Isolationism:A Good Thing?

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).

What do you mean?

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?

Well look at the different types of food that are made here in the US.

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.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

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?

Are you serious?

You do know for sure what a couple of related percentages are, because I just looked up the data for you, straight from the website of your own Government's Department of Agriculture.

They refute the number that you quoted, saying the US produces 63% of the world food supply. If the US only produces between 4% and 27% of a range of the world's staple foodstuffs - including, by the way, the category that includes soybeans, which you had highlighted before as a specific US production strength - then no way it could still produce 63% of the total world food supply.

But you want us to shrug all those specific, detailed data from your own government off along with you, on the basis that you remember a story in a local newspaper saying the total opposite and quoting the USDA? Although you cant yourself actually find that data back either on the USDA site or elsewhere? (No, the first 20 links on Google with the search term you suggested provide no such information.)

Or do you want us to shrug off those comparative government data because, well, over there you colloquially refer to the US as "the world's breadbasket"? We don't. You can call yourself whatever you want, but it doesnt prove much. The Russians used to call their Black earth and Volga regions the world's bread basket. More power to them, but all I care about is what the data say. And they show the US producing 20% or less of the world's total grains, with even the top number within that category(41%) falling far short of your 63%.

Whether one looks at the National Academy of Sciences or the United States Department of Agriculture as a verifiable source, the data seem to directly contradict your claim. But you insist that we believe what you remember a local newspaper saying, instead?

I'm just kind of stunned that someone would believe that the US produces 63% of the world food supply in the first place. That implies a pretty warped perception of the world.

You can just admit that you pulled two numbers from your buttt, placed them side by side, accompanied with a % and tried to pass it off as an actual value that represented America's global contribution to food supply rather than continue this charade.

How far into the drink are you?
Obnoxiousness and immaturity must flow like the Vodka.

I think, rather than continue to play your game, I'll give you what will likely bother you the most....and something you'll soon get used to from others on A2K.

Silence.

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.

First, most of the 183 nations of the world are now, to some extent, dependent on food imports. Most of these imports are cereal surpluses produced only in those countries that have relatively low population densities and practice intensive agriculture. For instance, the United States, Canada, Australia, Oceania, and Argentina provide 81 percent of net cereal exports on the world market.

Many Americans want our borders closed, our immigration laws upheld, many want us out of Iraq ( a few neanderthals even want, deserve to losethe US Military to lose in Iraq, according to one thread here) many say we should mind our own business. Between just these two groups, it seems to me that isolationism would work. What do you think? I am for it, we would save a ton of $$, crime would go down, we could be self sustaining, what's not to like about isolationism?
http:''www.schoolhistory.org.uk/america/isolationism.htm