies

Try googling usa world supplier of food. I think you'll find the info there.

0 Replies

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Try googling usa world supplier of food. I think you'll find the info there.

I did, but didnt see anything relevant on the first two pages of results. Certainly nothing of the stature of Tico's link to the National Academy of Sciences data. Let us know what you find that would counter those, ok?

0 Replies

LoneStarMadam wrote:

We are the worlds bread basket & we certainly provide more than 20%.

According to this All Grain Summary Comparison of the United States Department of Agriculture, the United States produced, in 2005/06:

41% of the world's grain
9% of the world's wheat
2% of the world's rice, milled

If you add these numbers together to get an idea of the production of the world's basic foodstuffs:

The world total would be 1,727.7 (million tons, I am guessing)
The US total would be 346.7
That makes the US the producer of 20,1% of the world's grains.

0 Replies

Ah, but what about cranberries and tobacco?

0 Replies

The United States Department of Agriculture website Production, Supply and Distribution Online has tons of data about global and US agricultural production.

Just click on the little +'s to the left of individual products in the list under "Reports (Listed by Category)".

For example:

The United States in 2006 produced 11,897 thousand metric tons of beef and veal. That was 22.2% of the global production (53,511).
The United States in 2006 produced 9,543 thousand metric tons of pork. That was 9.6% of the global production (99,776).
The United States in 2005/2006 produced 95.53 million metric tons of oilseeds (mostly soybeans). That was 24.6% of the global production (388.30).
The United States in 2006 produced 16,162 thousand metric tons of broiler (poultry). That was 26.9% of the global production (60,090).
The United States in 2005/2006 produced 6,713 thousand metric tons of sugar. That was 4.6% of the global production (144,709).

0 Replies

With all these US Government data in mind, it seems far-fetched to still claim that "the USA produces 63% of the world food supply" - even considering that they dont account for cranberries and tobacco (hi McG :wink: )

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

With all these US Government data in mind, it seems far-fetched to still claim that "the USA produces 63% of the world food supply" - even considering that they dont account for cranberries and tobacco (hi McG :wink: )

As I said, I read it in a local publication & they quoted USDA.
i don't know for sure what the percentage is, but we're not called the worlds bread basket for nothing. I'm sure if you read all of the links, etc, you did see that, right?

0 Replies

At any rate, & getting back to the topic....
If we were to become isolationists, we wouldn't starve but the rest of the world might be hungary. We can be self sustaining.

0 Replies

Isolationism:A Good Thing?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know